Monthly Archive for March, 2008Page 2 of 6

Why I respect beliefs that are not mine

Published
by
Christian
on March 26, 2008
.
checkmate
Disrespect of others' beliefs seems to be common in the blogosphere. Even more, there has been some reasoning recently (see links at the bottom) to justify such a stance. I do not agree, and I have missed two points in the discussion so far. Firstly, respect only makes sense if both sides disagree in their views. Secondly, I can only expect to be respected if I am ready to respect others.

As a passionate chess player I have learnt that mutual respect in a situation of extreme disagreement is a vital part of this game. And I don't see why this concept should not be used in philosophic dispute as well.

One important point is the fact that a player who disrespects his opponent may still win but probably will not play his best chess. Most strong players always assume the strongest replies to their moves, even against weaker opponents and even if they doubt whether the opponent would find the strongest reply. Applying this principle to online disputes, I think that it is cheap to attack the weakest points of the opponent, and that it is much more rewarding to look for the strongest points and attack these.

Respect and disagreement

If someone shares my view, there is no need at all for respect. Why? Because there is no conflict. Even in the case of self-respect, a conflict is required. There are two situations where self-respect is of vital importance: Being attacked by others or being "attacked" by an inner conflict, for instance by doubts about the own value. Thus, the function of respect is handling of conflicts, and in the absence of a conflict there is no need for it.

Self-respect and self-esteem are often used as synonyms. But I think my point is exactly about the difference between them. I think that conflict makes the difference. There is a basic feeling of well-being that can be described as self-esteem. If it is still held up in a conflict situation, the same feeling may be called self-respect. But I think that conflict adds a different flavour.

My own beliefs are a matter of self-esteem as long as they are not challenged. In a dispute, they become a matter of self-respect.

Respect is no form of agreement

As a consequence, I also reject the idea that a belief deserves more respect if it is close to mine, or if it is more likely to be "true", or if it is shared by a lot of people, or if books have been written about it, or the like. What I reject in particular is the idea that respect is a somewhat weaker form of agreement.

I respect people who believe in God. I respect them as persons, which never has been disputed in the posts that I have come across. But I also respect their belief as such. I do not share it. But I respect that it is up to every person to set up a system of belief to live with, and that for some people this may be a belief in God or gods.

In turn, I also expect theists to respect my atheism, in particular, that I have my good reasons not to believe in God or gods, and that for me, such a view is best for coping with the ultimate questions of life, moral, and death.

Mutual respect is a matter of the Golden Rule: Respect others as you would like to be respected by others.

The limits of respect

One major reason not to respect a belief is one that disrespects my own belief. Tit for tat. You respect my belief, I'll respect yours. You disrespect my belief, I'll disrespect yours. That is, not the whole content but only the part involved with disrespect. But this may be difficult because it would imply a dialogue or dispute, and disrespect is a dispute killer in most cases.

The problem with mutual disrespect is that both sides, usually, only see the disrespect on the other side. A disrespectful response seems to be justified, then. But it may not be easy to figure out who has started the disrespect war.

Another problem is the anonymity of the web which does not favour a polite, fair dispute but facilitates disrespect and ad hominem attacks.

Besides violation of the Golden Rule, there is only one reason for me to deny respect: violation of human rights and threatening humanism in a wide sense. But I guess that all these are just special cases of violating the Golden Rule.

Other views

There is much more to be said about the matter, and others have done so in a better way than I possibly could, so I just try to review what I have found.

Simon Blackburn's paper Religion and Respect (PDF) has been published in 2005 already, but has gained new attention recently. It comes to the conclusion that respect is a case of true or false, rational or irrational, close to my own or far from my own belief.

Lindsey, at regardant les nuages, interestingly, has been convinced by Blackburn, counter-intuitively, to respect beliefs that she does not share. Lindsey is a theist and does respect atheists as far as they are ready to respect her theism. She says: "It is because of our fallibility that we should respect opposing beliefs held by others."

Chris, at Mixing Memory, says that it is important how someone comes to a belief. The reasons, and also the consequences of such beliefs are important when it comes to respect. I agree. I'll never respect a belief that implies bad, inhuman behaviour.

The Uncredible Hallq, at the group blog God is for Suckers, (no wonder) argues against respect, stating that truth is what counts, but missing the point that for different people, different truths exist, and that there is no (God-like) instance that may tell us which one is really true.

Harry, at Crooked Timber, just points out this uncertainty about truth, stating that "there is a gap between certainty of one’s own infallibility and very-close-to-certainty that one is right, and that gap is what makes respect possible".

Richard, at Philosophy et cetera, agrees to respect a belief only in so far as it is reasonable. While most religions are based on irrational assumptions, he also admits that he would respect a reasonably mistaken deist more than an atheist who is so without a good reason.

Brandon, at Siris, in addition to reasonability, also sees the beauty of content respect-worthy. This is not exactly what I would say, I rather would take respect as the default position and look for cases of disrespect. Brandon gives links to a number of other posts.

Photo credit: flickr.com/photos/uckhet/268319752/

If you pray are you less likely to confide in other people?

Published
by
Ishy
on March 26, 2008
.
I've found that during the times when I had no one to talk to I got a lot more accomplished emotionally when I talked to myself instead of talking to god. First, and most important, I found people I was able to talk to by first talking to myself.

And sure, sure, when you talk to god you're really just talkin to yourself. The difference for me was that when I talked to myself I didn't have faith that someone else would work out my problems for me magically.

Also, it never prevented me from opening up to people because I was taught that god will work through other people in my life, so I was always aware of people who were willing to listen.

And anyway, there is NO community like the church community, except maybe your own family. EVERYONE at church knows all your business. All it takes is one person finding out one thing about you, and everybody knows by next Sunday. Awww man. Church is like high school on crack. I had Christian friends at school and I'd go to their youth group events and just hear gossip all night. I started preaching out against the gossip at my own church, but they fought hard to keep it by saying they didn't gossip. I starting blowing my metaphorical "rape whistle" whenever someone attempted to engage me in gossip. I was better than them.

Prayer for me didn't stop me from opening up to people. Everyone already knew my business and told me about what I should be doing different all the time. I didn't even have a chance at keeping my shit to myself. At that point it doesn't matter that they praise you for the good things you do. It's been made clear to you that an entire community of people will know and judge every mistake you make. Who cares about an occasional high-five. I will pick privacy over praise ALWAYS. Again, I think that's another point for me, the atheist.

To answer the question from a Christian perspective, it is impossible to even consider the option of not confiding in other people.

If you pray are you less likely to confide in other people?

Published
by
Ishy
on March 26, 2008
.
I've found that during the times when I had no one to talk to I got a lot more accomplished emotionally when I talked to myself instead of talking to god. First, and most important, I found people I was able to talk to by first talking to myself.

And sure, sure, when you talk to god you're really just talkin to yourself. The difference for me was that when I talked to myself I didn't have faith that someone else would work out my problems for me magically.

Also, it never prevented me from opening up to people because I was taught that god will work through other people in my life, so I was always aware of people who were willing to listen.

And anyway, there is NO community like the church community, except maybe your own family. EVERYONE at church knows all your business. All it takes is one person finding out one thing about you, and everybody knows by next Sunday. Awww man. Church is like high school on crack. I had Christian friends at school and I'd go to their youth group events and just hear gossip all night. I started preaching out against the gossip at my own church, but they fought hard to keep it by saying they didn't gossip. I starting blowing my metaphorical "rape whistle" whenever someone attempted to engage me in gossip. I was better than them.

Prayer for me didn't stop me from opening up to people. Everyone already knew my business and told me about what I should be doing different all the time. I didn't even have a chance at keeping my shit to myself. At that point it doesn't matter that they praise you for the good things you do. It's been made clear to you that an entire community of people will know and judge every mistake you make. Who cares about an occasional high-five. I will pick privacy over praise ALWAYS. Again, I think that's another point for me, the atheist.

To answer the question from a Christian perspective, it is impossible to even consider the option of not confiding in other people.

Happy Chocolate Bunny Day!

Published
by
CHADMAC
on March 23, 2008
.
Good day folks,

Just thought I would share a little something with you on this fine Easter morning. Because nothing celebrates the resurrection of Jebus like Easter Bunny-related funniness.



And on a slightly more disturbing note, I saw this hilarious picture over at the Church of Jesus Fucking Christ:



Cheers,
Me

Got a One-Way Ticket…But to Where?

Published
by
The Jolly Nihilist
on March 22, 2008
.

In this post, I present a thought exercise for Christians and any other individuals who believe in a deity who passes judgment following corporeal death. I realize, according to Christian doctrine, only god is allowed to judge and any assessment made by a mere human would be guesswork. However, I believe the answers—tentative and uncertain though they inevitably shall be—might be instructive for my readers. With that housekeeping note out of the way, the remainder of this entry shall be a summary of the life of Henry Toole, a character whom I invented for this exercise. I shall be as detailed as necessary, so the case can be properly adjudicated.

Henry Toole was born to a family of Southern Baptists living in Arkansas. His maternal grandfather was a preacher and, thus, even though his parents were not especially devout, Henry was taken to church at least once a week throughout his childhood years. Aside from occasional bouts of fidgetiness, which are so typical among children, young Henry was enthralled by the stories of Jesus and his miraculous doings. For a few years, he even entertained notions of dedicating his adult life to the church. [The life of a preacher was in close contention with game show host, scientist and garbage collector.] As he became older, though, his rapt interest began to decline; when his parents brought him to church on Sundays, he found his mind wandering to other things, ranging from principles learned in science class to that night’s dinner plans. He still believed each of Christianity’s truth-claims; he simply felt as though he had heard it all before, and everything had the faint odor of sameness.

Over the next few years, doubt began to enter Henry’s mind. The tales of Adam and Eve, a global cataclysm flooding the planet and corpses rising from the tomb no longer seemed as convincing to Henry as they had when he was ten. He married a girl from his town, Patricia, who was moderately religious. By the age of 28, Henry had lost all faith and adopted the label of atheist. His abandonment of his religious convictions was not the result of a personal tragedy or being influenced by skeptics around him. Rather, he simply came to the firm realization that he no longer believed any of the dogma with which he had been raised. He ceased all churchgoing activities; Patricia, under no pressure from Henry, adopted an agnostic stance three years later.

Henry and his wife had three sons, none of whom was raised Christian. Henry never addressed the subject of religion with his sons. In fact, he never discussed religion at all; he was not the type to badmouth the church or blaspheme the deity in which he no longer believed. When they started their family, both Henry and Patricia agreed they would not push their children in any direction with respect to religion, choosing instead to let each find his own way. And, in fact, all three sons eventually became Southern Baptists. Henry and his wife never expressed any objections, and joyfully attended each son’s religious wedding.

Henry and Patricia had a happy marriage, which lasted 58 years. Although there were occasional temptations, neither one ever strayed from the other. Henry was a loving, generous, attentive and supportive husband, as well as a dedicated father who provided all he could to his family. In addition to his work schedule, for roughly half a dozen years, Henry found time to volunteer at a local children’s hospital. A fitness enthusiast, he also regularly participated in walkathons and marathons for charitable causes, ranging from treatment of chronic disease to elimination of poverty. Perhaps his most selfless moment was when one of his sons needed a kidney transplant. With little hesitation, Henry agreed to donate a kidney to his son.

Throughout his life, Henry never regained his religiosity, and neither did his agnostic wife. He died at age 83 and had a secular funeral ceremony, as he specified. His family, including many grandchildren, was devastated, overwhelmed with grief from the loss of “pop-pop,” as he was affectionately known.

Where shall Henry Toole be sent?

Dutch Government Releases Anti-Wilders Film

Published
by
Dave McRitchie
on March 22, 2008
.
In an attempt to undermine, or at least neutralize as much as possible, Geert Wilders’ as yet unreleased anti-Islamic film “Fitna” the Dutch government has countered with its own film. In the...

Religion at work.

Published
by
Steve Weaver
on March 21, 2008
.
According to CNN, religion in the workplace is on the rise:
Religion, like sex and politics, once was considered inappropriate watercooler talk. Not anymore. Prayer sessions, religious diversity groups and chaplains..., along with rabbis and imams, have become more common across corporate America in the past decade.
This makes no sense. Work is for, well, work and religion is for Sundays. Please keep the two separate. I may just have to start a pink unicorn or yellow bunny (appropriate for Easter) worship group just to keep things fair. I like the last quote though:
There are more places to pray in America than (there are) pizza parlors. Go to them.

Scientific Breakthroughs from the Bible (Part II)

Published
by
DocMike
on March 20, 2008
.
The book of includes so many ridiculous and horrible prophesies, it's obvious that was either consciously trying to scare people into submission or he was on some kind of psychedelic substance; or both.

To me, one of his most revealing claims is that the stars will fall to the earth. Of course at the time of his writing, people didn't know just how big and far away the stars really are. To them, they were just little lights in the sky. But if his "visions" where really coming from an omniscient god, wouldn't he have known?

Here are the verses in question:

Revelation 6:13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.

Revelation 8:10 And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters;

Revelation 9:1 And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.

Revelation 12:4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

Technorati Tags:
Thank you for subscribing to "By The Book Comics"

Religion, Obama and McCain

Published
by
Steve Weaver
on March 19, 2008
.
Religion is once again rearing it's ugly head in American politics. Barack Obama has been forced to distance himself from the words of his pastor, Jeremiah Wright. It's possible that it may be enough of a "scandal" to ensure Hillary Clinton's victory in the democratic race for President. And that's sad.

The culture here in the US is one where even the slightest whiff of scandal can drag down even the best candidates. We have to stop focusing on minor issues - here, it's what someone close to a campaign (not the candidate, note) said a few years ago that is controversial. We need to be listening to the candidate's views on the big issues of the day - the economy, the war for example, rather than the scandal of the day.

It's worth noting that associating with anyone religious can get you into this kind of trouble. If it's not Obama, it's McCain with John Hagee, who has preached that Hurricane Katrina was the result of God's wrath against gay people, and that he's happy about the Iraq war because it will hasten Armageddon. And McCain is "proud" to have his support.

Candidates are caught in a quandary. They need to pander to the religious nuts, but come off just looking stupid. They have to decide whether stupidity will get them more votes than rationalism. Unfortunately, it looks like it does.

"God Talk" Oversimplified, Confuses

Published
by
drmomentum@gmail.com
on March 19, 2008
.

More than once, I've seen a comment like the following:

When Bush talks about God, you liberals get all upset. But when x talks about God, you give him a pass.

Imagine "x" to be some liberal politician. Barack Obama is a good contemporary example, but it doesn't really matter who.

This comment, and the sentiments behind it, are an excellent example of how a simplistic view of people, boiled down to labels, is misleading. Although it isn't mentioned by name in the comment, the label "atheist" hang in the air because, presumably, liberal atheists don't like it when people talk about their gods.

And this is one of the reasons I'm not very fond of the term "atheist." It leads some people to some strange assumptions. I won't beat a dead horse about it, but you should already know that "atheist" is a negative term, which tells you next to nothing about what I do believe.

So let me explain, in very brief form, how this liberal atheist -- or, better, a liberal humanist -- processes incoming information. Since I don't believe in "God" I see the concept of God often acting like a megaphone. "God" is used to hammer a point home with believers. Whatever your message is, you put God behind it and some people take special notice.

If someone is telling me about how his god has given him the right to do this or that, or that God is smiling upon the destruction of this or that group of people, or gives him license to deny rights to some corner of our population, I see the underlying message. I disagree with it, often very strongly. I see that he's using religion to beat this idea into people. Not only does that make me wonder about what religion has taught this individual, it annoys me that he's trying to spread it.

If, on the other hand, someone is talking about how his god told him we have to treat each other better, or that his belief in God is leading him to pay attention to inequities in our own society, again I am filtering out the god to get to the underlying message.

I am a concerned that we get a president who reflects humanist values. I will prefer a Christian, Jewish or Muslim humanist to any sort of person who does not represent humanism, in my view. To deny that there is a large population of religious humanists to draw from would place an unacceptable limit on the chances of getting a humanist president.

So, if you've determined that liberals are hypocritical for taking some politicians to task when they reference God in speeches, you may have missed something. maybe you're talking to a humanist. When those speeches either use God cynically,as empty rhetoric or, to erode out society's humanism, some of us are disgusted. If you have a very limited idea of the motivation of a liberal humanist, you might find it unnecessarily confusing.

Technorati : , , ,

Congressional Clownery

Published
by
Vince
on March 19, 2008
.
A big tip of the hat to Hemant over at FriendlyAtheist.com for breaking this story.
Apparently our beloved Senate has a resolution in committee that would declare the first weekend in May 2008 as... wait for it....

TEN COMMANDMENTS WEEKEND

Unfebuckinglievable!!

Senate resolution 483 is Sponsored by Sam Brownback and co-sponsored by Joe Lieberman.
You can read the resolution for yourself here .

Perhaps the most ridiculous part of the resolution is that it:
"encourages citizens of the United States to reflect on the integral role that the Ten Commandments have played in the life of the Nation"

Integral role in the life of our nation, huh?

I suppose the good lord made an Ethereal Exemption in the case of America, and actually sanctioned stealing of the land from the natives and killing as many of them as we could; after all they worshiped the dirt and not the Big Guy. Maybe this is where god "blessed"America. And, not to split hairs here, but isn't there freedom of religion in this country. Doesn't that mean that you are free to worship whatever god (or none) that you choose? Isn't this in DIRECT opposition of the FIRST commandment? Hmm?

I like George Carlin's take on the Commandments:



This is but another banana peel placed on the slippery slope of our beloved nation becoming a theocracy, where the only 'separation' remaining is the tax exempt status the church enjoys.

Call your senator and tell him that you do not sanction this silliness!

Congressional Clownery

Published
by
Vince
on March 19, 2008
.
A big tip of the hat to Hemant over at FriendlyAtheist.com for breaking this story.
Apparently our beloved Senate has a resolution in committee that would declare the first weekend in May 2008 as... wait for it....

TEN COMMANDMENTS WEEKEND

Unfebuckinglievable!!

Senate resolution 483 is Sponsored by Sam Brownback and co-sponsored by Joe Lieberman.
You can read the resolution for yourself here .

Perhaps the most ridiculous part of the resolution is that it:
"encourages citizens of the United States to reflect on the integral role that the Ten Commandments have played in the life of the Nation"

Integral role in the life of our nation, huh?

I suppose the good lord made an Ethereal Exemption in the case of America, and actually sanctioned stealing of the land from the natives and killing as many of them as we could; after all they worshiped the dirt and not the Big Guy. Maybe this is where god "blessed"America. And, not to split hairs here, but isn't there freedom of religion in this country. Doesn't that mean that you are free to worship whatever god (or none) that you choose? Isn't this in DIRECT opposition of the FIRST commandment? Hmm?

I like George Carlin's take on the Commandments:



This is but another banana peel placed on the slippery slope of our beloved nation becoming a theocracy, where the only 'separation' remaining is the tax exempt status the church enjoys.

Call your senator and tell him that you do not sanction this silliness!

Carl Sagan and The Matrix

Published
by
CHADMAC
on March 17, 2008
.
For your viewing pleasure:



This video is, IMNSHO, pure genius.

via toomanytribbles

Cheers,
Me

Truly Disturbing Video!

Published
by
Vince
on March 17, 2008
.
I came across a BBC documentary entitled Baby Bible Bashers. It has to be one of the most disturbing things I have ever watched on the internet.

This documentary, produced by Channel 4 in the UK, originally aired last month. It focuses around 3 "chosen" children that have a "personal relationship" with god, and are: Preachers! The film follows the children around as they preach to the masses. Watching this physically affected me; I felt sick to my stomach and developed a headache. I found myself saddened for these poor kids and on several occasions just sat there mouth agape, shaking my head in disbelief. Also, in the interest of full disclosure, I have to admit I am a big fat hypocrite. As one who has chosen medicine as my life's work and someone who will be taking the Hippocratic Oath in 2 years, I had several un-Hippocratic ideas waft through my mind as I watched. Most revolved around inflicting blunt force trauma upon some of the parents until the Holy Spirit himself interceded.

One of the most striking scenes involves 7 year-old Samuel. His redneck, inbred, bible thumping parents home school (read: program) young Samuel so that they are free to drive about the country in an RV and pimp out their little boy to stand in public and scream at people not to kill their babies, drink alcohol, and how we are all going to hell yadda yadda yadda. Interestingly enough- at one point mom asks the cameras to be turned off while she "trains" her precocious preacher for not listening- (something 7 year-olds are wont to do) Spare not the rod... and all of that. They are followed as they head to New York city to spew their venom on a street corner. As you can imagine some of the warm-hearted denizens of the city were, shall we say, less than receptive to their message. While dad is in a yelling match with a member of the crowd, the camera pans to young Samuel. Clearly he is terrified. He is, after all, still just a little boy underneath all of the fervor and religious rhetoric. It is quite heartbreaking.

These people are straight-up abusing their children! There is no other way to describe it. None of the 3 kids is old enough to have mastered long division, let along preach religion. Wait, after considering that sentence I admit, you don't have to know anything to preach religion. But I assure you they certainly do not understand what it is that they are saying.

Just as an observation, I get the suspicion that there is something not quite right about the relationship between the girl from Brazil and her father, maybe I'm wrong. Watch it and you tell me.

The video below is in 5 parts and in total is bout 45 minutes. It is well done and very thought provoking. It is definitely worth the time. I hope they show it on American television with the same frequency as some of the garbage reality shows. Perhaps people would ask, "What harm is there in religion?" a lot less.


Truly Disturbing Video!

Published
by
Vince
on March 17, 2008
.
I came across a BBC documentary entitled Baby Bible Bashers. It has to be one of the most disturbing things I have ever watched on the internet.

This documentary, produced by Channel 4 in the UK, originally aired last month. It focuses around 3 "chosen" children that have a "personal relationship" with god, and are: Preachers! The film follows the children around as they preach to the masses. Watching this physically affected me; I felt sick to my stomach and developed a headache. I found myself saddened for these poor kids and on several occasions just sat there mouth agape, shaking my head in disbelief. Also, in the interest of full disclosure, I have to admit I am a big fat hypocrite. As one who has chosen medicine as my life's work and someone who will be taking the Hippocratic Oath in 2 years, I had several un-Hippocratic ideas waft through my mind as I watched. Most revolved around inflicting blunt force trauma upon some of the parents until the Holy Spirit himself interceded.

One of the most striking scenes involves 7 year-old Samuel. His redneck, inbred, bible thumping parents home school (read: program) young Samuel so that they are free to drive about the country in an RV and pimp out their little boy to stand in public and scream at people not to kill their babies, drink alcohol, and how we are all going to hell yadda yadda yadda. Interestingly enough- at one point mom asks the cameras to be turned off while she "trains" her precocious preacher for not listening- (something 7 year-olds are wont to do) Spare not the rod... and all of that. They are followed as they head to New York city to spew their venom on a street corner. As you can imagine some of the warm-hearted denizens of the city were, shall we say, less than receptive to their message. While dad is in a yelling match with a member of the crowd, the camera pans to young Samuel. Clearly he is terrified. He is, after all, still just a little boy underneath all of the fervor and religious rhetoric. It is quite heartbreaking.

These people are straight-up abusing their children! There is no other way to describe it. None of the 3 kids is old enough to have mastered long division, let along preach religion. Wait, after considering that sentence I admit, you don't have to know anything to preach religion. But I assure you they certainly do not understand what it is that they are saying.

Just as an observation, I get the suspicion that there is something not quite right about the relationship between the girl from Brazil and her father, maybe I'm wrong. Watch it and you tell me.

The video below is in 5 parts and in total is bout 45 minutes. It is well done and very thought provoking. It is definitely worth the time. I hope they show it on American television with the same frequency as some of the garbage reality shows. Perhaps people would ask, "What harm is there in religion?" a lot less.


Living with Death

Published
by
The Spiritual Atheist
on March 17, 2008
.
Currently Reading:
A Sourcebook in Asian Philosophy
by John M. Koller, and Patricia Koller



The First Rule of Budo:
The first rule of Budo, the Japanese philosophy of living life fully through martial arts, is stated thusly: You must concentrate upon and consecrate yourself wholly to each day, as though a fire were raging in your hair.

What do these words mean? Many who have faced death can tell you; live each day as though it were your last. Budo teaches that to the martial art student every minute of their training, if they are paying attention. Life also teaches that to us every minute of every day, if we are paying attention. Would you carry old grudges if today were your last day? What good would it do you to die carrying a grudge? Have you ever had a childhood enemy that you fought with bitterly, only to eventually become great friends? How could you have have ever had such a friend if you were not willing to let go of that grudge?

I believe that we all believe this at a deep level, but we often cover it up with ego in the hopes that the other person will surrender, and from that submission we can gain some illusion of power over others. That power means nothing, because it is only momentary. When we fight each other, we fight ourselves.

Living by the sword and dying by the sword sounds glorious and sexy, especially when we're the ones who are doing the conquering. Men who have lived long enough to see half of their lives pass know that it is better to never draw your sword. To never cut another, and to never be cut.


"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." - Mahatma Gandhi


Namaste,
CET

"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the illusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha