Intolerance.
 

I'm becoming very intolerant of bullshit.
I'm at a place in my life and practice (Buddhism) where I have little patience for those who choose to be ignorant.
BTW, do not tell me that any action is not a choice, tis not so. Is medically impossible unless you are clinically insane (in that case you should not be in society) or being held down and physically forced to act.

Ummm...isn't being an intolerant budhist an oxymoron?

If that is so, grasshopper, you are not practicing enough, or alternatively, you are practicing wrong.

I'm hearing the pain talking and not
rkz...

Remember "I can't stand intolerant people"?

What "actions" are we talking about here?
I associate intolerance with religions - all of them. One you get past "do unto others" you're entering private club territory, usually accompanied by a "if you're not with us, you're against us (and something is wrong with you)" attitude. I have become very intolerant of all of that bullshit myself.

I think all of you are reading intolerant in a very different way than I am meaning it.
In Zen letting people continue a delusion is not helping them... it is a harm by omission.
It is very weird and leads to people becoming extremely confrontational when you did not mean your comment that way at all.

Well, I can't argue budhism to any great degree, but it has been my understanding from what little I do know that the basic tennet of budhism is to live and let live.

And that people are here to learn specific lessons they've chosen for themselves, and that if they don't get it right, they'll be back again whether they like it or not. So, it's not up to any other human body to be intolerant of anyone else's actions because you're here on your own journey, not someone else's.

You, personally, are not the arbiter of reality and illusion. Question, rather, why you need to be.

I am intolerant of bullshit but I am not a Buddist. I do believe in Karma somehwhat but say ' to hell with karma today' I need to vent.


People are all at different stages. I think to release people to their own realities and the karma they have for themselves would be a very zen thing to do. I think wolfs statement is right.We not the arbiter of reality and illusion. I have fought with that myself. I wrestled with the delusions of others and burnt out my thyroid. I fight doing it still. I don't know what delusions specifically you speak of but wolf's advice is good. To question ourself as to why we have to be in control is very valid.

I say we and our because you are not alone in seeking balance and letting go. I'll be practicing that as well.

Karma is not about this lifetime... the law of karma is what you do in this lifetime affects what happens to you in the next. It is about reincarnation, not immediate justice.

Its also a logical thing, as is all of Buddhism. If you do something bad, the world gets that much worse, and if the world is worse then worse things are more likely to happen.

Zen seeks not to smack the unZen upside they's head.

I think there is a fine line between speaking up about your beliefs and perceived injustices and becoming intolerant and judgemental.

Stormie

The biggest obstacle is within the self - the lens we see reality through.

We can dissolve the dominance of our own persepctive by accepting that every person is valid for where they are at.

Who are we to say what, outside of ourself, is right or wrong?

To do so is to stay locked within our own small perception.

Well , since I do not believe in reincarnation I try to live as though Karma is an immediate thing. If you are bad tempered then you will feel the effects of that. If not immediately then very soon. There are consequences. Natural ones that I consider to be karmatic. There are basic negative and positive energys that a person can feel and project outward. ( or inward ) You can say you are Buddhist all you want but if you have a bad ass temper then I would probably think the outward manifestation doesn't match the reality of the person inside.

Many religions are like this. The people do not live it outwardly. It isn't internalized spiritually. They are only on a intellectual level about their religion and it never reaches their heart.

I looked up Karma. I found alot of information that supports 'cause and effect'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma

credit where it is due
 

wow, very nicely put

I think people may be confusing karma with John Lennon's "Instant Karma" . . .

And to be conservative republican :D

Isn't the objective of Buddhism enlightenment and knowledge? Ultimately "Nirvana"? That would explain why you become so frustrated with the willful ignorance of others (AKA stupidity). But don't be intolerant of the involuntary ignorant. And remember these things:
Ignorance is Bliss
All things are relative.

There are those people who probably believe you are ignorant and find you intolerable.

I've known some very intelligent "conservative republicans" who aren't hyprocritical and do not like the hyprocritical party representations the politicians have become. Its all media, not fact. The majority of the doctrine, or ideals of the party are reasonable, those with the most media attention are not.

The Liberal Media Conspiracy strikes again.

My point was not about intelligence, hypocricy or reasonableness. It was that conservative repubicans want to force everyone else to have their values. They wouldn't have an abortion, so NOBODY should be able to have an abortion. Same with same-gender marriage, etc.

"dissolve the dominance of our own persepctive by accepting that every person is valid for where they are at.

Who are we to say what, outside of ourself, is right or wrong?"

Think about it.

FLINT "is not a source" ha ha ha

The media is sensational not liberal.

They believe that abortion is tatamount to murder. Its only logically for them to try and ban it. The same-gender marriage stuff is BS I agree. BUT they aren't trying to force their values on others, they are trying to "protect" their value. Liberal Democrats do the same thing, everyone does this, its human nature. Conservatives say that abortion and gay marriage are wrong; liberals say that prohibit either is wrong.

Back to rkz's concern: You'll be fine, take the intolerance you have for certain people and change it into sympathy/empathy/pity for those people.

agreed 100% on these:
 

I am intolerent of people who think that I have any responsiblity to them in any way. I whole heartedly agree with live and let live, and by that same measure with live and let die. Combine this with my philosophy that charity and philanthropy are to be applauded, but any good work by an individual that they could not choose is neither.

Involuntary charity is indistinguishable from taxation.

Excessive taxation invariably decays an economy and that is a direct cause of general poverty. This is what collapsed the western provinces of the Roman Empire.

9th engineer is a true soldier , and as such he has my respect .

Please. If conservatives are "trying to "protect" their value" why do they support a constitutional ammendment to ban same-gender marriage? Seems to me that they are trying to force others to their way.

Would that include involuntary taxation for the war in Iraq?

Because they see marriage as being only between a man and a woman. They are seeking to protect the sanctity of marriage. I personly think its a load of horseshit, because someone else's marriage shouldn't affect the sanctity of your own, but I do see their point of view. And like I've said liberals and conservatives are really no different, they just have different issues and reasons. Really our argument has turned into a squabble of symantics and I think that it should be dropped.

It's not semantics. The only "restrictive" policy that Democrats endorse is gun control. Everything else is permissive or protective of those who are not in a postion to be able to protect themselves (the old, young, infirm, front-line worker, minorities, environment). Democrats are not all homosexuals who want to marry someone of the same gender or have an abortion, but they endorse the freedom for others to do so.

repubicans are selfish and controlling. Their perspective is "don't tax me unless *I*, personnally, benefit from those taxes, and all laws should make people behave the way *I* think they should behave". Imagine that you and your husband other have agreed that neither of you want to live in a persistent vegetive state. You husband is in an accident, and ends up in a persistent vegetive state, and the you want to let him pass away in peace and dignity. The republicans want to step in and tell you when your husband can die. Talk about control!

Then they don't need to marry someone of the same sex... that has nothing to do with what someone else does.
Makes no sense. It IS a load of horseshit.

Democrats say "you shouldnt do that so I'll ask you not to, but i cant really stop you"

Republicans say "you shouldnt do that so I'll MAKE SURE you'll ROT IN PRISON if you try"

Yup... Amen.

A thing of beauty.
Too bad it's accurate.

That comic is out of context and you know it Ibram. How can you destroy the meaning of the storyline like that? It is wrong and you should know better. Read from the beginning of the story!

How is it out of context?

My whole point (and only point) has been that both sides are really the same, just goals and methods are different. There is "forcing" (fine I give up flint) done on both sides. Liberals want force other to pay taxes that support causes that some tax payers don't. I've know many many liberals who try to force you to support pro-choice, adopt a vegetarian lifestyle, give up religion, accept samesex marriage, they believe that their way is right and the conservatives believe that there way is right. BOTH sides are the same!

I did read from the begining of the story. I still don't see how it's out of context.

The point of the story is that that is not how Christians should act.

Really? I saw it more as a spoof on what lengths some religions - even christianity - will go to in order to get people to convert.

The comic after it says that's bullshit, they shouldnt act like that, but MY point is that they DO act like that, especially the last lines.

"Should" being the operant word.

huh?
 

Ibram, your comic was funny.

Spexxvet, I just find you funny.:)

Lol @ conservative repulblicans.


[please excuse the absense of quotes. I'm just to lazy to fetch them]

What meaning of the word "force" are you using here? A law to make you "support" pro-choice? A law banning the sale or consumption of meat? A law preventing the practice of religion? How do you "force" someone to "accept samesex marriage"? If it happens, you can accept it or not and it won't make any difference either way. I guess that depends on how you react if you don't accept it, but as long as you don't start harrassing them or something I don't think anyone will "force" you to do anything about it.
Exactly, and it is directed at the ones who do anyway.

I define any group of people by how they do act, not how they should. There are no "special rules" for any group.

(note: denying special treatment is not persecution)