Comments for Explorations

Comment on Brit Hume and Tiger Woods by Charlie

Charlie — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 20:08:57 +0000

Steve, that’s fine — you’re right that I misread proscribe for prescribe. You’re still wrong, so the rest of the comment stands. Sorry for the name typo. I’m willing to bet I’m make more typos in the future.

Much of the rest is basically uninformed and still makes axiomatic assumptions I don’t share.

Comment on Brit Hume and Tiger Woods by stevesq

stevesq — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 02:29:26 +0000

No Charles, am not he of “computer security world”—I spell my surname SQUIRES

BELIEVE YOU MISREAD ME! I wrote “PROSCRIBES” and not “prescribes,” therefore my comment reads very differently, by meaning that ‘I presume Buddhism …PROHIBITS… your competition of religious one-upsmanship here, Charles…’

Sorry, but I meant just the opposite of how you took my meaning by your misreading of my correct usage of “PRO-scribes” versus “prescribes”…Buddhism most certainly does NOT ‘prescribe’ one-upping competition between religions, which is nevertheless as you demonstrate it to be within your comment…

Comment on Brit Hume and Tiger Woods by Charlie

Charlie — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 02:08:10 +0000

You don’t happen to be the Steve Squiers from the computer security world do you?

In any case, I think “presume” and “assume” are important verbs here. You presume Buddhism proscribe “religious one upmanship”. You’re mistaken. You assume a whole bunch of other stuff, including notions of souls, redemption, and so forth, that I don’t share. As a result, we end up with different results.

Comment on Brit Hume and Tiger Woods by stevesq

stevesq — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 01:39:00 +0000

Nonsense!
I presume Buddhism, at least, proscribes your competition of religious one-upsmanship here, Charles. Its “passivity” in regard to your presumption that it can better handle behavior modification is therefore also ridiculous…
Isn’t Christianity, at least, exactly about going forward to “sin no more??” …Which modified behavior seems to be at the heart of Christian REDEMPTION for real sins of all sorts, via a cosmic higher redemptive power absent in Buddhism! Your Buddhism’s lack of any concept of true “sin,” except as to avoidance technologies in order to merely achieve the self-”satisfied life” (hey,…therefore, do NO harm to others merely to avoid upsetting that self-absorbed personal satisfaction),…THIS interpretation strikes me as appallingly self-absorbed and uni-directed “moralizing” (& too much like those goggle-eyed, hyper-ventilating New Agey liberalis here)!
After studying Buddhism (years ago) I certainly NOW prefer a religion with ‘meaty’ concepts of real sin within everyday reality, not just solipsist technologies of how that reality may be operating upon us for our more lip-smacking personal reality satisfactions! Come on man, …give me something more that recognizes the essential, even inescapable sadness of the human condition after “the garden”, where we WAKE UP to the sins we all must commit on a daily basis, merely to survive by rending the flesh of other corporeal beings for our dinner plate (quite literally), that living “flesh” being even plants of yet unknown conciousness too (for you vegans vising this site to think about). Here then is …ORIGINAL SIN, …for GOD sake!
I’ve read in the ancient Chinese book of divination, the shamanic “I Ching,” how the greatest good is said there to be the avoidance of any personal blame. We all need “forgiveness” by a presumed higher cosmic power, and no doubt routinely, …EXCEPT, I guess, those LIBERALS who may use technologies of consciousness encountered in Buddhism in order to avoid real personal responsibility for their own everyday, very self-absorbed actions within this clever veil of delusion, …those, that is, who believe merely in the goal of living the ’self-satsified personal life’ described in your comment, Charles…at least until that moment of self-obliterating personal death…all too SADLY pointless & solipsist, man!

Comment on Brit Hume and Tiger Woods by Hey Bloggers. Why Is It Ok For Hume To Tell Tiger To Become Christian? What If He Had Said Muslim? « Are you Freaking Stupid?

Tue, 05 Jan 2010 17:24:48 +0000

[...] like Pajamas Media’s own Charles Martin, who rejected Hume’s remarks on religious grounds. Charlie wrote: Please mention to Brit that his knowledge of Buddhism leaves enough to be desired that he probably [...]

Comment on Brit Hume and Tiger Woods by Pajamas Media » We Can Discuss Tiger’s Sex Life, But Not His Religion?

Tue, 05 Jan 2010 06:56:22 +0000

[...] Pajamas Media’s own Charles Martin, who rejected Hume’s remarks on religious grounds. Charlie wrote: Please mention to Brit that his knowledge of Buddhism leaves enough to be desired that he probably [...]

Comment on Brit Hume and Tiger Woods by Pajamas Media » Brit Hume: Right To Discuss Freely, Wrong On Buddhism

Pajamas Media » Brit Hume: Right To Discuss Freely, Wrong On Buddhism — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 06:48:52 +0000

[...] launched an inevitable kerfuffle. I wrote Fox News about it, and I’m sure that Brit will get some interesting and amusing hate mail. But Brit [...]

Comment on Brit Hume and Tiger Woods by Brit Hume and Tiger Woods | Explorations | ANYTHING INTERESTING

Brit Hume and Tiger Woods | Explorations | ANYTHING INTERESTING — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 02:12:29 +0000

[...] Read the rest here: Brit Hume and Tiger Woods | Explorations [...]

Comment on Brit Hume and Tiger Woods by Brit Hume and Tiger Round Up » The Anchoress | A First Things Blog

Brit Hume and Tiger Round Up » The Anchoress | A First Things Blog — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 20:33:48 +0000

[...] and Buddhist, Charles Martin, sounding slightly defensive writes: I’ll grant that Buddhism doesn’t provide a transcendental entity which can forgive sin, but [...]

Comment on Brit Hume and Tiger Woods by Tiger Woods » Current News Trends

Tiger Woods » Current News Trends — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 17:43:25 +0000

[...] Brit Hume and Tiger Woods | Explorations [...]