James Newtons Massmind wrote:
> Show me any religion that stops with those and does not mention a super
> natural being, force or power.

Lisa Simpson's religion?

> More specifically, show me a religion that
> does not include something that is "un-knowable" and a requirement that 
> you
> throw logic to the winds and accept this super-natural thing as fact 
> without
> proof.

I am a believer, but I do not accept the concept of "blind faith." I dont 
subscribe to the statement that you must "throw logic to the winds" when it 
comes to faith. As Russell has pointed out, certain religions make much more 
sense than our current understanding of reality.

> I don't know HAI, so I can't say, but teachings and facilitators don't
> strike me as religious and neither do the stated goals. Now, if it turns 
> out
> that as you get into it, the teachings and facilitators start asking you 
> to
> accept things that make no sense based on their word alone, then I would
> about face so fast it would make your neck snap. But that's just me.

According to Dave, HAI intentionally maintains a level of secrecy, 
supposedly to keep the newcomers from making "safer" choices. Also according 
to Dave, he and his wife attended the Level 1 workshop in the nude, and 
talks about "intimately touching another man" during the "magic weekend." 
Does this make sense to you?

The premise is, "when you get there, you'll understand." I bet Russell can 
argue the same thing about a personal relationship with... err... to quote 
another Simpson, "a Jewish carpenter who lived 2000 years ago."

>> And doesn't
>> Christian Science that you have recently mentioned, have
>> different "levels", too?
>
> As does the military, the government, the Masons and most families. I 
> don't
> see how that relates.

My point is, levels are an attribute of many of the world's religions, and 
we are trying to establish whether HAI is a religion or not. Of course, I 
meant to say "Church of Scientology", not "Christian Science." I understand 
what you're saying, though -- having different "levels" does not necessarily 
mean an organization should be classified as a "religion." Rather, IMHO, 
it's definted by a set of attributes (none of them 100% essential). For 
example, your narrow definition of religion does not cover all belief 
systems and worldviews that are referred to as "religions."

Masons believe in a Supreme Being, by the way (which makes them a religion 
by your definition).

HOWEVER, that's not what I was arguing at all. Call it whatever you want, I 
was just asking Dave to explain how HAI is different from a religion, as far 
as this list is concerned. HAI has its own dogmas (ideology, whatever you 
call it) which he feels free to (and you let him to) express here. Would you 
let a Buddhist talk about the Four Noble Truths, or the Noble Eightfold 
Path?

> As a list owner, I get to set the rules and define the words.

Yes, this is what it boils down to.

> The forbidden
> here is discussion of what can not be known. Things that will not reveal
> themselves to confirmable tests and studies.

Can you prove your love for your wife? Or subject it to confirmable tests 
and studies?

> That includes systems that are
> so complex that they can not be fully understood, such as extreme 
> political
> issues, ethical questions and moral guidelines. Primarily, things that can
> not be known, and that people fervently claim to know are not good 
> subjects
> for discussion in any forum. And by banning them here, we have created a
> place where most conversations are peaceful and informative.

See above for information regarding who gets to set the rules and define 
what can and cannot be known.

>> It seems a bit strange that James condones and even actively
>> participates in discussions of this kind. In my opinion, we
>> should stick to the rules (no politics, no religion), or, per
>> Dave's own suggestion, give the [WOT] tag an official status.
>
> You are welcome to become an admin, learn the ropes, and then run the list
> as you see fit.

This is an invitation for me to admit that I do not posess the skills 
required to administer the list (nor the time to do it), and to acknowledge 
your indispensability (both statements are true).

I appreciate your committment and the sacrifices you make (really), and I 
think you are doing a great job (seriously). I would definitely prefer that 
you keep the job.

However, I also think that sometimes you are being inconsistent in your 
application of the rules, and I reserve the right to voice my opinion 
regarding this subject, as well as others, including (but not limited to) 
polyamory, homosexuality, poligamy, and mahogany. What you do with that 
opinion is up to you.

Of course, I realize there may be a price to pay for my dissent (would not 
be the first, or hopefully, the last time), but I feel like a coward when I 
go against my convictions, and I don't like the feeling. What's the worst 
thing that can happen, anyway? :)

> I've been doing it more than long enough.

As with any job, relationship, or hobby, you must be getting more out than 
you're putting in. And if all of a sudden you decide you've had enough, it 
would be because the equation changed, certainly not because of one (or a 
handful of) dissenting person(s).

My very best regards,

Vitaliy 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist