| By Anonymous on Thursday, September 28, 2000 - 08:29 am: |
Most of us are on one side or the other of the "Humans are basically good/bad" dilemma. It is helpful to understand the personal
issues involved when someone believes people are basically bad.
If someone believes "people are basically bad" what does that
mean in terms of personal responsibility for constant self-evaluation?
Hotheaded adversaries often discredit
themselves. What is the best strategies when facing an adversary
who "spits"?
Why did Pelagius call himself a monk when he wasn't? Do heretics
secretly crave credibility from the very institutions they seek
to change?
Are you more likely to play the role of Rufinus or Peligius?
What are the implications for each role?
| By Peter Brown on Tuesday, December 19, 2000 - 01:50 am: |
Hey...I like this "heretics" thing. I'm underway doing something similar (but different) with http://www.humanwave.com and I find this site inspiring. As the owner of an ad agency for the last ten years, I can see the similarities in approach and in questions raised: "If we can make people act in buying things they don't need, why can't we make them act in ways they really DO need?" Can we use commerce as a tool for social change? Can we cause people to re-evaluate what it is to be alive, so that the emphasis upon individual needs and whims diminishes and the emphasis on creating a better life for others takes precedence? Can we help people to live for something larger than themselves, whatever that may mean to them? These are the kind of questions that will determine whether or not humanity leaps the necessary chasm to the next spiritual level.