Please Curtis, challenge away, in fact speaking for Judaism, if you don't challenge, it's a sign that you aren't trying hard enough. Btw, the bacon and BLT thing, first you need to do a little research yourself young man and you will know why that statement is well, silly and not even decent mockery. Dig a little deeper to know why the laws of Kashrut would even apply today. Why would a God who expects man to be good, decent, ethical, in a word a Mensch even forbid us from eating everything moving or not moving? Did you know that their is a universal commandment not to eat flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive? That was common back in the day, what a stupid silly God to even suggest we practice any kind of restraint?
Yes I'm aware of the some of the horrendous practices done in the name of Kosher butchering in Iowa, again you find human failings, but still we have standards. They should throw the book at them, I won't defend them. The Laws of Kashrut (mixing meat and dairy, shellfish restrictions, eat fish with scales only, not bottom feeders, boil a kid in it's mothers milk, etc) only applies to Jews anyway, there is a reason why the word Israel means to struggle. So you like bacon on your blt, go for it, God won't be pissed, just don't slaughter the pig while it's alive! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" <compost1uk@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Some original quotes by G. K. Chesterton: > > > > > > "A man who refuses to have his own philosophy will only > > > have the used-up scraps of somebody else's > > > philosophy; > > This is one of my complaints against religious beliefs, it is adapting a > pre-fab perspective from an agrarian culture. I am not advocating being > intolerant. But that doesn't mean that we can't challenge the assumptive > claims of religions that they are absolutely right because God told them that > putting some bacon in your BLT pisses him off. > > > which the beasts do not > > > have to inherit; hence their happiness. Men have always > > > one of two things: either a complete and conscious > > > philosophy or the unconscious acceptance of the broken > > > bits of some incomplete and shattered and often > > > discredited philosophy" ["The Revival of > > > Philosophy,Why?] > > A false alternative, but I get the point. Most people 9myself included) have > a bit of both. But the idea that philosophers are discredited is not how I > view the history of philosophy, that is more of a religious take on > philosophy. For me each important philosopher adds a piece to a continuing > dialectic process for discovering truth. Not understanding what has been > thought out before leaves modern society recreating thought flows made > clearer by more brilliant people. It keeps us at philosophical square one by > not understanding how to think about ideas better. A lot of these techniques > have been worked out. But our school systems have abandoned teaching critical > thinking because if you use it too rigorously you might discover that some of > the goals of multiculturalism are bullshit. (All religious beliefs should be > respected equally even though in some religions killing non believers is > considered a bad thing and in some it is the greatest thing you can do for > your future beyond the grave.) > > > > > Thanks Merudanda. I enjoyed Chesterton's short essay: > > http://chesterton.org/gkc/philosopher/revivalpPhilosophy.htm > > > > I wonder if the following is at all relevant to the recent > > Curtis::Judy religion debate? (I'm not sure because I'm not > > clear as to how far Curtis wants his views about myths, > > superstitions and fairy tales to be enshrined, "hard-wired" as > > it were into *modern society*): > > I missed this when you posted it. I enjoyed the piece as philosophy poetry. > An enjoyable romp though word salad with a purpose. I don't want my views > about myths to become enshrined anywhere. I am just noticing that this has > already taken place with most of the religious ideas man has created and am > anxious to see the process complete itself with the remaining ones. This > doesn't take away the value of studying the ideas, it just knocks them off > the throne of absolute certainty so it can enter the scrum of all of our > other man-made ideas. I am advocating taking away the preface "God wants" > from any proposal about society. Change "Gods wants gay people to stop being > gay" and it becomes "I and a bunch of my friends who agree with me want gay > people to stop being gay." The first ends the discussion, the second starts > it. > > > > << Thus, when so brilliant a man as Mr. H. G. Wells-Delta- > > Blues > > That was funny. > > says that such supernatural ideas have become impossible > > "for intelligent people", he is (for that instant) not talking > > like an intelligent person. > > Wouldn't be the first time, thanks for taking the time to notice. > > In other words, he is not talking > > like a philosopher; because he is not even saying what he > > means. What he means is, not "impossible for intelligent men", > > but, "impossible for intelligent monists", or, "impossible for > > intelligent determinists". But it is not a negation of > > <intelligence> to hold any coherent and logical conception of > > so mysterious a world. > > Here I disagree. Although I fully accept chastisement if I used the phrase > "impossible for intelligent people" (I'll take your word that I did) it is > both obnoxious and wrong. People who would be rated on every measurable > scale of intelligence above me believe in all sorts of things that I do not. > So using intelligence this way is ridiculous since no one knows better than I > do the limited number of cylinders under my hood. However,this does not mean > that super bright people can't be wrong or that they may have missed the > philosophical training needed to notice their unsupported assertions. This > happens all the time and can even be caused by a super bright man noticing a > short skirted woman crossing the street while he is talking, leading to the > conclusion that man has blood enough for his two heads, but only one at a > time. > > I am attempting to restore the humble mystery of "we don't know" to people > who claim to know such things such as what happens when we die. We would > have to take each belief case by case but if you start with ones that we > probably agree on (Stabbing a pin into someone's picture while holding a lock > of their hair does NOT give them indigestion) rather than ones we may not "we > know there is a being with Godlike qualities who created the universe) we > will discover where our personal perspectives diverge. > > It is not a negation of intelligence to > > think that all experience is a dream. > > It has been discussed by lots of intelligent people. I do not agree with it > as a statement and don't see it as more than a philosophical exercise in > thoroughness. I'm a bit more philosophically pragmatic and doesn't see it as > a serious consideration for our lives. > > It is not unintelligent > > to think it a delusion, as some Buddhists do; let alone to > > think it a product of creative will, as Christians do. >> > > Yeah saying an idea is unintelligent is usually the most dickish choice. I > don't agree serves better. However it is not out of line to ask "how do you > know that" and then evaluate the strength of the argument. Most of these > perspectives are just assertions so you can take them or leave them. > > > > > And I really love this quote from Chesterton (but I doubt > > Curtis will!). Like all good mysterians Chesterton upholds > > the primacy of poetry over mechanics, of the "qualitative" > > over the "quantitive": > > I enjoy the poetry of it although I prefer ee cummings almost parallel > version: > > since feeling is first > who pays any attention > to the syntax of things > will never wholly kiss you; > wholly to be a fool > while Spring is in the world > > my blood approves, > and kisses are a better fate > than wisdom > lady i swear by all flowers. Don't cry > —the best gesture of my brain is less than > your eyelids' flutter which says > > we are for each other: then > laugh, leaning back in my arms > for life's not a paragraph > > And death i think is no parenthesis > > > > > << All the terms used in the science books, 'law,' > > 'necessity,' 'order,' 'tendency,' and so on, are really > > unintellectual .... > > Not so much. I am not anti intellectual and this seems derivative of that > view. Everything has its place. > > The only words that ever satisfied me as > > describing Nature are the terms used in the fairy books, > > 'charm,' 'spell,' 'enchantment.' They express the > > arbitrariness of the fact and its mystery. A tree grows fruit > > because it is a MAGIC tree. Water runs downhill because it is > > bewitched. The sun shines because it is bewitched. I deny > > altogether that this is fantastic or even mystical. We may > > have some mysticism later on; but this fairy-tale language > > about things is simply rational and agnostic. >> > > I love poetry too. Figurative writing is one of life's greatest joys. > Religious scripture represents great figurative writing sometimes. (when not > women or gay bashing) > > > > That should put the cat amongst the pigeons. (Or the bio- > > chemical hunting and sleeping machine amongst the > > robotic, aerodynamic, statue-shitters if you you prefer). > > I don't find my interest in rational thought and imaginative, figurative > thought to be at odds. When I want to cut an orange I don't use my guitar > picks, but when I want to play slide on my guitar, I have found a butter > knife works just fine. That is what makes life interesting to me. > > Excellent use of a quote to up the thoughtfulness ante here! Thanks. > > > > > > > > > >
