-- In [email protected], sgrayatlarge <no_re...@...> wrote: > > That is one of many teachings in the Bible. It gives some nice advice on > keeping slaves too. > > - Well if you read closely it creates so many outs that it was easier to free > a slave than to keep one.
But it was still okey dokey with the big guy if you followed the rules. I am a Bible fan and have read it numerous times, Old and New Testaments. (Although it sounds as if you have studied it much more thoroughly.) It deserves to be appreciated in many ways. I just don't think moral guidance is one of the best ones. We have done much better today in refining the ideas of how to be more compassionate to other people. (women people for group) Of course applying it is still a bitch! Hey Steve, I don't doubt that you are seeing a lot of good stuff in the Bible and using it to enrich your life, more power to you. It is a rich book with lots of possible ways to look at it. My flip attitude towards scripture is not meant to be disrespectful to your choices. > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], sgrayatlarge <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > "So if there is a God he doesn't give a shit > > > about animal's suffering, that is completely obvious". > > > > > > So if their is no God, then the current plight of animal suffering is a > > > natual result of evolution? In either case animals get screwed. > > > > I hold suffering caused by another to be worse than naturally occurring > > suffering. Responsibility comes with the title, right? That is one of the > > many benefits of getting rid of that last God when you have already decided > > all the other Gods are myths. > > > > < Nature's only law is survival of the fittest,> > > > > Groups of animals take care of their own. That buffers the survival code a > > bit for those in a group. > > > > when one worships nature, then the main pursuit is being the most fit. The > > New Age Movement is all about who is the healthiest. Health Uber alles!! > > > > Hey I slept with nature a few times after a bourbon or two but I don't > > worship her. I take her calls though. > > > > I don't know about the New Age movement but I am sure pro health. I think > > that should go with or without the God idea. I mean he gave you a temple, > > why trash the place? > > > > > > > > The Bible tells humanity to show some kindness and compassion not only > > > the weakest among us, but to animals. > > > > That is one of many teachings in the Bible. It gives some nice advice on > > keeping slaves too. > > > > > > > > The weak get eaten in the natural world. > > > > > > Why would one want to worship nature? > > > > I don't even worship the blues and I have devoted my life to it. Worship > > is really optional and my be one of those imaginative human ideas that > > doesn't really hold up too well. It is the kind of word you might hear at > > a Barbara Steisand concert "Oh I absolutely adore Babs, don't you Zelda?" > > > > Nature is like a low maintenance girlfriend who doesn't require worship > > like your demanding, worship-needed, high maintenance EX-girlfriend (God). > > With nature you don't have to dress up and can sit by some body of water > > and watch the sun set. With my EX, this was never good enough, you had to > > put on a suit, drive in traffic into DC, drive around for hours for parking > > to stand in an art gallery with a glass of shitty Chardonnay from a box in > > your hand picking at tasteless cheese cubes while people ignored you when > > you tried to start a conversation. (Admittedly the thumb through the zipper > > gag may not have been the best choice for that crowd but in my defense the > > Chardonnay didn't react well with the Xanax I took to keep myself from > > jumping in front of traffic to get out of going to this thing in the first > > place. OK, maybe it was 2 Xanax a Vicodin and half a joint while I waited > > 45 minutes for the queen of the ball to get ready. Anyhoo it was > > definitely the Chardonnay.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], sgrayatlarge <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > Try putting it on your Muslim friend's sandwich. And the idea that God > > > > gets pissed off at dietary things is kind of well established in many > > > > scriptures. The fact that we are even discussing some rule and whether > > > > it applies to me kind of is my point. > > > > > > > > <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?> > > > > > > > > Is this a reformed Jewish perspective? > > > > > > > > I would suggest not taking flesh form an animal while it it alive and I > > > > am not close to being Godlike except to my cat who considers the thing > > > > I do with the opposable thumb and his food can to be absolutely > > > > miraculous. They are pretty cavalier in most parts of Asia about all > > > > this. I don't see that improving anytime soon. Although I have heard > > > > that the growing Chinese affluence is leading to pet ownership which is > > > > leading to a counter force against cat and dog eating so I guess there > > > > is hope. But back to God, he is really the last being I would trust on > > > > this issue of compassion to animals considering the instincts he put in > > > > animals to eat each other alive. That is so unnecessary if he wanted > > > > to give us a good example in nature. So if there is a God he doesn't > > > > give a shit about animal's suffering, that is completely obvious. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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! > > > > > > > > I was thinking we probably don't need a God idea to figure this one > > > > out. Last time I hung out next to a pig pen they seem pretty vocal > > > > about what was working for them and especially what was NOT working. > > > > I'm pretty sure he would let us know as long as we were not complete > > > > psychopaths. > > > > > > > > Speaking of which the whole animal farm factory system has me plenty > > > > bummed out. I find myself eating more sardines the more I think about > > > > it all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > > > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "PaliGap" <compost1uk@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
