Interesting perspective. Only thing I see missing is the understanding that there is a duality plan to everything. Reflect on the rational for God to create and permit the continued existence of an anti-God. We are not flawed, we are given equal choice to participate in whichever side of the duality we want (for whatever reason we want). To understand good, one has to recognize evil.
I know there have been many theological exchanges lately on Vortex. I am conflicted on participating in this one as I am NOT a big fan of them on this list. The ONLY reason I am even bothering to reply is that I think it is important to point out that 'God' and 'Religion' are 2 different things and that they are typically misrepresented as 1 thing. That misrepresentation is the source of all theological discord. Religion is a creation of man used since the beginning of time for the perpetual sustenance and growth of a given population. It seeks to idealize and manage behavior characteristics and limited resources to that end. The exact expression or personification of the 'god' element is largely irrelevant. The problem is that how to sustain and grow a population is an OPINION based on very specific inputs and environmental conditions of a region and time period. When the relevance of specific elements of that strategy become obsolete, change is hamstrung by the application of the 'god' element to maintain control over the system as a whole. Understanding the 'why' of any particular doctrine is as simple as deconstructing and analyzing the issue or policy as to how it relates to the underlying theme of perpetual sustenance and growth... Buddha, the Koran, the Bible, Roman & Greek Pathos, Cults, etc. To that end... Topics of 'Religion' I think have some relevance on Vortex because they deal with social architecture, history, and cultural bias. Those things have direct impact our individual motivations, successes, and failures. Topics of 'God' have no relevance on Vortex because they are a personal expression of our individual perspective and PREFERENCE. -john -----Original Message----- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 9:34 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Lament for space Good suggestion. However the self-interest of the various religions get in the way. If you can't convert, at least you can out-breed. As for the present situation, nature and the tendency of mankind to support war will eventually take care of the excess. No, the answer is a change in attitude. If even the slightest imagination and intelligence were used, many more people could live very well in even the most populated countries. We do not lack space, we lack common sense. If God made us, he did a lousy job. He made a lifeform that insists on believing things that are clearly in conflict with reality, and will kill or give up its own life to support these beliefs. A lifeform, to a large extent, that lacks empathy for his own kind and for the other lifeforms made by this God. A lifeform that has the conceit to believe that it is unique and will gain advantage over other individuals by using a particular worship of this imagined God. At the same time, we have the ability to discover methods to visit the stars while other people will turn this knowledge into weapons that will be used to destroy anyone who does not support their beliefs. If you were God, would you have made such a self-destructive creature? If you had, would you give support to individuals who had these obvious imperfections even if they attempted to worship you? Ed peat bogg wrote: > Mike Carrell wrote: > >> >> Jed and Ed have voiced eloquent laments for wild space and connection >> to Nature. Ironic that TV ads for automobiles seduce with the lure of >> access to ever more remote open space. >> >> We've gots lots of people and more on the way. They will need to make >> a living. Doing what? Living where? >> >> Jed's elegy for beautiful Japan is a case in point. Pave over >> paradise >> to provide work. >> >> Our technical society removes drudgery, more goods for less work, so >> we can ????? >> >> Have we lost our way, or is this a passing phase? >> >> No answers, just questions. >> >> Mike Carrell > > > If the population were not so high, the problems described here would > not exist. > > It might make more sense to start thinking about how to lower the > population of the world rather than about how to build more power plants. > >
