This.....is........too.......damn.....long........I won't be crushed if nobody reads it. I appreciate the opportunity to satiate my unhealthy narcissistic appetite for my own lofty rhetoric steeped in erudition and sophistry......I'm kind of a sick bastard that way. Jesus' effect on the west reminds me of the Buddha's effect on the east. People still killed each other, stole, raped, hated. But in Europe there were people walking around saying "Love thy neighbor, blessed are the peacemakers, worldy pleasure alone doesn't make you happy." And in Asia there were people walking around saying "don't harm your brother for he is like you--he wants to be happy, and, you kill a little part of yourself when you're dishonest, and again-- wordly pleasure alone will not make you happy." The barbarism that has gone on over the millennia that people attribute to religion would've happened anyway. The Chinese and Japanese have hated each other, Irish protestants and Irish Catholics have hated each other, and, with no reason they can tell you, people from northern Wales don't like people from southern Wales. We're descended from predators and it's readily observable that our brains' R-complex is still calling alot of shots when we learn to harness the power that fuels ths stars and two nations of the same race immediately learn how to use that power to destroy the planet in order to stop the others' ideologies from winning......
Chimps?......oh this might go all the way back to precambrian protozoan fear of other one-celled monsters. So I'd gladly join in the raucous caustic lampooning of any number of paranoid religious paradigms. Any system where a secretive, dishonest autocracy presides over an undifferentiated ego mass taking their money, freewill and right to reason needs to have us other chimps throwing our feces at it. But --the people who operated outside the institutionally sanctioned priesthoods of their day--like Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tzu, and to an extent Guru Dev, etc, who at least tried to interject some higher ideas into the torpid suffering masses regardless of who they really were in relation to who they thought or we think they were.....these people don't warrant the full venomous potency of our cynicism.... I'm not referring to anyone's post, just offering a related opinion. There's another aspect of the crucifixion that the writers/translators/abusers of the four books written by Matt, Mark Luke and Smedley don't approach. Someone stood out and told the religious and political authorities of the day that they were VERY WRONG about the 'truths' that gave them power......and they nailed him to a board......A good lesson whether it's history or a fable. I see in the red print of the new testament a line of reasoning too deep to have been thought of by, or be of any use to the Popes, Joseph Smiths, and Pat Robertson's that have blackened the name of a guy who if he ever did come back, wouldn't recognize a modern church building or his own statue inside it.........as Robin Williams said. "Jesus isn't coming back. Every time he looks down he sees a bunch of people wearing crosses and thinks.....Yikes! They must still wanna kill me! I better wait." Anyhoo.......I just have to wonder about the deeper hidden drives that make a person NEED to discount any possible goodness that our civilizations' 'spiritual' people may have brought us.--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Well, the Artist *uses* Science, but usually not the other way around. > > > > Lawson > > > I believe that for a person who grew up in a developed county in the > last 80 years the assimilation of some of the principles of science > are a given. Even spirituality often uses uses proof systems that > appear to be empirical to some degree. It is only after proffered > evidence is show to be lacking does the rejection of all science > usually take place IME. > > Even the New Testament tries to build a case for Jesus' divinity based > on the performance of physical miracles witnessed and reported by > numbers of people. It surprised me on a re-read in the last few years > how much time is spent trying to make this case. There is much more > time spent on the miracles than any of his presentation of ethical > philosophy which he gets so much undeserved credit for IMO. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <wgm4u@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > This is a great topic for many reasons for me. At the core it > > > > discusses how we engage family members or friends in philosophical > > > > debate and then it expressed, very well, some ideas I find > inspiring. > > > > > > > > > What's the evolutionist's answer to the question? I would > > > > > think it would have something to do with how enjoying > > > > > life helps further life. Simple. The people who could not > > > > > see beauty were more likely to say, "What the fuck," and > > > > > give up. > > > > > > > > I can't speak for other "evolutionists" but I do accept that the > > > > evolutionary theory is the best understanding we have of our > origins. > > > > I don't believe that human happiness has to have a reason. It > > > > doesn't seem to really be a product of the gene's need to reproduce > > > > since so often the desire to have kids beyond someone's means brings > > > > unhappiness and struggle. Many miserable bastards seem to do quite > > > > well in surviving and perpetuating their genes. > > > > > > > > For me the choice of joy at natural or man made beauty is a perk of > > > > our wonderfully aware brains and imaginations. I'm not sure that it > > > > has to have a reason or that one can really be given. It may be an > > > > offshoot of our style of functioning without purpose or evolutionary > > > > value. It is not a universal or we would see people outside at > sunset > > > > time instead of glued to sitcoms. OTOH we also were given an > > > > awareness of our mortality and inevitable death with our > awareness and > > > > this may also just be an artifact of consciousness that isn't so > > > charming. > > > > > > > > <He's an existentialist, or so he says...* > > > > > > > > "Existentialism is a philosophical movement that posits that > > > > individuals create the meaning and essence of their lives, as > opposed > > > > to deities or authorities creating it for them." Wikipedia> > > > > > > > > I find this so inspiring. It lifts my spirits the way scriptures > > > used to. > > > > > > > > > Well, I thought a moment, and said; "Hey Cyril, I know the > answer to > > > > > that question". > > > > > > > > Of course family history plays in here as an unknown. But if I were > > > > to hazard a guess it might be that your assertion of "knowing the > > > > answer" to one of life's mystery with surety closed the door on > > > > further sharing of perspectives. He was approaching the > question with > > > > a bit of epistemological humility and you were approaching it as a > > > > "knower." You may not have meant it that way or maybe you did. > But I > > > > also find that people who claim to have such answers with a sense of > > > > surety turn me off in a discussion. Perhaps there were too many > > > > buttons of past lectures to get beyond the family dynamics but > it also > > > > might be possible to come from a place of your own appropriate > > > > humility concerning life's grandest questions. I'll bet you > have your > > > > own version of not knowing it all in these matters and you might > find > > > > it allows for a discussion among equals. Humans pondering their > place > > > > in the world together instead of one who questions and one who > knows. > > > > > > > > Your answer had some poetic beauty on its own merit. It was not an > > > > answer but was a sharing of how you think about it. It included > many > > > > implied pre-suppositions that your brother doesn't share (nor I), so > > > > it couldn't really be accepted as an answer by him. > > > > > > > > I have been on both sides of this kind of exchange so often. I have > > > > to admit that it is a lot more comfortable and produces more > > > > conversations now that I don't know so much. > > > > > > Well it is SCIish, unintentionally, but primarily the answer is in the > > > domain of Philosophy and Religion. Someone once asked MMY which comes > > > closer to the truth, the Scientist or the Artist and he said the > Artist. > > > > > > Science holds one on the level of concrete thought whereas Art, on the > > > other hand transcends concrete thought to embrace abstract ideas. > > > Thanks for the compliment, indeed the question AND the answer are most > > > beautiful..... > > > > > > > > > Well, the Artist *uses* Science, but usually not the other way around. > > > > Lawson > > >
