No not reformed, perhaps informed Jewish perspective Regarding animals, the Bible presented the first idea of giving animals a day of rest (Sabbath) each week and they are to be fed first before humans eat. That didn't happen before, where both man and beast worked every day.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
