No worries Curtis, it's OK to disagree, nice to have a civil discussion. I still think that the seeds of greater compassion and freedoms i.e. women's rights, has it's basis in the Bible narrative. Again seeds need it's time to grow and flourish, I don't think it's a coicidence that the civil rights movement had a religious basis.
You are right, it's tough to apply higher dare I say moral principles into action, we just keep trying. Make the world a better place, doesn't have to be perfect my friend! We did have some fun in Avon Park! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge <no_reply@> 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
