Rick, Pelle,
Thank you for the kind words. In case you weren't in the Mote Café today, I just wanted to make sure you both knew that I read your comments.
Blessings to you two!
Jennifer
6019. mandolin - 5/16/2000 12:11:12 PM
I was offline for a few days, and apparently missed some fireworks.
Sakonige: I appreciate your invitation to Table Talk, but I am about maxed out on commitments to Internet time: Cafe Utne and The Speakeasy for a (very) few poetry related discussions, and here for spouting. Besides, I know very little about contemporary Native American religious and spiritual practice.
6020. mandolin - 5/16/2000 12:27:23 PM
Paragate:
in Message # 5905 you say "It makes sense to me to "rationalize" moral disputes, bloodless still better than bloody. Reducing moral disputes to emotive preferences strikes me as much more scary. When I say that is good....I am not merely rubbing my belly and saying hmmmmmm."
But there is considerable evidence that, when connections are severed between the pre-frontal cortex (where 'reasoning' takes place) and the limbic system (where emotional response is centered), the victims lose the ability to make moral judgements or to plan effectively for their own well-being. Damasio's Descartes' Error, mentioned above, extensively examines the case of Phineas Gage (brief treatments here and here). The 'error' of the title is to believe that reason can ever be bloodless -- in fact, trying to make it so guarantees the results to be bloody.
6021. mandolin - 5/16/2000 12:28:05 PM
Indiana -- I'll have to wait until tonight to answer you.
6022. KuligintheHooligan - 5/16/2000 2:51:25 PM
Indy, I have really been under it work wise. I have finished two of the three courses that I will teach this term, which starts on the 23rd. I prefer to have my courses entirely prepared before the term begins.
Therefore, I am wondering if I could postpone taking over this thread until the 29th of this month. That would be a big help for me, since I don't think I will have the time before then to acclimate myself with how to actually host a thread, as well as get the ball rolling on the matter of ethics.
I am going to call the thread "Ethics for a Brave New World." This is a title stolen from a book I own. If you need to e-mail me (or somebody else about this matter) I can be reached at
v_kuligin@yahoo.com
Thank you.
6023. PelleNilsson - 5/16/2000 3:11:22 PM
Kuligin
Here is a little sunshine history from Namibia.
The Museum of Natural History does not have the money to register their collections electronically. The entomologist Eugene Marais thought up the idea of inviting schools to a "registration competition". He persuaded sponsors to donate a computer and a two-year internet-subscription to each of the 18 schools that participated. During one weekend the students registered most of the insect collection. The Swedish-African Musuem Programme donated a trip to Stockholm for the winning team from the Tsuneb Junior Secondary School. They have spent the last several days registering the Namibian insect collection at the National Museum here. Most of that collection was established in the 18th century by two disciples of Linneus who travelled in Southern Africa.
6024. PelleNilsson - 5/16/2000 3:12:28 PM
Indy
Sorry for the off-topicality but I know Kuligin checks this thread whenever he logs in.
6025. phillipdavid - 5/16/2000 8:59:17 PM
I've posted a new essay on my religion site, Nazarene Nirvana, titled Grace and Works. Any feedback would be appreciated, especially concerning problems or awkward construction (it's a rough draft).
6026. mandolin - 5/16/2000 10:51:50 PM
Indiana: about the reality of color --
Most of this is paraphrased from Lakoff and Johnson's Philosophy in tthe Flesh, Basic Books, 1999, pp. 23-25.
Our experience of color is based on 4 things: wavelengths of reflected light, lighting conditions, the 3 kinds of color receptors in our retinas, and the neural circuitry connected to those receptors.
Reflectance is a property of a surface, the relative percentages of various wavelengths reflected by that surface. But the actual wavelengths reflected are not a constant -- bananas reflect different frequencies in tungsten, fluorescent lights, sunny or cloudy days, dawn or dusk. But they will still look yelllow -- color constancy depends on the brain's ability to compensate for the light source. Also, there is not a 1-to-1 relationship between reflectance and color ---- two different reflectances can be perceived as the same red.
Moreover, light is itself not colored. -- it isn't the kind of thing than can be colored -- it is just a certain combination of frequencies of electromagnetic radiation, some of which we can perceive and some of which we can't. When this radiation impinges on our retinas we are able to see a particular color when the light is right, the cones fire, and the brain appropriately processes those events. We call this 'color.' [cont]
6027. mandolin - 5/16/2000 10:53:14 PM
Color is not an internal representation of the external reality of the reflectance properties of an object -- if it were, then the properties of colors and color categories would be representations of reflectances and categories of reflectances, but color concepts have internal structures -- there is a central or canonical red, and purplish red, and pinkish red, and so on -- that have nothing to do with reflectances -- they are the result of neural response curves in our retinas and brains. The opposition between red and green or blue an yellow is a fact of our neural circuitry, not of reflectance. Colors are not an internal representation of an external world nor are they something 'out there' -- they are neither subjective nor objective but interactional . the meaning of the word 'red' is not a relationship between the word and some collection of wavelengths -- it must include our color cones and neural circuitry -- it is embodied, and thus, a product of our particular evolutionary history. "We have the color concepts we do because the physical limitations constraining evolution gave evolutionary advantages to beings with a color system that enabled them to function well in crucial respects. ... Thinking of color as merely the internal representation of the external reality of surface reflectance is not merely inaccurate; it misses most of the function of color in our lives." (p. 25)
6028. mandolin - 5/16/2000 11:15:41 PM
Indiana, in Message # 5964 you say "Some things exist only as concept: Superman--a man who can leap tall buildings in a single bound and bounce bullets off his chest--exists only as concept.
"Our earlier discussions--particularly when you said that the act of turning off a sentient computer is neither inherently good or bad, but only good or bad by societal consensus--makes me think you see morality as belonging to the second realm: purely a concept that is thus controllable by our perception of it."
But that is not an accurate statement of my view. Color and good and bad are not concepts in the sense that Superman is a concept -- something made up. Societal consensus depends on the kinds of creatures making up that society, on their evolutionary histories. Good and bad, like color, are not mere representations of something out there but are nevertheless emphatically not arbitrary and are the product of an embodiment --of abilities and behaviors which have led to greater survival rates for the ancestors of the beings in that society.
It may be that religion or the idea of a god or gods have, on the average, led to evolutionary success for those of us who have them. But that is no more an argument for the truth of religion than it is for the truth of red -- or for morality. I do not say "morality exists" -- I say morality is something we do that has worked for us. It is not something out there, unchangeable and eternal.
6029. mandolin - 5/16/2000 11:17:07 PM
phillipdavid -- I've bookmarked your site and will read it this weekend
6030. ee - 5/17/2000 3:19:44 AM
PD: I read the first third and skimmed the rest. I'll try to read the rest later. I think its clearly written.
Are you looking for doctrinal feedback?
I saw no referance to baptism? Romans 6 :3Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? .
I think it's an excellant essay and explains the gospel well but some of the ideas wrt our spiritual nature a stretch.
At first reading everything you wrote about grace and works seemed right.
6031. ee - 5/17/2000 3:29:08 AM
Jen: The most important thing for anyone is to stay strong spiritualy. If something is hindering the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
gentleness and self-control why not let it alone? And besides
You'll be back
6032. ee - 5/17/2000 3:35:23 AM
6033. ee - 5/17/2000 3:37:44 AM
oops 
6034. mandolin - 5/17/2000 8:46:03 AM
continuing Message # 6028: Further, despite the near-ubiquity of religious ideas in our species, there are good reasons to think 'God' has more in common with Superman than with 'color.'
For instance, we can ask questions about the nature of our experience of 'color' and get asymptotically convergent answers, even from wildly different approaches. About the broad outlines, and even many of the details, of our experience of color, there is no dispute among neuroscientists, ethologists, biochemists, evolutionary theorists, cognitive psychologists, and even philosophers, and what differences remain suggest fruitful lines of inquiry. No such convergence results from questions about the nature of our experience of deity.
We can do the same with morality that we do with color -- that is, we can form hypotheses about the evolution of morality; we can ask questions, build models, and do field work to test those hypotheses; we can refine them in the light of the work we have done and come to convergent answers to our questions -- unless we include revelation among our methods. Then all hell breaks loose. Pun intended.
It is almost certainly true that our minds, constrained as they are by our history, simply cannot ask some questions, and cannot discover or comprehend the answers to all the questions we can ask, and it is possible that a transcendant being exists which is simply beyond our comprehension. But, by definition, we can't think about such a being. If it cared to do so, perhaps it could tell us something about itself: we can train rats to run mazes. But what would that have to do with us?
6035. JayAckroyd - 5/17/2000 9:38:00 AM
1)Which of the following best describes your view of the existence of the divine:
atheist
2)Have you always held this view?
- yes
3)Did your parents hold this view?
- no
4)Were you raised in any particular faith?
- yes
5) If yes, how often did your family participate in organized observance?
monthly
6) Compared to your upbringing do you participate:
- less often
7) If you have or were to have children would you raise them in your faith?
yes
8) Do you participate in organized religious observances primarily:
- other I don't
(9) Which of the following best describes the faith of your parents:
- Christianity
10) Which of the following best describes your own faith:
- Other (Atheist)
11) Do you follow a particular sect or denomination of your faith?
No
6036. Indiana Jones - 5/17/2000 11:22:33 AM
Kuligin: It's fine with me whenever you want to do it. The only problem may be coordinating with wabbit. Maybe she could give you access to the thread whenever she's here next, and you can rename it on the day you officially take over.
6037. Indiana Jones - 5/17/2000 12:03:53 PM
mandolin (6027): The same arguments re color can be made for anything we experience through our senses--after all, a good part of sight is based on our perception of color. Of course our experience of something is modified by our biology and our previous experiences; I pointed out that some cultures don't hear certain sounds. Are you familiar with the Hebbian Learning rule? It appears inherent in the ways our brain forms connections.
Another example is the generally perceived racist statement "all you people look alike to me," when in fact it appears the statement has a biological basis. That is, people learn to pick up differences in those they associate with more than those they don't--the same way mothers believe they can differentiate their baby's cry from those of others. White people have a variety of hair colors, so a member of a predominantly white culture learns to use hair color as a marker. Someone in a predominantly African culture, for example, would learn to use some other feature. And the neural pathways that formed as a result would be different.
By definition, any experience is "interactional." Underlying reality (i.e., physical properties), however, are unchanged by our perception of it--at least in a materialist view. (Sometimes I think you're arguing the opposite of your stated philosophy and instead injecting a bit of "human-race solipsism.")
6038. Indiana Jones - 5/17/2000 12:03:59 PM
(cont.) I understand completely that what you continue to emphasize is that color and morality are not arbitrary concepts, but limited by biology and experience. However you want to phrase it, that would still be true about the concept of God as well.
"I do not say "morality exists" -- I say morality is something we do that has worked for us. It is not something out there, unchangeable and eternal."
Exactly. But to reiterate: you have two concepts, God and morality. Let's assume for a moment that we cannot know whether God exists to a greater degree than the morality you've described. Morality you say "works for us" and earlier you elaborated on this utility as something like providing pleasure, reducing pain, ensuring procreation. So even when you say morality doesn't quite exist (unchangeable, eternal), you believe in it because of what you perceive as its functionality.
Yet God is held to a different standard as though somehow guessing "wrong" about His existence (believing in Him when He does not in fact exist) is the silver bullet. For morality, however, you choose its utility as worth its ultimate fictionality. Your justification that I should obey it is that I'll (more or less) feel bad if I don't. Maybe I won't, but in any case, if God in actuality exists, you may certainly feel bad for not believing in Him (the Pascal argument).
My main point about your argument, however, is that it is based on the utility of a belief in (or subjugation to) something that does not in fact exist as other than your (or our) belief.
6039. Indiana Jones - 5/17/2000 12:05:12 PM
mandolin: I also want to discuss the nature of the morality you describe, but these other points are keeping me busy enough.
6040. mandolin - 5/17/2000 12:36:16 PM
Indiana, you say "So even when you say morality doesn't quite exist (unchangeable, eternal), you believe in it because of what you perceive as its functionality." emphasis added.
This is the crux. Things do not have to be unchangeable and eternal in order to exist in the fullest sense. In fact, as far as we can tell now, mutability is a precondition for existence: at the most fundamental level we have Einstein's famous equation and 50 years of quantum mechanics.
You are correct that my arguments about the nature of color apply to every aspect of our experience -- our world, at least what we can know of it, is constructed. We cannot know the underlying reality of anything. But this is not the post-modern Derridean sense of construction. It is not made out of whole cloth because about those things that have been important for our survival, including our relations with others, we've come to be pretty darn good -- and if we hadn't, we wouldn't be here. There is a world out there, and we have a relationship to it. About those parts of the world that are knowable in part, we can devise methods for asymptotic convergence to that knowledge.
About deity we have, so far, shown no such ability. Either there are no gods, or they are beyond what we can know, and in either case they cannot teach us what we should do, though I suppose they could punish or reward us so that we behave as they think we should.
I'm surprised you bring up Pascal's Wager. It's not a good bet. The Buddha teaches that suffering is inevitable, that we will be reborn into suffering until all desire, including the desire for non-suffering, is gone -- if he was right Pascal is still on the wheel of karma. If Islam is correct he did not find paradise. If Shinto is the right teaching, he is an angry, neglected ghost. Your odds are probably better in Las Vegas.
6041. RickNelson - 5/17/2000 12:37:44 PM
Thanks for sharing your HP pd.
6042. mandolin - 5/17/2000 12:56:04 PM
Indiana, you also write "My main point about your argument, however, is that it is based on the utility of a belief in (or subjugation to) something that does not in fact exist as other than your (or our) belief."
I am not arguing that morality can be determined by considering what it is pragmatic to do now. I'm saying that the things we care about and the tools we can bring to the investigation have been shaped by our evolutionary history -- by the utility of past abilities and behaviors in producing offspring which led eventually to us.
But the world changes. Evolution is always adaptation to local conditions -- it has no direction, no purpose. The abilities and behaviors we have evolved may not help us now, in a world of 6 billion people, nuclear weapons, and engineered anthrax.
Convergent answers from independent lines of inquiry is a strong argument for the relative accuracy of those answers. My confidence in the existence of something increases when many independent lines of evidence, capable of verification and extension, point to it. There is such convergence for the view of morality which I have been advocating. That doesn't mean it's completely accurate -- but for now it's the best basis we have understanding our actions. Perhaps through understanding we can avert catastrophe.
6043. sakonige - 5/17/2000 1:28:07 PM
mandolin, beautifully stated observations. It is remarkable that you can see the evolution and tangibility of good in nature, and yet you doubt the good in human nature.
6044. mandolin - 5/17/2000 2:02:17 PM
Sakonige --
I've been arguing that 'good' must be dependent on our history, that it simply doesn't exist as a property of nature. It can only be a property of human beings and action, and then only from the point of view of other humans.
I think most people are good in that sense, and would be surprised if they weren't. In fact, it would be fatal to my argument, which requires that most of the time we tend toward actions we feel, because of our history, to be right.
That doesn't necessarily mean that, in the current context, our previous history will be of much help in insuring our survival.
6045. mandolin - 5/17/2000 2:05:59 PM
Let me try to be very clear:
There is no morality in the sense of an unchanging set of rules of behavior applicable to all sentient beings.
Beings which can form alternative scenarios of their behavior and choose between those scenarios will base their choices on evolutionary, individual, and, for social beings, something like cultural history.
Evolutionary history provides the baseline for these choices. Forms of action which have, in the past, led to better average reproductive success will tend to feel 'right' because members of the species which felt that way, on the average, had more descendants. Forms of action which led to differential reproductive failure will tend to feel 'wrong' for the same reason.
For a species such as ourselves, we can predict some of the nature of that evolutionary baseline. Sex will seem good, but there will be constraints on when and with whom it is appropriate. Resources will be shared with members of a society, particularly with close relations, but those outside will not normally have access. There will be strong feelings against any but retaliatory violence within the group, but individual interest will occasionally trump those feelings, and theft and lies (since information will be valuable) within the group will be percieved as a kind of violence deserving retaliation. Violence against those outside the group will be constrained differently -- what are the relative prospects of a successful outcome?
This is testable. Are there predictable differences in the behavior of social and non-social species? Pair-bonding and non-pair-bonding species? Long-lived and short-lived species? Are any of the predicted behaviors not included in the 'good' of a major human moral system? Do any major human moral systems sanction behavior the model would seem to proscribe? If so, why?
I've got to get paid real work done -- back later
6046. KuligintheHooligan - 5/17/2000 2:30:05 PM
pelle, just saw your post to me about Namibia. Very interesting. Where did you get it? I haven't heard of that here.
Currently the Africities 2000 convention is happening here in Windhoek. This is a real plus for Namibia. Hosting about 1500 people, it will display the country as peaceful, safe, and secure (just don't go up north!). Our convention facilities are really first-rate here as well. Should be a major plus for Namibian publicity.
[posted here instead of International Thread because I'll never be able to catch pelle's response over there]
6047. Jenerator - 5/17/2000 2:35:39 PM
The photo of the year from Wanderlust magazine is of three hunters walking across the sandy Namibian desert.
6048. KuligintheHooligan - 5/17/2000 2:40:27 PM
Jenerator, any idea where I could see that photo? Thanks.
6049. Jenerator - 5/17/2000 2:46:23 PM
I don't know the web address of the magazine off-hand. After doing a quick search on Infoseek, I came across www.wanderlust.com, but the site is under construction. It's an excellent international travel magazine, it may be available in Namibia - I don't know. This particular issue was the April/May issue.
6050. KuligintheHooligan - 5/17/2000 2:49:52 PM
Thanks Jenerator. I have personally attempted to get some nice photos of the desert in Namibia but with rare success. Actually, I do have some nice photos of various parts of Namibia, and wish I could post them in the Mote, but I suppose I would need a website with which to do that first, right? Just one of the many things I'd like to do but haven't the time.
Speaking of time, I need to work on my Doctrine of Scripture course. I have finished my Ethics course and Church History course (BTW, I revamped my handbooks on the Church History, so the ones I gave you way back when (when we still liked each other) are obsolete!).
You can use them (if you haven't already) with Sadie! :-)
6051. Jenerator - 5/17/2000 2:54:40 PM
That's a little severe. Are you suggesting that your previous work is worthy of dog-poo? Besides, I'd never wipe Sadie with notebook paper, it would hurt her delicate buns.
6052. sakonige - 5/17/2000 4:31:19 PM
mandolin -
There is no morality in the sense of an unchanging set of rules of behavior applicable to all sentient beings.
We cannot know the underlying reality of anything.
Things do not have to be unchangeable and eternal in order to exist in the fullest sense....We cannot know the underlying reality of anything....There is a world out there, and we have a [real, knowable] relationship to it...About those parts of the world that are knowable in part, we can devise methods for asymptotic convergence to that knowledge.
The best choices don't just feel right, they are right.
6053. mandolin - 5/17/2000 6:00:33 PM
Sakonige: "The best choices don't just feel right, they are right."
But I say choices feel right which, on the average, follow the structure of choices which, in the past, on the average, led to greater reproductive success. They may be very wrong under current situations.
We can exmaine the structure of our morality, just as we can any other natural phenomenon. And we can, I hope, use our knowledge of the biases built into our minds and bodies to help make better choices now -- with a much broader and perhaps more inclusive view of what is necessary for continued reproductive success.
6054. sakonige - 5/17/2000 6:40:19 PM
But I say choices feel right which....may be very wrong under current situations.
The benefit of evolving into sensitive guy is the ability to identify your real feelings.
6055. marshame - 5/17/2000 6:49:28 PM
"There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death."
King Solomon, 1000 BC
6056. sakonige - 5/17/2000 6:50:30 PM
Message # 6055
An evil and poisonous Old World idea.
6057. sakonige - 5/17/2000 6:52:49 PM
mandolin, the toxic type of thinking embodied in the quote in #6056 may destroy ones ability to discern the sensation of good in the world.
6058. marshame - 5/17/2000 6:53:13 PM
How so? I imagine most of the great criminals of the world were convinced in their own minds of their "rightness."
6059. sakonige - 5/17/2000 6:55:21 PM
I'm sure you imagine all kinds of things.
6060. sakonige - 5/17/2000 7:10:45 PM
...as a person who accepts the mythology of the Bible, that is.
The worst crimes I can think of were committed by irrational religious people.
6061. marshame - 5/17/2000 7:16:34 PM
I believe the "irrational" part is probably the more significant characteristic in the criminal mind.
6062. sakonige - 5/17/2000 7:19:50 PM
I agree.
6063. marshame - 5/17/2000 7:21:16 PM
Well, we agree on something! Time for me to go home. Good night Sakonige.
6064. sakonige - 5/17/2000 7:22:38 PM
goodnight!
6065. mandolin - 5/17/2000 7:31:58 PM
I'm not sure it's evil and pernicious--but it isn't Solomon and it isn't from the 10th century BC. The earliest parts of the Book of Proverbs are from about 700 BC -- long after the death of Solomon.
I think that the ways we learned on the African plains may well not be the ways which will enable us to live from now on. But we must understand them.
6066. sakonige - 5/17/2000 7:41:07 PM
The ways we learned to cooperate on the Great Plains may get us quite a bit further.
6067. mandolin - 5/17/2000 9:19:27 PM
Most native American peoples didn't live on the plains, and their lives there were very different before the Spaniards re-introduced the horse in the 16th century. It was far too short a time and far too few people to make any difference in an evoultionary sense.
Before modern European contact the peoples of the Americas were as diverse as those everywhere else on earth: farmers, city-builders, hunter-gatherers, nomads, chiefdoms, kingdoms, small bands, peaceful tribes and ruthless warriors. What they didn't have was a large variety of domestic animals because they or some earlier peoples had killed off the American mega-fauna -- horses, elephants, camels (except the llama and its small relatives in the Andes), all but one kind of bison. That was unfortunate for them, since without a variety of domestic animals they had few contagious diseases to trade for the measles and smallpox. See Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel.
Moreover, the once-solid consensus that the ancestors of today's Native Peoples were the first humans in the Americas has begun to erode -- there is a real possibility that they did to the first Americans what we did to them. Not that that justifies the history of European atrocities committed against them, but it is naive to suppose that they, a or any group of people, has any special moral or spiritual advantage over any other.
6069. sakonige - 5/17/2000 9:49:17 PM
The idea of a natural family the permeates Western concepts of human nature is flawed. Cooperation of the kind that existed on the Great Plains, where noone lived, is completely overlooked.
6071. paragate - 5/17/2000 10:29:39 PM
Mandolin, I am not very adept at making arguments but I have some pretty strong intuitions. The kind of materialist philosophy you seem to espouse feels to me suspiciously like an effort to cram thoughts into a box or a single method of understanding the world or a single "language game." It sounds a bit like a nouvelle logical positivism: only certain kinds of statements are verifiable and therefore carry truth value. But the notorious problem is how to independently verify the verification theory, aside from perhaps some kind of pragmatic verification.
My intuition tells me that true, we are evolving, embodied beings (having perhaps more than one body) who also exist and have our being along a transcendental axis(perhaps also evolving in a more grand scheme & therefore only relatively immutable) which is "perceived" through the eye of the imagination. Granted that the evidence of the imagination as to what beings are admitted as existing is difficult but precluding such intuitions of "divine" reality strikes me as unecessary hubris. I just don't feel the need to converge on a single method of understanding.
Pardon me if i am misreading your assumptions & argument.
6072. sakonige - 5/17/2000 10:39:08 PM
paragate -
What are intuitions?
6073. sakonige - 5/17/2000 10:39:58 PM
I don't know whether I have them or not, from your point of view.
6074. mandolin - 5/17/2000 10:43:45 PM
sakonige -- sources on plains family structure amd NA history?
6075. sakonige - 5/17/2000 10:46:12 PM
yes?
6077. paragate - 5/17/2000 10:50:19 PM
That's a good question. I think of an intuition as some kind of synthetic cross between a perception, a thought, a feeling, an imagined image and sometimes even a memory. It seems to me that intuition can be an admixture of the above list with differing weights for different people and even for the same person on seperate occasions. How is that for vague response?
6078. mandolin - 5/17/2000 10:50:45 PM
paragate --
It is too late to respond tonight to a question about the relationship of positivism and the way it handles 'truth' and the way implied by what I have been saying. I will try this weekend.
I have no idea what you mean by a transcendental axis, or if by "more than one body" you mean reincarnation or something else
6081. paragate - 5/17/2000 11:00:14 PM
Again, just intuitions: I don't find the idea that we are bodied in progressively spiritual or refined material bodies which might continue to exist in a refined material/spiritual dimension implausible. Reincarnation is not an article of my firmly held beliefs but again it sounds right to me if such transcendental dimensions do "exist".
6082. paragate - 5/17/2000 11:01:17 PM
Good night here as well. Very late.
6083. sakonige - 5/17/2000 11:06:39 PM
mandolin,
I mean literally, the physical evidence you demand is under you all the time, under the pavement some one of your community owns.
6084. sakonige - 5/17/2000 11:11:18 PM
Goodnight! It's a little after 8pm on a flower scented sea breeze late light Pacific Northwest Spring evening here. I plan to have another glass of WA merlot and read an a few odd short stories from a local rez.
6085. sakonige - 5/17/2000 11:12:13 PM
urk
6086. mandolin - 5/18/2000 8:16:45 AM
Sakonige, I'm not looking for physical evidence. First, I'm not a trained anthropologist or archeologist and I wouldn't know how to interpret it if I found it. Second, even if I were, I live in North Carolina, where there are no plains and there were certainly no Plains Indians. Native peoples here were small farmers in small, settled villages. In the western part of the state there was some influence from the Mississippian culture, with the Town Creek mound being the easternmost permanent settlement of theirs. The Mississippians had more in common with the Aztecs than with the Kiowa.
6087. uzmakk - 5/18/2000 8:43:22 AM
Medawar observes that the standard form of presentation required of an ordinary scientific paper represents the very reverse of what the investigator was in fact doing. In reality, says Medawar, the hypothesis (the hunch, the intuition, the feeling) is first posited, and becomes the medium through which certain otherwise obscure facts, later to be collected in support of it, are first clearly seen. But the account in the paper is expected to give the impression that such facts first suggested the hypothesis, irrespective of whether this impression is truly representative.
In mathematics we see the process in reverse.......
...I would not recommend that we should do otherwise in either field. By all accounts, to tell the story backwards is convienient and saves time. But to pretend that the story was actually lived backwards can be extremely mystifying.
G. Spencer Brown, Laws of Form
*parenthetical is my addition
6088. uzmakk - 5/18/2000 8:44:49 AM
i.e., the above post has to do with intuition
6089. Jenerator - 5/18/2000 10:40:16 AM
Sakonige,
I see that you were busy in here last night, but didn't answer the questions asked of you in the Inferno. I'm still waiting for you to get specific with the persecutions against you, your family and your heritage - based on your Indian-ness. (Acts committed by me, remember?) Your lack of response indicates that 1)there aren't any persecutions against you, your family, or your heritage, and there haven't been 2) you blame and scape-goat whoever you want to for unknown irrational reasons.
Finally,
"We cannot know the underlying reality of anything."
If you cannot rely on any of your perceptions, you must doubt your own existence.
6090. Jenerator - 5/18/2000 10:41:45 AM
Uzmakk,
I was reading that faith used to be synonomous with intuition.
6091. sakonige - 5/18/2000 10:46:04 AM
mandolin -
The Mississippians traded a wide range of goods with the various people who gathered to hunt the plains. They had trade languages in common with them, they attended international festivals and intermarried with them. You have probably heard there were wars. And it's the Mayas rather than the Aztecs who were the dominant cultural influence throughout North American you are thinking of. You're not trying very hard to find evidence of that exotic, unknown world that is all around you. Have you visited the Town Creek site?
6092. mandolin - 5/18/2000 11:28:48 AM
Didn't say the Mississippians had nothing to do with the plains people--of course there was trade and other contacts. But their social structures --kingdom or strong central cheifdom, large permanent settlements (some city-sized), agriculture based economy, ritual sacrifice -- were much more like those of the Aztecs, and, yes, the Maya, the Olmec, the Toltec etc., than that of any of the plains peoples.
I haven't been to Town Creek -- but I haven't managed to get to the nearby Merle Fest either. Every time I've made plans to get to either my band has gotten a gig or one of the kids got sick or I had to work a weekend on a rush project or the car broke down 0r -- well, the damn creek rose.
I'm asking you to point me to written material about family structures among the plains peoples and how those structures differ in significant ways from those found elsewhere. If you don't want to that, fine. When and if I get time, I'll do some research.
6093. bloodnfire - 5/18/2000 11:29:47 AM
Enjoyed your essay, PhillipDavid. Particularly..."What do yeast and a mustard seed have in common? Both have an effect out of proportion to their size. What else has these same properties?
The divine spark, the seed of Christ within us all -- what the Hindus call the "Atman". Hidden inside each person, it is so little it cannot be seen.
Yet it also contains the allness of God; it is so vast it cannot be comprehended."
Thank you for your efforts, and God bless them.
6094. mandolin - 5/18/2000 11:37:33 AM
uzmakk -- your quote in Message # 6087 is highly relevant to the distinction between positivism and my view. More this weekend, maybe tonight. Not the kind of thing I can do on the fly at work.
6096. sakonige - 5/18/2000 12:27:15 PM
Jenerator -
re: Message # 6089
I'm busy here now, too, and work isn't the best place to post insults to religion on the internet. I should save it for desert after work.
6097. Jenerator - 5/18/2000 12:33:17 PM
Religion or Christianity in particular? No insults needed, just get specific, this time (when you are home).
6098. sakonige - 5/18/2000 12:37:49 PM
You asked what it is I don't like about you and your religion.
You've specifically asked to be insulted.
6099. Jenerator - 5/18/2000 12:40:53 PM
No, what I asked was what have I done to harm you, your family, or your heritage.
I also asked what you meant by New World and how the Christians are conquering it. (I'm still curious about which particular beliefs you hate, and where it says in the Bible for us to be worldy, but that's for another day.)
6100. marshame - 5/18/2000 12:42:51 PM
Jenerator check your e-mail.
6163. Indiana Jones - 5/18/2000 6:21:09 PM
I've added a new article to the current articles list: "Can Philosophy Be Christian?"
It came from this site, which looks interesting.
6176. paragate - 5/18/2000 9:43:47 PM
Indiana, Thanks a lot for the link in Message # 6163 There are several articles pertinent to the ethics discussion and some relevant to Dennet's neo-materialist philosophy.
6177. theDiva - 5/18/2000 9:44:28 PM
mandolin
Earlier today you mentioned Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel...there was a thread devoted to the book back about 16 months ago in the Fray. You can find it here if you're interested.
6178. sakonige - 5/18/2000 9:48:07 PM
dammit! I think I really did fry my laptop this time, and I'm probably not going to compete sucessfully for this computer for long. Apologies to anyone I seem to leave hanging when I get booted.
6211. Indiana Jones - 5/20/2000 3:58:04 PM
The matriarchy/patriarchy discussion has been moved to the new "Tunnel of Love/Tower of Lust" thread.
6212. Jenerator - 5/21/2000 10:08:59 AM
Indy,
I wasn't sure if this should be in the Books Thread, but lately, I've been fascinated with Lin Yutang's work. The latest I have of his is From Pagan to Christian. Anyway, this is a website of Buddhist teachings translated clearly and efficiently by Dr. Yutang.
www.yogichen.org.
6213. uzmakk - 5/21/2000 11:34:21 AM
Jenerator:
Lin Yutang? Ist half of this century? 40's 50's. I think I read something by him called The Art of Living.
6218. sakonige - 5/21/2000 1:29:00 PM
spudboy,
It is unfortunate that this discussion has been terminated by the moderators. I was looking forward to chatting with you today, asking about your experiences and books you have read. I had just begun crafing a couple of responses.
6202. spudboy - 5/20/00 2:58:12 AM
Western civilizations were notably eliminationist WRT their enemies, while Americans were typically assimilationist. More to the point, they completely lacked the Western perspective that regarded non-whites as essentially subhuman.
The earliest Spanish accounts of the natives in the area of the US Southeast remarked on the variation in skin color, from dark as African to fair skinned, red haired and grey eyed.
I have been fascinated by their civilization and its seeming disappearance in the 11th-13th centuries for a long time, and have spent a fair amount of time in the Yucatan with them.
I've always assumed some of the Maya went north along trade routes to live with nicer relatives when the Aztecs moved in, took over and started eating them....
I wonder how much the assimilationist character of American societies confounds efforts to use classic linguistic analysis to identify their historic migrations...
6219. sakonige - 5/21/2000 1:35:49 PM
More to the point, they completely lacked the Western perspective that regarded non-whites as essentially subhuman.
I believe this is a concept rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition of God the Father.
6220. sakonige - 5/21/2000 1:59:33 PM
Christian bigotry is the obvious reason every mention of American Indian religion is moved to the toilet in this forum. Isn't that correct, IndianaJones?
6222. uzmakk - 5/21/2000 8:16:02 PM
bite my tounge, bite my lip, bite my tounge
6223. KuligintheHooligan - 5/22/2000 9:20:07 AM
Taking a break from the years old Christian attrocities in the "New World," let's look at some present-day attrocities:
"It was an ordinary day for 11-year-old Randa. A student at a grade school in southern Sudan, Randa had just sat down to begin her English lesson. It was the last thing Randa ever did. Moments later, Russian-made bombers began dropping anti-personnel bombs all over the school. Randa and 13 of her classmates were killed, along with their teacher. Some were decapitated by flying shrapnel. Other children had arms and legs torn from their bodies.
It was just an ordinary day for Sudan's radical Muslim regime. As a government spokesman put it, "The bombs landed where they were supposed to land."
It's because of atrocities like these that human rights workers in the U.S. are launching The Sudan Campaign, beginning next Tuesday, May 23, 2000. It's a two-week drive to publicize the slavery, persecution, and genocide being inflicted upon millions of Sudanese Christians by the militant Muslim government.
A broad coalition of human rights groups will participate in the campaign. Thousands will engage in prayer vigils, peaceful protests, teach-ins, and a march to the White House to petition the President. Colorado school teacher Barbara Vogel is bringing her class of fourth-graders -- pint-sized abolitionists who raise money to buy the freedom of Sudanese slaves. They've done more than most Congressmen to
ease the suffering of Sudanese Christians.
Dr. Charles Jacobs, director of the campaign, says the most important goal is to get President Clinton to pressure Sudanese leaders to improve human rights. The president's own Commission on International
Religious Freedom tells the horrific story. Its report details the bombing of schools and churches --rape, murder, starvation, and the enslavement of Christian populations. Two million people have
already been killed. (Cont)
6225. KuligintheHooligan - 5/22/2000 9:22:21 AM
These are horrors almost too great to imagine. And after all, Sudan is far away from our comfortable lives in America. We see very little on the news about what's going on there. Maybe that's why, a few months ago, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told human rights workers a blunt truth: That the Sudan issue is not "marketable" to the American people.
You and I have to do everything we can to MAKE this issue marketable -- not only to ordinary citizens but to our poll-driven President and Mrs. Albright. Instead of letting them think of Sudan's victims as a vast blur of anonymous people, we have to make little Randa, her classmates, and her teacher just as real as those 13 children and one teacher murdered at an American school, Columbine.
We must help them understand that the parents of Randa and her "unmarketable" classmates are just as grief-stricken as those Colorado parents." [END]
6226. Jenerator - 5/22/2000 10:01:42 AM
Terribly sad story, Vic. Are you still thinking of going to the Sudan?
[P.s. It's aTrocity, remember?;-)]
6227. RickNelson - 5/22/2000 10:54:54 AM
Dang, Kuligan. The palitability issue that Albright thinks is appropos is a cop-out. The two faced mentality of the politicians is so unacceptable, yet the media, one of the only recourses available, is slow to meet the needs of efforts like the one you mention above.
I haven't had a reminder of the Sudanese atrocity for a long time. It helps to learn of these things. I get caught up in the problems of a region very dear to my heart and then see that those problems, though great are not yet of the life threatening kind. I pray that the muslems of the region I have prayers for do not get caught up in "CAUSES" that create undo strife. Leadership in the region I'm concerned about is very cronyish and has a bad history of abuse of power for personal gain. That is a recipe for bitterness and can lead to destructive activities, for example, Myanmar.
Anyway, the update is taken in prayerful consideration. May God take those helpless souls, keep them strong in his hands, let them have peace in heart, hope only in God and some knowledge they are not alone, because of the thoughts you have spread today.
6228. PelleNilsson - 5/22/2000 11:34:43 AM
Let me just note that the mainly Christian south has fought a secessionist war against Khartoum ever since independence in 1956, albeit with a few years calm under Numeiry in the 70's. This is not to excuse the present atrocities but there is a bit more to it than evil Muslims bombing innocent Christians.
6229. bloodnfire - 5/22/2000 11:51:38 AM
Sakonige. Your Message # 6220. "Christian bigotry is the obvious reason every mention of American Indian religion is moved to the toilet in this forum. Isn't that correct, IndianaJones?"
With the utmost respect Sak, I truly feel that you are extremely bigoted and close-minded regarding Christianity, and 'paint' with a ridiculously 'wide brush'. Your rudeness, bitterness and spite is very unbecoming, and sad, in my humble opinion. I do not remember anyone mocking the religious beliefs of American Indians in this thread. I personally have always been blessed by all that I know of Native American faith, and by the grace and gentleness it promotes in some human hearts. I would be grateful for a little more evidence of it in yours.
6230. RickNelson - 5/22/2000 12:01:35 PM
Tolerance is a gift is it not.
bloodnfire,
I've been witness to many shares if thought through this forum. I'm grateful for you. I read your shared thoughts as often as possible. I find them centered in faith. I am grateful to have your witness.
God has been around me. Kept me. I'm willing to let that happen now. The thoughts that keep so much of life in tumult can have their grip loosened. I'm learning to listen with my heart lately.
The words that leap into mind have become less muddled with the bitterness of sarcasm and anger for the heart that I'm looking into. Or is it that I'm letting it out. Whichever, the never too late adage is one to keep in mind with regard ot me.
Miracles happen.
Peace.
6231. RickNelson - 5/22/2000 12:04:04 PM
I'll be in later.
Ciao
6232. Jenerator - 5/22/2000 3:01:19 PM
Rick,
Speaking of levity, your cheerful and peaceful posts are always calming. Again, I must thank you for your encouraging words early last week. I'm sticking around because of people like you, bloodnfire, and so on.
6233. sakonige - 5/22/2000 4:26:10 PM
It's easy to see that Christianity is nothing more than glorified penis worship.
6234. sakonige - 5/22/2000 4:29:38 PM
Jesus Christ belongs in one of the toilet threads.
6235. sakonige - 5/22/2000 4:33:10 PM
6236. RickNelson - 5/22/2000 4:33:11 PM
is this how we respect the earth and it's gifts Sakonige?
Let it go. You know this it's futile to be offencive.
Be above that. You are better than that and will be a stronger witness of the struggle and power native cultures represent.
6237. RickNelson - 5/22/2000 4:35:10 PM
It isn't about Christ and you Sakonige.
You have the strength of ancestors and don't need this white bread futility.
Be stronger than the futility abusive words.
6238. rubberducky7 - 5/22/2000 4:36:50 PM
hmm
think i saw Message # 6235 on a bumper sticker once. cute car.
6239. RickNelson - 5/22/2000 4:38:08 PM
Have you been to any strong festivals lately.
I would be interested in the tales of native cultural community.
The heratige of those cultures can be a strength all persons can learn from.
Share it if you will.
6241. RickNelson - 5/22/2000 4:48:04 PM
Your tantrum will likely insite derogatory responses from some.
I'm still going to let you be you. I think you're overdoing something. If you are as I presume acting out of character...
Well, I've been around long enough to leave you alone as needed.
I hope you will come out of this latest and find your gifts and renewal with your own spirits.
Good luck.
6243. RickNelson - 5/22/2000 4:51:24 PM
My opinions are borrowed from what I've found to be human traits I can emulate.
I respect your right to be whatever you've got to be.
Then, know, I am one who is always waiting patiently for the kind of sharing that comes from the heart.
Again, Sakonige, you are not alone with your anger towards deceitful, gratuituous, self centered, over ingulgent behavior. The worlds woes are largely derived from selfishness.
6244. RickNelson - 5/22/2000 4:56:47 PM
You can have more effect upon the religous thread when you share your religion with tolerance for others.
I agree you get the brunt of many folk here. You've lost your patience obviously.
I'm sorry to have lost your side of things.
6245. RickNelson - 5/22/2000 4:58:59 PM
I really think you have a culture that to share Sakonige.
I pray you find the strength that ancestors give, to keep your heart, to let go of the worlds' hold.
6261. Jenerator - 5/23/2000 11:30:06 AM
Uzmakk,
Yutang wrote The Importance of Living, probably what you were thinking of. Did you like it? I think he's off a little in some of his positions regarding Christianity, but he's a 'new' believer, so that's fine. Plus, he describes Taoism, Confuscianism, and Buddhism wonderfully well, so I've enjoyed reading him.
6262. mandolin - 5/23/2000 12:12:12 PM
Minor household crises, a visit from an old friend, and troubles at the DSLAM (Digital Subscriber Line (Loop?) Access Module) kept me off line and away from positivism over the last several days. I apologize, and will try to address the issue with this and the following posts -- then I'll get caught up on what others have said.
Some disclaimers: I am not a philosopher, and I don't think I've ever seen one on TV. Since it is quite impossible for me to give an outline of all the various positivisms, I've tried to stick to aspects which are fairly universal and which are flatly contradicted by my views, which are quite similar to those presented in Lakoff and Johnson's Philosophy in the Flesh, and have been influenced, as well, by what I've read of Gerald Edelman, Antonio and Hannah Damasio, Steven Pinker, Marvin Minsky, William Calvin, and others. They don't always agree with each other. No doubt many here can and will point out my errors on both sides.
[cont]
6263. mandolin - 5/23/2000 12:13:23 PM
Positivism maintains that there is an external world, accesssible through our senses and their extensions. With this I agree. But it also assumes that the senses have no role in constructing experience -- that is, that while the inadequacies of our senses and instruments may limit what we can know about the external world (we can't see bacteria or polarized light), the things we do know through the senses are in fact properties of the world, or at least that there is a reliable mapping from our experience to those properties. With this I disagree -- as the simple example of color shows, sometimes what we experience depends for its nature on the structure of our sense organs and minds.
Positivism (especially logical positivism and other traditions of analytic philosophy) also claims that reason (or logic or whatever your favorite term) has an a priori structure, entirely unconstrained the physical stuff in which it is manifested. This is also the argument in strong AI: a brain may be necessary for thinking, but it doesn't matter what the brain is made of because it's the rules of thinking that matter. I think this notion is profoundly wrong -- following Lakoff and Johnson, I claim that (1) thought and reason are embodied, dependent on the structure and physical qualities of the brain, (2) most thought is unconscious and unavailable to introspection or analysis, though we may be able to 'watch' its action with MRI and other tools, and (3) thought and reason proceed primarily by means of metaphors and categories based on our bodily experience (moving through space, manipulating objects, eating, sex, and so on) rather than by universal rules of logic or universal categories which are simply 'out there' in the world.
[cont]
6264. mandolin - 5/23/2000 12:14:13 PM
I assume that when paragate mentions the 'verification problem' he/she is talking about the result in logic (the name escapes me) which demonstrates that one cannot piecemeal verify a mapping of a system of statements to the world -it has to be done all at once, what Quine calls 'meaning holism.' For me, the problem does not arise: there is no hope in the first place of arriving at an 'objective truth' about the world or anything else. But the fact that thought and reasoning are based, in large part, on our shared evolutionary history, makes it possible for us to agree among ourselves, most of the time, about the truth of various statements about the world and ourselves, and also guarantees that about salient aspects of the world (where food is, for instance) we are very likely to be correct.
My position also enables reasoning about things, such as ethics, which are out of bounds in strict positivism. There certainly is no moral absolute, nor is there an absolute moral calculus of 'goods' as in utilitarianism, but we can examine where our moral notions come from, and work from that basis through metaphorical exxtension (as we do in almost all thinking).
Gods, however, remain problematic. Or not -- for me, the interesting question is not whether spirits of any kind exist, but why so many people think they do. But I've spouted enough for a while.
6265. Indiana Jones - 5/23/2000 12:58:51 PM
mandolin: Welcome back. I was afraid the recent discombobulations might have been off-putting for you.
6266. PelleNilsson - 5/23/2000 12:59:04 PM
mandolin
I just read your interesting post. Unfortunately there are things I have to do. I'll be back in an hour or two.
6267. bloodnfire - 5/23/2000 1:00:50 PM
Jen, as you know I'm on vacation, and left my address book in my home PC. Would you e-mail me please so I can communicate with you ? Thanks.
6268. Jenerator - 5/23/2000 1:03:37 PM
Will do, right now!;-)
6269. bloodnfire - 5/23/2000 1:26:50 PM
Rubberducky. I read 'Love You Forever', the childrens' book mentioned in FadetoBlack. I agree with the editor's feelings that it expresses that which mere 'Religion' promises but doesn't deliver. It only serves to emphasize that which I have mentioned before. Mere "Religion", a cerebral attempt to intellectualize God, is empty and stinks of death. However the love one finds in a 'relationship' with God delivers all of the tenderness, sweetness and devotion of the kind the book describes, and so much more. I hope the editor learns it's true (to his delighted, and perhaps embarrassed) surprise.
It moved one person to write...
"The Love of God is greater far
than tongue or pen can ever tell,
It goes beyond the farthest star,
and reaches to the deepest hell,
Oh Love of God! How rich and pure,
How measureless and strong,
It shall for evermore endure,
The saints' and angels' song.
Could we with ink the oceans fill,
and were the skies of parchment made,
Were every stalk on earth a quill,
and every man a scribe by trade,
To write the love of God above
would drain the oceans dry,
Nor could the scroll contain the whole
though stretched from sky to sky"
But as an old Scottish preacher once said, it's even more
wonderful felt than 'tellt... :-)
6270. rubberducky7 - 5/23/2000 1:36:00 PM
bloodnfire:
so that's a recommendation, correct?
6271. bloodnfire - 5/23/2000 1:56:08 PM
Correct. It's charming.
6272. mandolin - 5/23/2000 2:05:18 PM
Is that the Munch/McGraw Love You Forever? I love that book, and my kids loved that book -- though, in the 3rd and 5th grades now, they think it's for those unbelievably simple 1st graders.
Munch has done a number of really wonderful stories for small children -- Stephanie's Ponytail, The Paper Bag Princess, Angela's Airplane, among others.
6273. PelleNilsson - 5/23/2000 3:47:44 PM
mandolin
Positivism does indeed cover a lot of things. But since you replied to paragate who had referred to the 'verification problem' I shall address logical positivism which was embraced by the so called Vienna Circle which flourished in the 20s and 30s with names as Carnap and Neurath. Wittgenstein appeared on the fringes. Their project was to draw a sharp dividing line between science and metaphysics. They were Kantians and used Kant's toolbox distinguishing between 'a priori' and 'a posteriori' knowledge and between 'analytical' and synthetic'statements but let's not get caught up in the technicalities.
Their point was that for a statement to be called scientific it must be possible to verify by experiements and observations. They introduced the the concept of 'intersubjectivity' meaning that an experiment is only valid if it yields the same result to different independent observers.
The application of the verification criterion means that the statement 'lead is heavier than iron' is science but 'it is wrong to kill' is not.
You say that My position also enables reasoning about things, such as ethics, which are out of bounds in strict positivism. I think you overstate things here. Ethics is 'out of bounds' in the sense that it cannot be subject to scientific inquiry as defined by the positivists. But they positivists do not -this is important - reject metaphysics. They consider moral and ethics, arts and music, literature as essential to human society. But not as science.
To say 'I'm a positivist so I cannot discuss ethics' is to have misunderstood.
6274. mandolin - 5/23/2000 4:24:23 PM
PelleNillson -- thanks for your clarifying post. I knew that positivists did not reject ethics as a topic for discussion, but I expressed myself badly.
What I would claim (I believe in contra-distinction to the positivists), is that it is possible to discuss the human activities of art, ethics, music, etc, in scientific terms. Not that one could scientifically determine the worth of one painting vs another, or scientifically prove what the best course of action is in a particular situation, but that the the bases for these human actions and for our reactions to them are legitimate areas of scientific inquiry.
In particular, it is legitimate to ask in a scientific way why we have the notion of 'good' at all and why we generally consider some things 'good' and others 'bad,' and it is possible to design a research program which has a fair chance of success in answering those questions for us as a species. We could discover why most people believe it is wrong to kill, even if we could not decide scientifically whether, forever and always, it is wrong to kill.
But the real difference isn't in the status of moral statements but in the status of truth statements. I would say, with the positivists, that intersubjectivity is a pre-requisite, but would add that such agreement among independent observers may only be possible among beings with a similar evolutionary history.
6275. PelleNilsson - 5/23/2000 4:48:38 PM
mandolin
I agree that the question "why do we have moral values and why is there a remarkable similarity across cultures?" is a legitimate field of scientific inquiry. I don't think the logical positivists would have disagreed.
I'm intrigued that you bring evolution into the discussion. I have thought along this line for a long time. As far as I know we don't know of any human society without religion. We must ask ourselves if religion brings an evolutionary advantage.
And with that I have to say goodnight. I'll check in tomorrow morning.
6276. sakonige - 5/23/2000 9:37:40 PM
mandolin, are you part Indian?
6277. paragate - 5/23/2000 9:40:41 PM
Mandolin, It is unclear to me what the point is of trying to localize a particular thought or complex of thoughts in the brain with a brain scan. I agree with Wittgenstein that after all possible emprically verifiable true statements have been lined up, we are still faced with all the important metaphysical questions completely untouched. Many issues proceed and are understood from the inside. But maybe I am ascribing a view to you which you don't hold....a lot of "brain talk" seems to presuppose physicalism or the reduction of the mind & spirit to brain states. Are you proposing a physicalist theory of ethics? That is good which furthers human evolution? What if it became clear that for the good of the universe human evolution should end? Or life as a whole. Does "Good" end with the end of life?
6278. bloodnfire - 5/23/2000 11:40:43 PM
6272. Mandolin. I gave that book 'Love You Forever' to my wife for Mother's Day. We are staying with our 40 year old son, so you can imagine how touched and moved she was by its lovely message. She plans to give it to him for his birthday in July, all being well.
6279. mandolin - 5/24/2000 9:59:57 AM
sakonige: not as far as I know. My wife's great-great-grandmother was Huron, but as I understand it that's one generation too far to consider applying for tribal status.
I did ask my friend about patriarchy/matriarchy -- he never lived in a primarily Indian community so he says he doesn't know anything other than his own family, in which his father and both grandfathers were firmly in control. He's mostly Lumbee (with a bit of Cherokee and Irish), by the way, and as you may know no one recognizes them as a tribe, so there's no opportunity for even the limited autonomy of reservation life.
6280. mandolin - 5/24/2000 10:01:14 AM
paragate: I can see absolutely no reason to suppose that the mind is anything other than the activity of the brain in the body. "In the body" is important, since there are numerous hormonal and neural feedback mechanisms linking the two.
A crude example of why it might be useful to discover the locality in which certain brain activity occurs: I believe that much thinking occurs by way of metaphor, even at the cellular level. If the brain structures and activities that are used in following a trail through a landscape are also used when "following" a complex argument, that is evidence (not by itself conclusive) that "following" the argument is more than just a linguistic trope: thought is structured by a mapping of the mind's activity in manuevering the physical body. Such evidence has been reported. (I can get the cites if you want, but they're not available here, and my band's practicing tonight, so it would be tomorrow night at the earliest).
As to your other questions: 'good' cannot be based on 'furthering' evolution, since evolution is always adaptation to local environments: it has no direction, nowhere to be furthered to; salmonella bacteria have exactly as long an evolutionary history as we do. But our notions of 'good,' I believe, have their origins in preferences for the kinds of behaviors that have in the past, on the average, led to differential success in reproduction, and I believe this idea is testable and has been at least tentatively confirmed. Whether those preferences and notions will help us now is quite another issue. I do think 'good' and 'evil' make no sense except as descriptions of human actions, including thought. Another animal, with a different history, might well have very different 'goods.'
6281. mandolin - 5/24/2000 10:01:43 AM
bloodnfire: a lovely gift
6282. Indiana Jones - 5/24/2000 10:29:02 AM
A discussion on TableTalk that some Motiers may also wish to contribute to.
6283. Jenerator - 5/24/2000 11:55:02 AM
Pelty1,
I just received an e-mail from the Diocese of Canterbury:
"There is no knowledge of N.T. Wright here."
One of the Deans was familiar with some of Wright's books and said that most likely he was working with the other cathedral you mentioned.
[Btw, I may be meeting up with Alister McGrath tomorrow! Brag, brag!]
6284. Uzmakk - 5/24/2000 1:38:22 PM
297. Uzmakk - 5/24/00 4:46:43 PM From Tower of Lust
Anyway, I did want to follow up that Penis God post I made to Sak. This seems to be a point that people who have been schooled in the evolutionist mode, or other cosmologies can't seem to get and that is that Christianity views itself as a transformation, not an evolution. And it is a transofrmation of the mind, it is a transformation of the man, it is a transformation of the God. It is a revolution. I had always thought that it was the unattractive covers on Pelle's Mithraic Influence in Early Bogomil Architecture that made it such a poor seller, but there was this rather startling intellectual flaw in the argument where the evolutionist looks for evolution when infact what is in front of him is revolution or transformation. He cannot see it because he has not been transformed. or atleast is not open to the idea of transformation.
6285. KuligintheHooligan - 5/24/2000 5:01:28 PM
One of my fellow missionaries here in Namibia studied with Alister McGrath. I had become privy to this information so that the first time I met this missionary, in the conversation I brought him up and then ragged on the guy and his theology. The missionary had a rather irritated look on his face, until I told him I was joking.
BTW, I have met JI Packer several times, same with RC Sproul. John Stott too. It's really no big deal.
6286. KuligintheHooligan - 5/24/2000 5:04:36 PM
BTW, Stott is a great, humble man. While back in the States last year I was at a missions conference for which he was the main speaker. One evening, I was also asked to speak *for a whopping three minutes.* Immediately after that Stott spoke for the next 45 minutes.
I went up afterwards and spoke to him about Namibia, something I had done before. He said to me, and I quote, "It was a privilege sharing the platform with you this evening."
I only share this because it is just so humorous. Um, sure, my three minutes meant a lot! He is just a very gracious and humble man.
6287. marjoribanks - 5/24/2000 5:12:35 PM
Hooligan,
I'm assuming these are superstar missionaries.
Do you have special trading cards? Are there stats sections in the back of missionary papers? 40 souls won, 3 lost etc? What are your own stats? Having a good year? What about fantasy leagues? T-shirts?
(Don't mind me, I'm just getting ready to leave work and am in aparty mood)
6288. KuligintheHooligan - 5/24/2000 5:46:46 PM
marjoribanks, I got a kick outta your post. But to you, isn't all religion a sort of "fantasy league" anyway? Regardless, my stats are waaaaay up this year and I hope to make the Big Show soon, as well as have my ugly mug on a tee as well.
Just so you know, all the guys I mentioned are evangelical theologians, not missionaries. But hey, we're all in the same business anyway. Demonizing the indigenous peoples and selling our fare.
6289. pelty1 - 5/25/2000 10:51:36 AM
Jen,
Thanks for looking up Wright. He definitely is at the other cathedral. Thanks for your help. BTW, you should read some of his works; you might enjoy them.
6290. rubberducky7 - 5/25/2000 1:02:33 PM
Those Wacky Germans
...although i really, really like the idea!
6291. PelleNilsson - 5/25/2000 1:57:47 PM
uzmakk -- Message # 6284
A transparent attempt to shift the blame from cover to contents. You know very well that it was those hideous gargoyles you designed that stopped customers dead in their tracks.
Startling intellectual flaw - my foot!
We have an appointment at dawn. Choose your weapons. I shall be sconded by Major Banks.
6292. mandolin - 5/25/2000 2:29:50 PM
There is an interview with Philosophy in the Flesh co-author Lakoff here, reactions to the interview here and here, and his responses here. All at The Edge -- a wonderful resource.
6293. Jenerator - 5/25/2000 2:49:40 PM
So, I was telling Prince Charles the other day, "I just hate name droppers!"
6294. mandolin - 5/25/2000 2:58:27 PM
uzmakk -- christianity is hardly the only transformatory religion, nor is revolution excluded from evolutionary thought. My own atheism comes, in part, from revelatory moments and insights which I experienced as truly transforming and liberating, though occasionally temporarily depressing. I'm posting a sonnet about some of that in the poetry thread.
6295. PelleNilsson - 5/25/2000 3:56:02 PM
mandolin
Thanks for those links. Lakoff sort of proves that there is now way around Kant when discussing the theory of knowledge.
I found this quote from Freeman Dyson in the latest issue thought-provoking, in particular the last sentence:
We have seen terrible wars and terrible persecutions conducted in the name of religion. We have also seen large numbers of people inspired by religion to lives of heroic virtue, bringing education and medical care to the poor, helping to abolish slavery and spread peace among nations. Religion amplifies the good and evil tendencies of individual souls.
6296. ee - 5/26/2000 2:30:49 AM
Romans 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
2
And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God
6297. mandolin - 5/26/2000 7:19:36 AM
Oh, gosh! Now I see how wrong I've been.
Heh.
6298. RickNelson - 5/26/2000 12:37:21 PM
Good ee, but what are those passages supposed to do for presenting human interaction with God or with anothers source of spirituality?
Christians exihibiting a belief that their is but one and only one way to spirituality invariably lead a spirtual seeker away from the beliefs the christian is proposing.
Need I support this premise extensively?
I believe an honest look at the population of christians, will provide information of that population being stagnant of large level conversions. I'm tired of the self interests of the evangelical right wing ministers spewing illogical numbers of the populace as christian converts.
A spiritual path is formed with experience, this I find no flaw with.
The spiritual experience can take hold with the receptor being willing. Again I see no flaw with this.
So, the methods of getting to the spiritual level which gets a person out of ego, self control, self centeredness and opens to giving, service, and outward actions of concern for humanity and lifestyle are what concern me.
What is flawed is important to me. I see religions of humanity as a major flaw with promoting spirtuality as quickly defined above.
I do not think the simplified spirtuality I'm defining opens itself to an unrealistic truth. The possesion of quality human traits is likely a goal of a vast majority of the populace. How one achieves these traits is open to broad speculation and often intense debate.
So, if someone will offer their view, a thoughtful expression of how positive human characteristics, achieved through the trust of spirituality and belief that letting that trust be the rule of life is my opening statement.
Any offers from all sectors of spirituality are desired. A spiritual focus of thought is requested. For those not concerned with spiritual matters, I'm ok with your expressions, but I'm not desiring debate.
6299. Uzmakk - 5/26/2000 1:57:19 PM
One thing that is unique about Christianity, as far as I know, is the idea of The ManGod. And you know what, the way it turns out, it is a hell of an interesting concept. Very much in line with science I would say.
6300. mandolin - 5/26/2000 3:43:04 PM
Hmmm -- the Pharoahs were gods, as were some of the Ceasars, as is the emperor of Japan. Vishnu was repeatedly incarnated in the Upanishads, as Krishna, for instance, in the Bhavagad Vita. The Norse gods were mortal -- and many will die to save the world at Ragnarok.
6301. SheRex - 5/26/2000 5:16:24 PM
I agree with RickNelson.
Spent many years in the Catholic faith, and never found God until I left it.
I don't think spirituality and institutional religion are in the same neighborhood.
6302. Uzmakk - 5/26/2000 5:20:39 PM
Oh, She Rex, I am a blob of putty in your hands.
6303. SheRex - 5/26/2000 5:26:17 PM
Uzmakk -
stiffen that putty just a tad and you've peaked my interest.
6304. SheRex - 5/26/2000 5:28:03 PM
Institutional religion is all about power. People controlling and having power over the lives of others.
The boys club Vatican can have that faith.
Doesn't mean anything to God and me.
And I'm proud to announce that I'm a heretic. I believe in the gospel of Didymous Thomas, which is deemed heresy by the Church.
6305. PelleNilsson - 5/26/2000 5:30:14 PM
SheRex
Nice to see you. Heretic how? Gnostic?
6306. SheRex - 5/26/2000 5:34:39 PM
The Vatican deemed that gospel as heresy (contrary to Church dogma).
A heretic is a dissenter from Church dogma.
6307. SheRex - 5/26/2000 5:35:42 PM
The Vatican obviously didn't like the idea of Christ implying that the search for Him doesn't have anything to do with Churches and priests.
6308. Uzmakk - 5/26/2000 5:37:48 PM
She Rex:
Consider it stiffened.
6309. PelleNilsson - 5/26/2000 5:52:46 PM
SheRex
I know how what heresy is. My question is in what respects Didymous Thomas (whom I've not heard about before) deviates from church dogma.
6310. SheRex - 5/26/2000 6:03:33 PM
re your earlier post: "it is a transofrmation of the mind, it is a transformation of the man, it is a transformation of the God"
I've been reading Gil Bailie's Violence Unveiled: Humanity at the Crossroads, and what surprised me was the transformative powers that Christianity really did have in the beginning. like people's universes literallly POPPED.
Being a Catholic and only aware of the universe of those who mourn their faith, I had never been exposed to the concept of His Life and His Way being the central issue. I had been exposed only to years of guilt-inducement, e.g., Christ had nails hammered into his hands/wrists for your sins.
-------
I shared my first experience in a non-Catholic Church with an Irish & Catholic friend of mine. I had attended a protestant service with another friend, and spent the entire time marveling at the lack of kneelers. My good Irish & Catholic friend responded - well, what do expect from those blasphemous heathens?
6311. SheRex - 5/26/2000 6:14:18 PM
PelleNilsson -
The gospel is at http://www.miseri.edu/users/davies/thomas/Trans.htm
Who knows why the Church does what it does? When that movie Stigmata came out, I read an article giving some background on the movie, like about the Gospel of Didymous Thomas, and in the article, I remember the author reporting that the Church still regarded it as heresy, and has since the document was found in the 1940's.
Some of the sayings in the gospel are also in other Bible gospels. Some, however, are not.
In it, Christ designates James as the one to lead them when He is gone. We all know Peter somehow ended up the leader, and the first Pope.
Also
"His disciples said to him, 'When will the kingdom come?'
"It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, 'Look, here!' or 'Look, there!' Rather, the Father's kingdom is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it."
I don't think they like the idea of folks seeing that the Kingdom of God is everywhere and everything, and our spiritual journey back to the creator is very much concerned with how we're doing things here, rather than something you're required to save up for or be good for.
6312. Uzmakk - 5/26/2000 9:11:38 PM
She Rex:
Eat me !!!
6313. phillipdavid - 5/26/2000 9:40:33 PM
In support of what SheRex said about some of the ideas in the Gospel of Thomas being present in the bible, look at how similar this verse in Luke is to what SheRex posted in Message # 6311:
Luke 17:21
"Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."
6314. phillipdavid - 5/26/2000 9:45:31 PM
RickNelson
Message # 6298
I am inspired to suggest a wonderful, easy-reading and thought-provoking book to you. Please email me at phildavid@hotmail.com
6315. bloodnfire - 5/27/2000 12:12:03 AM
SheRex. Your Message # 6311 "I don't think they like the idea of folks seeing that the Kingdom of God is everywhere and everything, and our spiritual journey back to the creator is very much concerned with how we're doing things here, rather than something you're required to save up for or be good for.".
I agree completely. Welcome aboard!
(Uzmakk, behave yourself :-)
6316. PelleNilsson - 5/27/2000 4:33:25 AM
Here is a better starting point for Thomas. The FAQ is quite informative.
6317. KuligintheHooligan - 5/27/2000 6:46:03 AM
*Of course* there are some things in the "Gospel of Thomas" that sound like things in the Orthodox Gospels! It was written precisely to copy-cat the genuine Gospels in some fashion in an attempt to fool people into believing it was genuine itself. But its late date of authorship, making it obviously NOT the product of one of the Apostles, and some of the more absurd statements therein, make it unacceptable to the teaching of Christ.
Fact is, this so-called Gospel wasn't even recognized as authoritative by the early Gnostics such as Valentinus!
BTW, I don't know why my hosting name appears in all CAP letters, but I'll look to see if I can change that.
6318. KuligintheHooligan - 5/27/2000 6:47:51 AM
Oh, Valentinus didn't recognize it as authoritative probably because it was not yet written during his time. Also, the four orthodox Gospels were all written in the first century and had been widely circulated by the time of Valentinus, and certainly later than that when the Thomas "gospel" was written, making it easy again for the author of Thomas to copy-cat some of the things in the genuine Gospels.
The Gospel of Thomas is a "fake" and people ought to just get over it.
6319. KuligintheHooligan - 5/27/2000 7:10:50 AM
Between now and Monday I will begin the Ethics discussions. I don't mean to kill any on-going discussions, but I'm not really sure how else to maintain a thread devoted to Ethics, at least for the next couple of months, and allow the other spiritual/religious discussions to continue. If possible, please try to wrap up any of these discussions by Monday, when I will post the opening posts for the Ethics discussions.
I am open to any suggestions, though, as to how to allow the other discussions to continue, if people strongly object to putting them on hold.
6320. JudithAtHome - 5/27/2000 9:42:31 AM
Kuligin:
Don't know if you are aware but this is a holiday weekend. Monday is Memorial Day and many people will be "away from their computers" or not at work, in other words. Don't be surprised if this place is less than active.
6321. KuligintheHooligan - 5/27/2000 12:13:35 PM
Judith, thank you very much for pointing that out! As it isn't a holiday here in Namibia, I had plum forgotten it entirely.
6322. paragate - 5/27/2000 2:06:10 PM
Kuligan, Copy cat versus genuine is a bit more complex than you indicate. The "Genuine" Gospels are supposedly based on a mysterious "Q" source which hasn't been found or perhaps was an oral tradition of Jesus' sayings. If it were so clear why are there so many disparities between the synoptics and John? G of Thomas "sounds" to me like it is based on a genuine tradition which isn't too distant from the Master's voice.
6323. paragate - 5/27/2000 4:36:08 PM
A quote by Dyson...article in the Edge magazine mentioned in an earlier post. Exerpted from an acceptance speech of the Templeton Prize. "Science and religion are two windows that people look
through, trying to understand the big universe outside,
trying to understand why we are here. The two windows
give different views, but they look out at the same
universe. Both views are one-sided, neither is complete.
Both leave out essential features of the real world. And
both are worthy of respect.
Trouble arises when either science or religion claims
universal jurisdiction, when either religious dogma or
scientific dogma claims to be infallible. Religious
creationists and scientific materialists are equally
dogmatic and insensitive. By their arrogance they bring
both science and religion into disrepute.
6324. KuligintheHooligan - 5/27/2000 6:13:19 PM
paragate,
Q is of course a theory. The use of "supposedly" in your comments says it all. It is based on similarities between two of the Synoptics and is nothing more than a hunch or guess. To be sure, perhaps it is true, but we won't know until we find it. Personally, I have nothing against Q per se, just that one mustn't make too many conclusions based on a document that we don't even know existed.
As for the "disparities" between John and the Synoptics, those differences are easily understood when one considers that John was writing his Gospel concentrating on a different angle. He spends nearly half his book just on the last week of Jesus' life, for example. His emphasis is different, but certainly not contradictory. The "gospel" of Thomas was most likely produced mid to late second century. This Gnostic gospel wasn't written by an Apostle nor even produced in the first century. The fact that the Gnostic "masters" of the mid-second century don't even mention it let alone recognize it as authoritative says it all.
And that is why I call it a "copy cat." It is written much later than the Orthodox Gospels and some of its statements are meant to sound like those Gospels. No doubt the author of Thomas had those Orthodox Gospels in front of him when he wrote his dubious letter. I could do the same thing today, write a letter that very much sounds like the Gospels. The only difference being that people wouldn't be so stupid as to believe it actually was of value.
One need only read it and compare it with the Orthodox Gospels to also see that it pales in comparison.
6325. KuligintheHooligan - 5/27/2000 6:23:06 PM
My personal favorite from the Gospel of Thomas:
"Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life." Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."
6326. KuligintheHooligan - 5/27/2000 6:27:29 PM
This is a close second:
"Jesus said, "Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human."
Does anyone know of any good commentaries that actually attempt to interpret these sayings in their Gnostic context?
6327. CalGal - 5/27/2000 8:16:29 PM
This is ethics?
6328. RickNelson - 5/27/2000 9:03:00 PM
At this point I'm checking in. Hello She Rex.
I do have a doubt/concern that the thoughts I expressed may lead to religeous negativity. I don't think, I'm ready to espouse religions lack usefulness. To the contrary I believe many do offer a cohesive system which may help some achieve personal spiritual growth.
However, the dogmatic style of religions such as those found on some televangelism shows, some orthodox churchs, and for some reason *g* many Chatholic churchs, etc... I must say deters new converts to spirituality.
My intent at this point is to express that being a community in spirituality which invites newcomers is the first step. Secondly is what sets the atmosphere which retains, draws new members and allows freedom of personal expression.
6329. RickNelson - 5/27/2000 9:06:46 PM
Secondly is a question????
6330. Indiana Jones - 5/27/2000 10:34:14 PM
Uzmakk: Please don't drive SheRex off as soon as she gets here. (Let sakonige do it instead.)
SheRex: Welcome and glad you decided to drop in.
Kuligin: Apparently your username is cased that way. I tried changing it in the database, but the change won't take.
6331. phillipdavid - 5/28/2000 12:44:04 PM
Two comments about the Gospel of Thomas that I like quite a bit:
Elaine Pagels said:
"In the Gospel of Thomas, the disciples say to Jesus, "Tell us, what do you want us to do? How shall we pray? What shall we eat? How shall we fast?" Now if you look at Matthew and Luke, Jesus answers the questions. He says, "When you pray, say, 'Our Father who are in Heaven, hallowed be...' When you fast, wash your face, don't make a show of it. When you give alms do it privately and without being showy." In this gospel, this Jesus does not answer. He says, "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for everything is known before
heaven." Now this answer throws you and me upon ourselves.... Here Jesus, in effect, turns one toward oneself, and that is really one of the themes of the Gospel of Thomas, that you must go in a sort of a spiritual quest of your own to discover who you are, and to discover really that you are the child of God just like Jesus."
6332. phillipdavid - 5/28/2000 12:49:00 PM
From Helmut Koester:
"Now what is typical about these sayings is that in each instance, these sayings want to say that if you want to understand what Jesus said, you have to recognize yourself. You have to know yourself, know who you are. It begins with a saying about the Kingdom of God, "if you seek the Kingdom of God in the sky then the birds will precede you. And if you seek it in the sea, then the fish will precede you, but the Kingdom is in you. And if you know yourself then you know the Kingdom of God." (The Kingdom of the Father, in fact, it always says in the gospel of Thomas. Normally the Kingdom of the Father, not the Kingdom of God.) "But if you don't know yourself, you live in poverty." And poverty is understood as the ignorance of a life in its physical existence. Knowledge is understood to be the knowledge of one's divine origin, of the fact that one has come from the Kingdom. That we are on this earth only in a sojourn....
What does it mean really to know oneself? To know oneself is to have
insight into one's own ultimate divine identity. You can go back to
understand this to Greek models, which certainly exist. "Know yourself" is a very old Greek maxim... that is, you have to know that your own soul is divine, and then you know that you are immortal, whereas the body is the mortal part of human existence. Now this is radicalized in the Gospel of Thomas into saying that everything that is experienced physically and through sense perception, everything in this world that you can perceive in this way is nothing. It is, at best, chaos and, at worst, it doesn't even exist in reality. The only thing that really exists is your divine spirit or your divine soul, which is identical in its quality with God himself. And Jesus is the one who teaches that....
[cont]
6333. phillipdavid - 5/28/2000 12:50:00 PM
"[When one truly knows oneself], one understands that one is divine, but also one understands that one is mortal. In such a way, you recognize that this mortality is really meaningless, as physical existence is meaningless. And therefore, death is no longer a problem, but death is a solution, because in death finally all this mortality will fall away, and the true self will be liberated to an independent existence that's no longer dependent on physical existence. And on everything that goes with physical existence, sickness and poverty and so on. And so physical existence is often described as poverty. But when you know yourself you are no longer in poverty."
6334. phillipdavid - 5/28/2000 12:57:37 PM
Kuligin
Message # 6325
"Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't
deserve life." Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For
every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."
My interpretation rests on the ancient literary device of using "male" as representative of our true selves, our higher divine self that is connected directly to God, and "female" as representing our souls, the part of us that lives in the relative world with all its desires, wants, needs, etc. Shakespeare used this beautifully in his play Taming of the Shrew.
6335. paragate - 5/28/2000 1:05:05 PM
PD & Kuligan, I just asked a Yale divinity school professor about what he thought about the Gospel of Thomas. He said that scholastic opinion is divided about just how close the sayings are to the original source. It seems pretty clear that it was written down in coptic about 150 to 200. It might be a translation from another language. It is notable that it emphasizes the Kingdom in our midst rather than the Kingdom to come. All reference to the coming kingdom seems absent. He personally saw it as a valuable source in that it is one of the few extant documents which purport to record the sayings of Jesus, but he was wary of its exclusive emphasis on the kingdom among us. He believes that it is important to keep both poles...lacking either one is a half the message. God is with us and beyond us.
6336. KuligintheHooligan - 5/28/2000 3:25:35 PM
paragate,
From what I recall, it is clear that the Gospel of Thomas existed by the end of the second century, as you have noted from the comments by the Yale prof. His comments sound good. The thing I don't like about the book is that it is really devoid of any historical context. Both Judaism and Christianity are religions rooted in history, in God acting in the history of man. The Gospel of Thomas is just a collection of sayings with no real connection between them and the life of Jesus. This is one major reason why I find the Orthodox Gospels to be of so much more value.
PD, the two interpretations are interesting. I am familiar with Pagels and Koester. I wonder who else has done some "commentary" work on Gnostics books like the Gospel of Thomas. Your male/female interpretation is interesting as well, although I don't know that it really satisfies. What I mean is, I don't quite get how "making oneself male" is related to one's "divine self." How exactly would one make one's divine self?
CalGal, like I said, the Ethics stuff won't come until Monday, and with it being Memorial Day and all, I might not even begin the Ethics discussion until late Monday at that.
6337. KuligintheHooligan - 5/28/2000 3:31:47 PM
Re: Gnosticism and the "kingdom within oneself"
I think one must always keep in mind that in Gnosticism in general and Christian Gnosticism particularly, a radical dualism exists such that the material world is considered evil and the spirit world good. When it came to Christian Gnosticism a la Marcion and company, the OT God was viewed as evil because he made the material world. Jesus revealed the "other" God, the NT God of spirit and love. This sort of dualism was rightly condemned by the Church because it speaks of their being two gods.
The whole notion that the kingdom of God is *just* inside each of us is, IMO, a reflection of this dualism. In other words, salvation in a Gnostic context is the freeing of the spiritual part of man from the prison that is the flesh. I actually think John in his first epistle warns against precisely such a notion, the Docetic belief that Jesus only appeared to have flesh but really was a fantasm, a spirit with no material component ("Anyone who denies that Jesus has come in the flesh is not of God").
I only bring this up because we mustn't divorce the Gnostic view of salvation from the Gnostic view of the cosmos, the dualism that states there are two gods. It seems a rather popular notion in some circles today to sing praises about Gnosticism and the "kingdom within" while ignoring all the others things that Gnosticism stood for.
6338. KuligintheHooligan - 5/28/2000 3:33:18 PM
Indy, I recall when I originally signed up in the Mote that I used CAP letters, because Irv at some point asked me to not use them. So it seems that those CAPS are permanently in my file! Sorry about that. It does look at bit brash sitting there until the thread name.
6339. phillipdavid - 5/29/2000 11:08:34 AM
Kuligin,
"What I mean is, I don't quite get how "making oneself male" is related to one's "divine self." How exactly would one make one's divine self?"
We don't have to make it as God already has done that. Our divine self is the individualization of God's presence in each one of us. I have read some eastern spiritualists refer to this concept as the superconscious (or maybe it was supraconcsious) mind.
We don't make it, we choose to identify with it and become it -- as Paul said, be changed from one degree of glory to another. Jesus taught us how to: by always acting through and with love, all ways. Our divine self is the body of First Cause that contains within it our "treasure laid up in heaven"-words and works, thoughts and feelings of virtue, attainment, and light-pure energies of love that have risen from the plane of action in time and space as the result of our judicious exercise of free will and his harmonious qualification (Jesus' teachings) of the stream of life that issues forth from the heart of God and descends to invigorate and enliven the embodied soul.
6340. phillipdavid - 5/29/2000 11:10:27 AM
I could quibble a bit with your description of Gnostic dualism, but I won't. But given your description above, I don't think it fair to describe the Gospel of Thomas as "gnostic."
"The whole notion that the kingdom of God is *just* inside each of us..."
The kingdom of God is all -- the inside and outside, the microcosom and the macrocosm. What I think I have learned is that it is accessed by us from within. And what is within? Our thoughts and emotions. Through our thoughts we can learn and choose to express wisdom -- "wise dominion" -- in life; through our emotions we can learn and choose to express and be love always, in all ways. What "heaven" means to me is an absolute realm of LOVE -- a state where all is love, the only energy is love, the only state of being is pure love. And if we can be that, if we can remember (re-member) who we really are, and choose to be who we really are (a soul created in the image and likeness of God; a little seed off the divine tree, the tree of life) then we will have accessed heaven -- be in the presence of God. Jesus taught us that it is right here, right now, if only we could learn to see it and be in it. He tried to teach us how to do so, by acting and being through love always, in all ways.
6341. Indiana Jones - 5/29/2000 11:15:15 AM
I'm certainly no authority on either, but I've always heard Gnosticism and the Gospel of Thomas associated.
The Gospel of Thomas Homepage
6342. KuligintheHooligan - 5/29/2000 1:33:24 PM
PD, my last and brief comment on the topic of Thomas and Gnosticism is basically what Indy just said. I have *always* heard the Gospel of Thomas referred to as a Gnostic writing. I believe that Pagels, for example, does precisely that in her "The Gnostic Gospels."
Thank you for you other comments. I am now going to move to the topic of Ethics.
6343. KuligintheHooligan - 5/29/2000 1:34:26 PM
I would like to start the discussion on Ethics with a general issue, and then later we can get into more particular topics like euthanasia and so on. We will begin with this question:
"What do I do when I must break one ethical obligation in order to fulfill another?"
The classic example is that of Nazi Germany, when the Nazis were executing Jews and it was a crime to help the Jews. Many people, though, hid Jews in their homes and then lied to the authorities when they came looking for them. A simpler example might be if your wife or girlfriend asks you if her dress looks nice. It doesnt, but do you lie to her and tell her it does look nice, or do you tell her the truth and risk hurting her feelings? Still another example might be if you know that Joe wants to kill Frank. You know that Joe owns a gun and Joe has told you that he will use it to kill Frank. Do you steal the gun? And so on.
There are six general categories to consider in these instances. I doubt these six are exhaustive, and others are welcome to suggest more categories. But Ill begin the discussion with these, and I would like to see where people fall in these categories. (cont)
6344. KuligintheHooligan - 5/29/2000 1:36:22 PM
a) Antinomianism - Because there are no moral absolutes or objective truths, lying in this instance is neither right nor wrong, but must instead be determined based on personal or pragmatic grounds.
b) Generalism - Lying is generally wrong, but because there are no universal moral absolutes, one must determine if this is a specific case in which one can lie, although generally speaking lying is a wrong thing to do. But if the results are good, then lying is okay.
c) Situationism - Also known as "situation ethics," there is only one universal law and telling the truth is not it. Love is the only absolute, and lying may be the most loving thing to do in this instance.
d) Non-conflicting/Unqualified Absolutism - There are many absolute moral laws that should never be broken. Lying is one of them, and regardless of the outcome, one should never lie.
e) Conflicting/Ideal Absolutism - There are conflicting moral laws, and in this case, lying is wrong, but we should do it anyway and plead for mercy from God [or whatever authority you may have violated], who will hopefully understand why we had to break his moral law. Do the lesser of two evils. [of course, God does not have to enter the equation in order for a "lesser of two evils" scenario to exist]
f) Graded Absolutism/Hierarchicalism -Moral laws are ranked, and if keeping a higher law means breaking a lower law, then breaking that lower law is the right thing to do. We are no longer responsible in this instance for keeping the lower law. [END]
6345. iiibbb - 5/29/2000 3:15:17 PM
What do I do when I must break one ethical obligation in order to fulfill another?
I have probably utilized all the methods you outline for addressing an ethical question at one point or another. I think my ethical values fall into four primary categories.
1) I have certain core values I consider absolutes.
2) There is another set which is composed of other peoples' values, to which I may hold certain allegiance and would consider when making an ethical decision.
3) The next are the my set of professional ethics. These are somewhat imposed, and I did not formulate on my own, but to which I subscribe because I am a member of the profession.
4) The last are situational in nature and require evaluation at the spur of the moment.
(cont)
6346. iiibbb - 5/29/2000 3:15:27 PM
In dealing with set one, I believe I use your Graded Absolutism/Hierarchicalism, which has a second tier of Conflicting/Ideal Absolutism. My absolutes would include loving my family, duty to family, duty to friends, and duty to God. Two examples of conflicting absolutism would be killing in self defense, where I would never seek to kill anyone, but I may be placed in a situation where my duty to family forces me to choose 'the lesser of the two evils'. Another example would be my duty to friends, and my desire not to interfere with their personal relationships. I don't interfere, but sometimes I am approached because my friend needs me and they seek my guidance or opinion. Even worse is when both people in the relationship are friends.
I treat my second set of ethics are entirely in a situational manner. I have friends who are vegetarians for ethical reasons. When I have them over to eat, I adopt prepare a vegetarian meal. When I am in other peoples' homes, I adopt and respect their customs, but I probably don't take them home with me.
I treat my third set as Non-condlicting/Unqualified Absolutism because they are defined by a professional organization.
My fourth set I deal with entirly in a situational manner. Finding a $20 dollar bill. I will ask if someone dropped it if I see someone who may have, but how far will I go to return it to its rightful owner? Well, it depends entirely on the situation.
6347. iiibbb - 5/29/2000 3:18:57 PM
As far as lying goes, I think there is definitely a heiracrhy there. Lying to nazi's is not a violation of ethics if you are saving lives. Little white lies are just that, little with no meaning.
Telling the truth in most other circumstances isn't just good ethics, it's good policy. What goes around, comes around, and it's too easy to screw yourself.
6348. bloodnfire - 5/29/2000 8:25:48 PM
Kuligin. Your Message # 6334 ""Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life." Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."
I can hear CalGal's outrage from here, and every other woman in this thread. If I'm right CalGal let me say I agree completely with you. It sounds like nonsense to me. 'The Word' (excluding this concoction)
states that..."In Christ there is no male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus". (Galatians 3:28)
6349. paragate - 5/29/2000 9:28:39 PM
In reference to Ethics: I like "the Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath". The whole character of NT ethics: be in love which a kind of perfect liberty....and the right choice in dilemmas will emerge. Virtue ethics has it all over rational ethics because the latter attempts too much precision, is too rule bound and mechanical and falls into endless debates over justification.
6350. Indiana Jones - 5/29/2000 10:26:08 PM
I probably am closest to "Graded Absolutism/Hierarchicalism," though it's not necessarily because I think laws are higher and lower. Instead it's more the individual act: in some instances a lie is probably just as bad as a murder.
My belief is that sin comes from both action and intent (flesh and spirit): for example, if you tell a lie about something you believe to be true but are in error, clearly that doesn't seem to be a sin. So I don't have a hard time accepting that your intent when you speak words that aren't true enters into whether you've committed wrong.
On a tangent, I also think it's important that you not put your own righteousness up as the totem, but rather that you are serving good. That is, if you go around telling people the 100 percent truth all the time because you never lie--no matter the harm you cause--IMO you're elevating yourself, not the good.
With sufficient wisdom, a good act is probably almost always available, though we may not see it. I think that's one of the lessons of Jesus's life, because the kinds of traps the Pharisees always set for him were either/or moral dilemmas, yet he usually found a third alternative they hadn't considered.
6351. CalGal - 5/29/2000 10:39:50 PM
"Serving good" is just another method of serving oneself. Same difference.
6352. CalGal - 5/29/2000 10:44:32 PM
Blood,
Well, I thank you for your outrage. Nonsense like that quote, though, is one of the reasons that I don't take the Bible--or religion--that seriously. I can't believe that Jesus--if he is/was the person he is supposed to be, would say anything that idiotic. (And I think PD's translation is not only a stretch, but it's equally insulting, in the end). But if one says, "Well, he didn't mean that," then of what relevance is anything in the Bible except as a guideline?
6353. Indiana Jones - 5/30/2000 8:51:00 AM
CalGal: That quotation wasn't from the Bible. It was from the Gospel of Thomas.
6354. Indiana Jones - 5/30/2000 8:51:41 AM
Also, I don't think Kuligin meant it as something he believes, but rather to show the kind of things the Gospel of Thomas says.
6355. rubberducky7 - 5/30/2000 9:21:04 AM
Kuligin:
You can put me in the Antinomianism category. I think I agree with what i've read of mandolin's posts in that i don't think that universal absolutes truly do exist. even in the confines of human culture, there seems to be at least one in which practices that which the others shun as "evil" / "bad" or whatever.
if i've learned nothing else from Star Trek, it is that humanity takes itself too seriously and the resulting culture therein is something that must be viewed in weighted balance with non-terrestrial cultures that may or may not exist for a full scope of just what a "universal absolute" is.
6356. CalGal - 5/30/2000 10:22:20 AM
Indy,
Oh, it's not the Bible. (I have no idea what "Gospel of such and so" means. Thanks. But I didn't think Kuligin believed it.
6357. CalGal - 5/30/2000 10:27:40 AM
I am not sure, but I think I run my own life with d). I usually assess the world with a).
This is often hard to tell, though, because I may react to any given situation with my moral response first (d), which has nothing to do with my overall assessment.
6358. bloodnfire - 5/30/2000 10:33:26 AM
Paragate. Your Message # 6349. I agree completely. My compliments.
6359. marshame - 5/30/2000 11:21:09 AM
I would have to say I fall into the f) Graded Absolutism/Hierarchicalism category, as well. In fact, I would say that that seems to be the predominant way that ethical discussions seem to be presented in our society. Some examples that spring to mind:
1) Abortion: the unborn baby's right to life vs the mother's right to privacy in making a decision about terminating the pregnancy, or no. Society says that the woman's right to privacy supercedes the baby's right to life.
2) Fetal Tissue research - medical research, such as with Parkinson's disease, is significantly advanced with the use of brain stem tissue harvested from aborted fetuses. The potential improvement in the quality of life for disease suffers outweighs the violation of the sanctity of human life with the fetus.
3) Assisted suicide - the individual patient's right to privacy supercedes the prohibition against suicide.
4) Children divorcing their parents - the individual child's right to privacy (private choice) supercedes the traditional right of the parents to control their children.
5) Elian Golzalvez - The parent's natural right to his child supercedes the state's interest in keeping a child free from a totalitarian regime.
The tide has turned in many of these ethical situations. It seems that current ethical arguments follow the "greater good" logic, which I take to be the Graded Absolutism/Hierarchicalism model. But it is interesting that several of these are contradictory, which suggests situational ethics, as well. So in the heirarchy, for example, parental rights are most important, but not in every circumstance.
6360. DocBrown - 5/30/2000 11:28:15 AM
I personally use a) Antinomianism almost exclusively.
Something that should be mentioned, though, is the much simpler decision making process involved in d) and e), the two absolutist ethical categories.
Using either of these two makes ethical decisions a whole lot less work, since they require almost no good judgement. The rest require a great deal of insight, forsight, and depth of thought in assessing outcomes of ethical decisions.
6361. CalGal - 5/30/2000 11:36:35 AM
Using either of these two makes ethical decisions a whole lot less work, since they require almost no good judgement.
That's nonsense, of course. But on the other hand, I might point out that anything other than D or E requires increased cavilling skills, as one desperately searches for a justification to ignore the moral imperatives that one pretends to live by.
6362. CalGal - 5/30/2000 11:40:58 AM
Marcia,
Interesting. I agree that people in those situations tend to rate and rank morals. But I think our system of laws, etc, is fundamentally based on a), not f).
6363. KuligintheHooligan - 5/30/2000 12:17:27 PM
You are correct CalGal, I do not subscribe to the Gospel of Thomas as any authoritative text.
This I found interesting:
"Using either of these two makes ethical decisions a whole lot less work, since they require almost no good judgement."
I think the unqualified absolutism IS simpler. Lying is always wrong and that is that, for example. It is also the POV of many Christians.
Then I liked CalGal's response to the above comment:
:That's nonsense, of course. But on the other hand, I might point out that anything other than D or E requires increased cavilling skills, as one desperately searches for a justification to ignore the moral imperatives that one pretends to live by."
I enjoy the sarcasm! However, I would just point out that for some people, they actually *do* try to live by them but doing so in a situation where there is seemingly some contradiction between two ethical norms is where the trouble begins, as my original examples pointed out (hopefully).
6364. KuligintheHooligan - 5/30/2000 12:21:39 PM
iiibbb
Thanks for the in-depth analysis of the options as they relate to your thinking.
"My absolutes would include loving my family, duty to family, duty to friends, and duty to God."
One issue concerning Ethics is the issue of the authority basis of one's ethical system. For some, it is "naturalistic" i.e., reason based, whereas for others it is "transcendental" i.e., based upon some transcendent source of authority such as God or the Koran and so on. Just out of curiosity, upon what basis do you determine the four "absolutes" that you hold to?
6365. KuligintheHooligan - 5/30/2000 12:26:17 PM
"As far as lying goes, I think there is definitely a heiracrhy there. Lying to nazi's is not a violation of ethics if you are saving lives. Little white lies are just that, little with no meaning."
The first statement sounds like f) the Hierarchical system. Saving lives, the higher ethical obligation, supercedes telling a lie, a lower ethical obligation, so that if one holds the higher obligation, one is no longer required to follow the lesser one.
My students have rightly asked then, how do you rank the ethical obligations? In line with this, I'd like iiibbb to tell us, if possible, what a "little white lie" constitutes, because he is in that statement even ranking lies.
paragate, your #6347, Augustine said something like this: "Love, and do what you want." Of course, his use of "love" was in reference to loving God.
6366. KuligintheHooligan - 5/30/2000 12:35:06 PM
"You can put me in the Antinomianism category. I think I agree with what i've read of mandolin's posts in that i don't think that universal absolutes truly do exist. even in the confines of human culture, there seems to be at least one in which practices that which the others shun as "evil" / "bad" or whatever."
rubberducky, but there would be some theists that would say that in these instances, some cultures ARE breaking universal absolutes. Consider the issue of eating babies (ugh!). If we have 1000 cultures that consider it wrong, but only one that considers it a valid practice, are you concluding that we do not have a universal absolute?
marshame,
"It seems that current ethical arguments follow the "greater good" logic"
There is something called the teleological system of ethics. A subset of that is "ethical universalism," which is what you are saying here, the greatest good for the greatest number of people. An "ethical egotism" is basically interested in what is best for oneself.
However, I'm not sure that your examples portray a f) graded absolutism/hierarchicalism. The examples you give seem to be more in line with Antinomianism, at least to me.
Speaking of which, I hope to get to some of those examples, like the fetal tissue research one. Particularly in light of recent revelations concerning the selling of baby body parts, the fetal tissue issue is a good one.
6367. rubberducky7 - 5/30/2000 12:37:08 PM
Re: Message # 6361, CalGal.
"...anything other than D or E requires increased cavilling skills, as one desperately searches for a justification to ignore the moral imperatives that one pretends to live by."
nonsense. if one can't fit this so-called "moral imperative" into the fertile grounds of pragmatism, then there is no such imperative. this thinking is just the culture in which you live knowingly or unknowingly dictating to you what is and isn't imperative.
6368. rubberducky7 - 5/30/2000 12:43:21 PM
Re: 6369. rubberducky7 - 5/30/2000 12:44:49 PM whoops 6370. CalGal - 5/30/2000 12:47:41 PM RD, 6371. rubberducky7 - 5/30/2000 12:53:12 PM Re: Message # 6366, KuligintheHooligan. 6372. rubberducky7 - 5/30/2000 12:54:33 PM CG: 6373. DocBrown - 5/30/2000 1:20:31 PM CalGal, perhaps my generalizations are generally useless, but you have not proven so. 6374. KuligintheHooligan - 5/30/2000 1:22:04 PM rubberducky, right, in an antinomian system such as your own, eating babies could actually be a good thing. It all depends on the situation. 6375. theDiva - 5/30/2000 1:27:12 PM Blood 6376. rubberducky7 - 5/30/2000 1:31:39 PM Re:Message # 6374, KuligintheHooligan. 6377. KuligintheHooligan - 5/30/2000 1:36:52 PM "if 100 people tell you that spam tastes better than sirloin, then i take it you have 100 people who have no taste buds - not that spam is indeed better." 6378. rubberducky7 - 5/30/2000 2:00:49 PM Re: Message # 6377, KuligintheHooligan. 6379. iiibbb - 5/30/2000 2:16:17 PM Message # 6349 Para's thoughts 6380. jonesatlaw - 5/30/2000 2:19:53 PM I must fudge- I probably follow the conflicting moral imperatives model, with an admission that I regard some of them as being so valuable that they may approach an absolute which trumps other imperatives. 6381. iiibbb - 5/30/2000 2:36:10 PM Message # 6365 6382. CalGal - 5/30/2000 2:53:35 PM My mom asked me if I liked the wallpaper in the kitchen... I said 'yes'... 6383. theDiva - 5/30/2000 2:56:14 PM Right. It's actually a very useful social skill, too. 6384. KuligintheHooligan - 5/30/2000 2:56:59 PM "put another way, just because a lot or some or one person says that there are ethical absolutes doesn't make it so. just as you seem to say the opposite -that claiming no absolutes doesn't mean that there are none for humans to follow." 6385. KuligintheHooligan - 5/30/2000 2:58:01 PM "I don't waste lies on things I can get out of without it being an issue." 6386. iiibbb - 5/30/2000 2:59:07 PM Are we talking about absolutes to humanity, or absolutes to ourselves? Without that distiction this discussion will become pretty convoluted. 6387. mandolin - 5/30/2000 2:59:14 PM Let's seriously consider eating babies -- but in another species. This species lives in a risky environment, particularly risky for newborns, with limited access to food reserves. In a given breeding opportunity there will not be enough food to raise two healthy offspring, but there's a good chance that if only one is born, none will grow to adulthood. As happens in many bird species in such conditions, births are staggered -- typically, among such birds, if the first offspring dies, then a second hedges the bet, but if the first flourishes, it destroys the egg of the second or eats it upon hatching. Our species has similar reproductive biology but is intelligent and culture-making, with a books or their equivalent, religion, music, and all the rest. Now -- would it not make sense in such a species to celebrate the flourishing of the first offspring by making a joyful ritual feast of the second, perhaps even ordained by what their priests call god? 6388. theDiva - 5/30/2000 3:00:40 PM 'right' to the first part of Cal's post. 6389. KuligintheHooligan - 5/30/2000 3:08:08 PM mandolin, sounds tasty to me! 6390. iiibbb - 5/30/2000 3:16:02 PM iiibbb, yours is a "personal preference" or "conscience" system it seems to me. Many Christians would say that a conscience-based ethic is a good one. I tend to lean the other way, that it isn't one that can ultimately be trusted, but that is because I believe in God. 6391. mandolin - 5/30/2000 3:17:51 PM I'm a little uncomfortable with the antinomianism (where I presume I'd have to place myself if those were my only choices) because, while I believe there is no absolute morality or objective truth in the sense of eternal verities built into the stucture of existence, whether by deities or natural law, I do believe that our shared evolutionary heritage and bodily experience make it possible for humams to talk sensibly about what is right and what is true for us. 6392. CalGal - 5/30/2000 3:19:42 PM I knew what you meant, Deev. 6393. CalGal - 5/30/2000 3:22:47 PM Incidentally, on a practical basis, I am fairly close to antinomianism, since I have relatively few absolute moral values. On everything else, I tend to use the values of the people involved to assess their behavior. 6394. iiibbb - 5/30/2000 3:28:40 PM This was a little flippant a few days ago, kinda funny the discussion turned to ethics this weekend in here. 6395. mandolin - 5/30/2000 3:59:45 PM A neural basis for empathy: surely one of the bases for ethics. 6396. Uzmakk - 5/30/2000 7:16:34 PM Mandolin: 6397. mandolin - 5/30/2000 7:35:37 PM uzmakk- a long way from a crack house. Joseph was of the line of David, if the genealogies are to be believed, and many sacrificial gods (an idea which is much older than Jesus ) came from common folk. 6398. paragate - 5/30/2000 9:04:02 PM It has long seemed to me that when I reach for a principle or heuristic device to measure a situation or ethical decision, that Kant's idea that we should test our plan of action with the question of whether or not one can will the plan as absolute for all moral beings in similar circumstances, and also to test it with the question: does the plan respect the moral dignity of everyone involved to be the two considerations which really sort the sheep from the goats of moral choice. This process can pretty quickly shine a withering light on my rationalizations and selfish preferences....which is not to say I always or even usually follow the truth which is the really frustrating part. And that frustration leads me back to virtue ethics....I need to straighten out my being before I will be significantly inclined to bother with the dictates of my conscience. It seems like love in the heart is the one way that actually inclines one to "do good" and being loving doesn't seem to have much to do with moral calculations or even ethical absolutes. Jesus' classic injunction to Love God and your neighbor as yourself really does cover it. Why Love God? Because we need ideals which transcend ourselves and we need the connection to Agape to empower our own ability to love. We are here to learn to bear the beams of love. 6399. mandolin - 5/30/2000 9:17:05 PM paragate: Kant's principle, for my not-so-hypothetical beings in Message # 6387, would mean the death of both siblings and eventual extinction for the species. 6400. mandolin - 5/30/2000 9:18:20 PM Ethics has no content outside its literal embodiment in a living creature. 6401. paragate - 5/30/2000 9:30:06 PM Mandolin, You point down, I point up. Perhaps in a finite universe we are both pointing around. I have no quarrel with embodiments as long as they are sufficiently wondrous. 6402. Uzmakk - 5/30/2000 9:44:50 PM 6397Mandolin: 6403. paragate - 5/30/2000 9:50:35 PM Mandolin, I understand the theoretical problem about the willingness to universalize different prescriptions...but that doesn't usually seem to happen when it all boils down, at least in my experience. But perhaps it isn't Kant you are worried about so much as "god talk"? I just don't think a billion years of philosophical argument is going to end or coopt that discussion. 6404. mandolin - 5/30/2000 10:26:41 PM God talk doesn't bother me. But what is ethics but normative descriptions of behavior? Any ethical notion, including Kant's, which doesn't take into account what we've learned about why and how humans and other animals behave in particular ways is the equivalent of late night bull sessions in a dormitory. Fun, sometimes moving, sometimes infuriating, but not likely to produce much of lasting value. 6405. mandolin - 5/31/2000 12:17:43 PM Consider what happens when the ventromedial portion of the rigt and left frontal lobe is destroyed by a tumor or trauma. The victim's intellect remains apparently untouched. There is no deficit in intelligence, problem with memory or attention, or aphasia; the victims can articulate conventional responses to moral dilemnas; they can state the consequences of illegal and immoral actions; they have a normal base of social knowledge. 6406. mandolin - 5/31/2000 12:41:13 PM About another he writes "The tragedy of this otherwise healthy and intelligent man was that he was neither stupid nor ignorant, and yet he acted often as if he were. The machinery for his decision making was so flawed that he could no longer be an effective social being. .. It is appropriate to say that his free will had been comnpromised." (p. 38) 6407. CalGal - 5/31/2000 12:56:38 PM I'm not sure why you think it is embarrassing. 6408. mandolin - 5/31/2000 1:17:23 PM CalGal -- if 'spirit' means some immortal, non-corporeal substance which is the essence of a particular human being, then how does physical damage so profoundly change that spirit? (Note that I'm not talking about being beaten down over time, but something more like a switch being thrown.) The victims of the kind of damage described in Damasio's book have lost their moral nature --is that a part of their spirit? If not, what could spirit possibly mean, in ethical terms? Is their spirit gone? What is their relation to sin? Are they subject to judgement at the Last Trump when they cannot make moral judgements themselves? 6409. mandolin - 5/31/2000 1:18:46 PM paragate: mu 6410. Indiana Jones - 5/31/2000 1:22:40 PM mandolin (6408): It could work similar to a radio. Slam a radio up against a wall and its reception may suffer, even though the signal is unaffected. 6411. Indiana Jones - 5/31/2000 1:22:58 PM toys 6412. Uzmakk - 5/31/2000 1:28:18 PM 6413. CalGal - 5/31/2000 1:33:26 PM I did see your point the first time; sorry if I wasn't clear. I am saying that I don't think the example of this person destroys the case for either side or causes them undue embarrassment. 6414. mandolin - 5/31/2000 2:01:36 PM The physical lack is the failure of emotion as a connection between bodily state and reasoning -- what is blocked is the mind's image of the body, leading to an inability to make normal ethical decisions. It is difficult for me to see how this can be construed as blocking the expression of spirit, or why one would want to do so, since many lines of evidence (from animal as well as human research, from neurochemistry, from cognitive science, from ethology, from computational theory), point to Damasio's conclusion. But point me somewhere, and I'll look. 6415. mandolin - 5/31/2000 2:15:55 PM Indiana: 6416. mandolin - 5/31/2000 2:16:47 PM Also, I took the day off from work and i can type a lot more than usual 6417. CalGal - 5/31/2000 2:25:19 PM It is difficult for me to see how this can be construed as blocking the expression of spirit, or why one would want to do so, since many lines of evidence 6418. mandolin - 5/31/2000 2:45:49 PM CalGal -- perhaps a small point -- the quote you mentioned was about a person who had frontal lobe damage from birth -- and he exhited the same defects as those who experienced trauma later. 6419. iiibbb - 5/31/2000 4:18:03 PM Mandolin... I may misunderstand where you're coming from. 6420. iiibbb - 5/31/2000 4:20:50 PM oops...meant to delete the first sentence... I write all this stuff off the top of my head... so sometimes my editing sucks. 6421. mandolin - 5/31/2000 4:39:36 PM iiibbb 6422. iiibbb - 5/31/2000 4:45:08 PM does an animal that relies purely on instinct have the capacity for an ethical system? 6423. mandolin - 5/31/2000 5:05:06 PM murky waters, there, since there's not a lot of agreement on just what is and isn't instinct, or whether it even exists in the traditional sense. 6424. SheRex - 5/31/2000 5:51:47 PM The concept of ethics may have been made obsolete. 6425. paragate - 5/31/2000 5:58:14 PM Mandolin, The theory that the Brain IS the Mind(Spirit) no doubt is interesting particularly as we now can launch into studying the brain with so many new tools which actually offer the hope of understanding lots of stuff "directly". It would be nice to be able to fix sociopaths with a little chemical tinkering etc. 6426. SheRex - 5/31/2000 6:00:38 PM The concept of ethics may have just been made moot. 6427. Uzmakk - 5/31/2000 6:23:51 PM Only depiction I ever saw of those weapons was on the Simpsons, She Rex. Ever seen them depicted elsewhere? 6428. iiibbb - 5/31/2000 10:57:30 PM I think instinct surplants ethics. Being instinctual still allows that choices can be made, but I don't think instinctual decisions are constrained by ethics. As humans we have certain instincts... pulling our hand away when we touch something hot. You pull your hand away... it's unlikely you're going to be concerned about what your elbow's going to hit. 6429. iiibbb - 5/31/2000 11:23:19 PM Ethics in fact may be what comes into play whenever we override instincts 6430. Dusty - 6/1/2000 7:11:14 AM For bloodnfire 6431. SheRex - 6/1/2000 11:08:18 AM 6427. Uzmakk - 5/31/00 11:23:51 PM 6432. SheRex - 6/1/2000 11:13:04 AM Uzmakk - 6433. PelleNilsson - 6/1/2000 12:14:52 PM The seemingly ethical and altruistic behaviour of certain animals has attracted a lot of interest and is invariably explained in evolutionary terms. 6434. Uzmakk - 6/1/2000 7:44:28 PM Quite so, SheRex. I get all of my important news from the Simpsons and I am the "Cleetus, the slack jawed yokel" of the mote. 6435. AceofSpades - 6/1/2000 8:09:51 PM 6436. AceofSpades - 6/1/2000 8:11:00 PM 6437. bloodnfire - 6/2/2000 12:32:43 AM Dusty. Thank you so much. I love it. I'm so grateful I know it's the truth. 6438. bloodnfire - 6/2/2000 12:44:22 AM Paragate. Your Message # 6398. " It seems like love in the heart is the one way that actually inclines one to "do good" and being loving doesn't seem to have much to do with moral calculations or even ethical absolutes. Jesus' classic injunction to Love God and your neighbor as yourself really does cover it. Why Love God? Because we need ideals which transcend ourselves and we need the connection to Agape to empower our own ability to love. We are here to learn to bear the beams of love." 6439. mandolin - 6/2/2000 8:50:32 AM bloodnfire and paragate: 6440. mandolin - 6/2/2000 8:51:33 AM SheRex: 6441. SheRex - 6/2/2000 12:34:12 PM Mandolin - 6442. mandolin - 6/2/2000 12:55:02 PM Even the paranoid rant from Parascope didn't make that claim. But shouldn't that kind of discussion be in Politics, or International? 6443. SheRex - 6/2/2000 2:03:20 PM Mandolin: 6444. SheRex - 6/2/2000 2:06:07 PM Mandolin: 6445. Indiana Jones - 6/2/2000 2:15:11 PM She Rex: Glad to see you back. The Mote is always looking for new threads, and I personally think thread hosting is a good way to develop a "stake" in the community. If you have particularl expertise in this area, maybe you'd like to host a thread on "Future War," or something like that? 6446. LadyChaos - 6/2/2000 2:22:00 PM 1)Which of the following best describes your view of the existence of the divine: 6447. mandolin - 6/2/2000 2:31:43 PM SheRex -- nowhere in that piece does it say there were Russians at Waco. Russian are mentioned in connection with Waco only in this passage: "During the siege at the Mt. Carmel church near Waco, Texas, FBI agents discussed with Russian counterparts the use of acoustic psycho-correction on David Koresh and the Branch Davidians. It is understood that this contingency did not proceed. However, some unusual EM weapons were deployed at Waco. BBC World News and FBI film-footage in the possession of this writer show both the Russian equipment being demonstrated, as well as previously unseen noise generator and an unusual low frequency strobe array in use at Waco." 6448. SheRex - 6/2/2000 3:11:05 PM Mandolin: 6449. SheRex - 6/2/2000 3:11:22 PM And another point - how much money has the US spent on measuring the speed at which ketchup flows out of a bottle? How much money was spent on the psychic warrior experiments at the NSA (remote viewing) and CIA? Too bad we don't have that Senator or Representative around anymore who used to give out annual awards for the most absurd use of the taxpayers' money. Check out the references in the articles. Much has been written on the NSA's and the CIA's experiments in behavioral control technologies. From Wonder Weapons: "In fact, the military routinely has approached the National Intitutes of Health for research information. 'DARPA [Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency] has come to us every few years to see if there are ways to incapacitate the central nervous system remotely,' Dr. F. Terry Hambrecht, head of the Neural Prosthesis Program at NIH, told U.S. News." He doesn't think anything came of it. He also doesn't have a top secret or specially compartmentalized clearance, does he? The projects have merely gone "black" (classified). The Russians have had this technology since the 1950's. 6450. SheRex - 6/2/2000 3:28:10 PM Indiana Jones - 6451. theDiva - 6/2/2000 3:30:51 PM SheRex 6452. theDiva - 6/2/2000 3:31:34 PM I mean, she'll e-mail you the URL if you offer to host the thread. 6453. SheRex - 6/2/2000 3:59:35 PM Thanks! 6454. theDiva - 6/2/2000 4:01:00 PM You're welcome. Nice to see you here. 6455. rubberducky7 - 6/2/2000 4:07:43 PM Diva is on FAB patrol! 6456. theDiva - 6/2/2000 4:08:16 PM heeheehee 6457. paragate - 6/2/2000 7:23:51 PM Mandolin, IMO Agape pervades the universe from top to bottom, within to without. Quantum to Cosmos. The number one illusion is the "atoms in a void".....which is fundamentally an ego-based fearful fantasy which no doubt has survival value on this plane. 6458. CalGal - 6/2/2000 7:26:34 PM SheRex 6459. mandolin - 6/3/2000 9:46:39 AM Paragate -- how would the universe be different without Agape? How would you know if it were withdrawn? 6460. jexster - 6/4/2000 9:14:32 PM This is slightly off topic but closest thread we have? 6461. RickNelson - 6/5/2000 10:06:54 AM Weapons which "humanely" incapacitate a foe are interesting, but I do not see your point that this negates the issue of ethics in human behavior. What's the big deal? 6462. RickNelson - 6/5/2000 10:07:07 AM Another example is the Kayan, Kenyah, Kelabit, Murut, Punan, Penan, etc... of the upper river regions of Sarawak, Malaysia. Consisting of approximately 40% of the Sarawakian population. Well their Adat Law land rights are now to be thrown out by the government for progress. The land has been clear cut by the logging companies ie.Samling and now are ripe for the Palm Oil Plantation Tycoon. So, with corupt officials like Taib Muhmad and PM Mahatir in power the lust for taking from the poorly led tribes of Sarawak continues. 6463. mandolin - 6/5/2000 10:29:08 AM I suspect much of it is no longer current, but Jerry Mander's (that's his real name) In the Absence of the Sacred treats many of the issues you raise, Rick, and documents the legal efforts going on to protect indiginous peoples at the time of publication. 6464. RickNelson - 6/5/2000 11:14:07 AM Mandolin, 6465. KuligintheHooligan - 6/5/2000 12:04:44 PM An interesting question I bounced off the students last week was this. 6466. rubberducky7 - 6/5/2000 12:16:35 PM i wouldn't steal the gun, most likely, unless i had a personal connection to either of the people in question 6467. KuligintheHooligan - 6/5/2000 12:22:10 PM Yes, there is certainly an element of personal risk in this one. Some students thought it wrong to steal the gun but would do it nonetheless and plead for mercy if caught or charges were pressed (the fifth option, ideal absolutism). Others thought there was nothing wrong in stealing the gun because a higher obligation superceded the obligation to not steal. 6468. rubberducky7 - 6/5/2000 12:33:20 PM what the hell are you teaching these kids, then, Kuligin? 6469. KuligintheHooligan - 6/5/2000 12:36:03 PM I know, I know. I have used nerd and geek and dweeb, but dufus completely skipped my mind! 6470. KuligintheHooligan - 6/5/2000 12:36:28 PM Oh yeah, and dork too. 6471. PelleNilsson - 6/5/2000 12:37:45 PM This takes us close to the gun control debate. Kuligin's implicit thesis seem to be that stealing the gun will prevent the murder. I don't see the logic of that. 6472. KuligintheHooligan - 6/5/2000 12:40:17 PM pelle, a good point which one student also made. Stealing the gun will most likely only postpone the murder. The guy may also just use some other weapon anyway. 6473. CalGal - 6/5/2000 12:41:26 PM I'd call the cops and tell the intended person. Stealing the gun won't even solve the problem, regardless of whether it's the morally upright thing to do. 6474. CalGal - 6/5/2000 12:43:22 PM Sorry, I didn't refresh before I posted or I would have acknowledged Pelle's and Kuligin's posts. 6475. mandolin - 6/5/2000 12:48:36 PM At Lytton Strachey's hearing for Conscientious Objector status during WW1, he was asked what he would do if "the Hun" was raping his sister. His answer: "I should attempt to interpose myself between them." 6476. KuligintheHooligan - 6/5/2000 12:53:05 PM The Hun would be done if I had druthers. 6477. BernieZ - 6/6/2000 10:16:24 AM The gun theft senario presented by Kuligin presents the argument for the heirarchy of ethics. A supreme ethic must be established, following by a secondary and so on. A prime example is being truthful. I strive to be truthful in all circumstances, but I were in Germany during the holocaust, I definately would not be truthful if I were asked if I was hiding or protecting Jews. The preservation of life takes precedence over the ethic of truth. 6478. DocBrown - 6/6/2000 11:19:49 AM BernieZ, why is it so important to be truthful? 6479. BernieZ - 6/6/2000 5:38:23 PM The gun theft senario presented by Kuligin presents the argument for the heirarchy of ethics. A supreme ethic must be established, following by a secondary and so on. A prime example is being truthful. I strive to be truthful in all circumstances, but I were in Germany during the holocaust, I definately would not be truthful if I were asked if I was hiding or protecting Jews. The preservation of life takes precedence over the ethic of truth. 6480. BernieZ - 6/6/2000 5:39:07 PM DocBrown, 6481. bloodnfire - 6/6/2000 11:26:01 PM Mandolin - Your Message # 6439" bloodnfire and paragate: Just what is the connection to Agape for those whose ventromedial portion of the frontal lobes have been damaged?" 6482. mandolin - 6/7/2000 8:39:58 AM bloodnfire, 6483. bloodnfire - 6/7/2000 10:39:06 AM Mandolin The Book says that Anybody and Everybody who 'Has the Son'...'has Life'. Regardless of any kind of 'damage', mental, physical, whatever. It was the unconditional love displayed by God on the Cross 6484. mandolin - 6/7/2000 10:56:25 AM There are peoople who cannot "respond to His sacrifice with loving obedience" because the cannot understand sacrifice, cannot act in their own or anyone else's interest, cannot even understand what these things might mean, and yet have almost all the outward appearance of rationality, good memories, good problem-solving skills (as long as the problems don't involve social or moral elements). 6485. Indiana Jones - 6/7/2000 12:28:34 PM mandolin (6484): I don't see the relevance of the DNA comment. All the DNA in our body is less than a thimbleful. Scientifically we have discovered that, despite its volume, DNA is critical to designing our structure...maybe we haven't discovered the important element yet (i.e., the similarly small fraction of DNA) that is essential to consciousness...or maybe souls don't have anything to do with physical structures. (Ockham's Razor isn't infallible, you know). 6486. Indiana Jones - 6/7/2000 12:29:50 PM (Upon rereading, I see that you actually said "genome," but I think the points re DNA aren't changed.) 6487. mandolin - 6/7/2000 1:31:15 PM Indiana 6488. mandolin - 6/7/2000 1:45:54 PM The point is not that we're the same as cabbages, but that we are the product of the same process: evolution by natural selection, directionless, purposeless adaptation to local conditions. Directionless and purposeless, I'm sure, raise a lot of red flags, and I'll try to address some of them. 6489. mandolin - 6/7/2000 2:10:12 PM Purposeless is harder on some levels, because it's easy enough to trot out statements like "We cannot understand the infinite mind of God" or "In eternity the pattern is clear." There is no response to such statements, partly because there's no clear way to know what they mean at all. 6490. Indiana Jones - 6/7/2000 2:49:19 PM "There is no longer any doubt among cognitive scientists, neuroscientists, brain researchers, etc, that the mind is an activity of brain and body interaction." 6491. Indiana Jones - 6/7/2000 2:49:39 PM (cont.) 6492. Indiana Jones - 6/7/2000 2:54:28 PM mandolin (6488-6489): I'll respond to these (hopefully) in more detail later, but for now I'll say that it's all a question of scaling. You make the scale big enough, and even the 100 billion years and Cambrian explosion are insignificant farts. Make it small enough and you have the nicotine molecule that finally causes just enough irritation to create the cancer cell that grows into a tumor that kills the man and all the descendants who would have followed him. 6493. mandolin - 6/7/2000 3:21:33 PM Some religions -- notably Buddhism -- don't have the pride problem. But the Judeo-Christian tradition, including Islam, insists that we are the chosen of a God who has reserved paradise for the righteous among us, and who considers the rest of creation a backdrop for our story. 6494. marshame - 6/7/2000 5:50:17 PM Mandolin 6495. mandolin - 6/8/2000 9:27:49 AM marshame 6496. mandolin - 6/8/2000 9:36:53 AM Indiana 6497. KuligintheHooligan - 6/8/2000 9:39:43 AM I would like to begin a discussion concerning euthanasia. Some preliminary items are worth noting: 6498. KuligintheHooligan - 6/8/2000 9:41:46 AM Some interesting questions pertaining to euthanasia are: 6499. paragate - 6/8/2000 10:07:05 AM Mandolin, It is my belief that science is the spectacularly successful new kid on the block, particularly when it comes to manipulating local phenomenona and thinking about natural processes. A person would have to be a fool to not recognize the power of the onward march of scientific understanding. But just because science has been so successful is not a particularly good reason in my view to listen when scientists or their handmaidens want to discuss "What there is" or "The purpose or purposelessness of the universe." IMO these questions are simply beyond the scientific method at least at this point in time. Maybe such questions are beyond all linguistic systems. Maybe Bach or Beethoven have more to "say" in this regard than all the philosophers or scientists in history. But my point is that neuroscience will no doubt be spectacularly productive in many respects but to argue from the present state of knowledge to the non-existence of spirits...or to a kind of eliminative materialism is just as wild a leap of faith as is belief in God or the afterlife or the divinity of Jesus. 6500. marshame - 6/8/2000 10:46:22 AM mandolin 6501. CalGal - 6/8/2000 10:58:09 AM Is mercy killing ever morally permissible or justifiable? 6502. KuligintheHooligan - 6/8/2000 11:01:59 AM "There are many prophesies in the old testament, which came true, and none that did not." 6503. KuligintheHooligan - 6/8/2000 11:04:12 AM CalGal, hopefully others will attempt answers and we can get some dialogue/discussion/debate on them. 6504. marshame - 6/8/2000 11:16:46 AM Victor 6505. mandolin - 6/8/2000 11:18:40 AM marshame 6506. marshame - 6/8/2000 11:21:48 AM Would you care to name some of the conflicts you see the the OT? And what is the relevance of your comments re Homer? The fact that there is geographic accuracy in his fictional accounts has what significance? 6507. Indiana Jones - 6/8/2000 11:31:58 AM As far as euthanasia goes, I've been fortunate enough in life to experience very little unbearable pain. So it's hard for me to say people should have to endure physical suffering. 6508. marshame - 6/8/2000 12:00:41 PM 1. Is mercy killing ever justifiable? 6509. paragate - 6/8/2000 12:28:21 PM People whose cats regularly kill birds are often faced with the dilemma of mercy-killing. Cat has a birdie and is mercilessly chewing and tormenting it. Birdie is a goner. Should the pet owner let nature take its course or stomp the bird into a merciful oblivion? Some people with many cats face this issue weekly. Years ago I had a cat which presented me with his "kills" with some regularity. I tried both of the above alternatives but was not very happy with either. Stomping birdie felt more proactive....it requires a moral intention and considerable determination to go through with it. 6510. marshame - 6/8/2000 12:32:52 PM Paragate 6511. sakonige - 6/8/2000 2:32:33 PM 6512. mandolin - 6/8/2000 2:37:55 PM Here's two quick contradictions: 1)Genesis 1 has animals and plants of all sorts before any people, then man and woman together on the 6th day. Genesis 3 has Adam, then animals in their pairs, then Eve. 6513. mandolin - 6/8/2000 2:50:27 PM My answers to Kuligin's questions: 6514. CalGal - 6/8/2000 2:56:34 PM I'm not a lawyer either, obviously. What I meant is that my response for what is a moral issue and what I would support legally are two different things. 6515. rubberducky7 - 6/8/2000 3:06:44 PM 1) Is mercy killing ever morally permissible or justifiable? 6516. rubberducky7 - 6/8/2000 3:14:49 PM Re: Message # 6508, marshame. 6517. mandolin - 6/8/2000 3:41:52 PM CalGal -- I follow, and agree. The law is a blunt instrument. 6518. mandolin - 6/8/2000 4:01:41 PM Failed prophecies and contradictions 6519. marshame - 6/8/2000 5:01:20 PM Per Mandolin: " Here's two quick contradictions: 1)Genesis 1 has animals and plants of all sorts before any people, then man and woman together on the 6th day. Genesis 3 has Adam, then animals in their pairs, then Eve. In the Noah story, in one version, there are 2 of every animal. In another, there are 2 of every unclean animal and 7 of every clean animal." 6520. Ronski - 6/8/2000 5:26:06 PM I think mandolin's link is so chockablock full of sound arguments against Biblical inerrancy as to make it a perfect place to launch a debate. From that site you can also link to numerous scholarly books, some written by former fundamentalist ministers and current liberal ones, debunking various claims made about the old and new testaments. 6521. marshame - 6/8/2000 5:59:21 PM From that same link: 6522. mandolin - 6/8/2000 6:01:49 PM Marshame, you're right about 1 thing -- it's Genesis 2 6523. Jenerator - 6/8/2000 6:06:21 PM Marshame, 6524. mandolin - 6/8/2000 6:06:38 PM Noticing the purpose of the Secular Web does nothing to refute it. You and Kuligin said no OT prohecies had been shown false. They have a convenient list with which to challenge that claim. 6525. mandolin - 6/8/2000 7:16:13 PM Kuligin -- you feel like you're herding cats? 6526. bloodnfire - 6/8/2000 8:10:22 PM Mandolin. Your Message # 6484. "Are gorillas candidates for salvation? We share about 30% of our genome with cabbages. Are they candidates? What is the threshold, and how did it come into existence? What makes you think we're so special?" 6527. mandolin - 6/8/2000 9:01:02 PM bloodnfire -- peace between us. And I have a joyful life. 6528. mandolin - 6/8/2000 9:02:29 PM and wish you at least as much joy as I know 6529. marshame - 6/9/2000 4:28:49 PM Mandolin 6530. marshame - 6/9/2000 4:29:01 PM The facts of the matter: 6531. Ronski - 6/9/2000 4:52:57 PM I would just like to interject that the existence of the power of prophesy is something I am willing to accept. I believe a very small number of people possess unusual psychic gifts. It is entirely possible that the Old Testament might record successful predictions, but that hardly demonstrates that the Bible is either the revealed word of God or inerrant. Just that it may well contain prophesies that came true just as we know it contains some accurate poliltical and social history (that is, historical events that can be verified through other valid sources). 6532. marshame - 6/9/2000 5:18:48 PM Ronski 6533. phillipdavid - 6/9/2000 7:33:47 PM There are two creation accounts in Genesis. Genesis, chapter 1 treats of the spiritual creation of man -- man made male and female in the image and likeness of God by the plural Elohim. Chapter 2 deals with the physical creation of Adam and Eve (by the now 6534. mandolin - 6/9/2000 8:03:42 PM You did a good deal of work, marshame, but everything you cited is either vague, pointing to nothing in particular, a threat rather than a prophesy, common sense, or thought by a considerable body of scholarship to have been written after the fact. 6535. mandolin - 6/9/2000 8:06:34 PM 1. The people of Israel will be taken captive 6536. mandolin - 6/9/2000 8:09:15 PM 2. The people will be taken to Babylon 6537. mandolin - 6/9/2000 8:13:59 PM 3. The people will be in Babylon 70 years 6538. KuligintheHooligan - 6/10/2000 10:04:48 AM mandolin [tools, tools, tools!], as the very existence of the "people" of God, the Jews, centered around the existence of the temple, it isn't a far stretch at all to use the destruction of the temple and its rebuiding as a major point of reference for the existence of the people. And as you have already pointed out, that was 70 years. 6539. KuligintheHooligan - 6/10/2000 10:09:31 AM Also, mandolin, I read the bulk of that hotlink you provided earlier, about "failed" OT prophecies. The short end of it is this. The author opts for other possible answers based on very far-reaching factors and conclusions. What I mean is this. In the OT we are told about Bethlehem being the birthplace of the Messiah, then in the NT we are told that Jesus came from there. This is fairly clear-cut. 6540. KuligintheHooligan - 6/10/2000 10:13:31 AM "There are two creation accounts in Genesis. Genesis, chapter 1 treats of the spiritual creation of man -- man made male and female in the image and likeness of God by the plural Elohim. Chapter 2 deals with the physical creation of Adam and Eve (by the now 6541. JayAckroyd - 6/10/2000 10:14:35 AM Just a note on the two biblical creation myths. 6543. KuligintheHooligan - 6/10/2000 10:22:10 AM Now back to Ethics. From a recent article: 6544. KuligintheHooligan - 6/10/2000 10:25:37 AM One of Sommers's colleagues, an ethics professor, scoffed at this argument: "You're not going to have moral people," the colleague insisted, "until you have moral institutions." And she told Sommers that she planned to continue talking about social issues like women's rights, gay rights, and protecting the rain forests. 6545. JudithAtHome - 6/10/2000 10:31:40 AM Kuligin: 6546. bloodnfire - 6/10/2000 11:10:50 AM Kuligin. Your Message # 6541 "And I feel the need to point out once again that in the Hebrew, when "elohim" is used with a singular verb it ALWAYS refers to the one, true God of the Jews, but when it is used with a plural verb, it refers to false gods. And in the creation account, a singular verb is used." 6547. CalGal - 6/10/2000 11:23:41 AM Kuligin, 6548. JayAckroyd - 6/10/2000 11:53:56 AM This JEDP critic leads me to believe that it is still the most widely held view. What is the contrary assertion? That Moses actually wrote it? 6549. KuligintheHooligan - 6/10/2000 2:12:03 PM CalGal, I suppose that the quote you took from that article was somewhat sacastic. In other words, the current powers that be in public education want morality to be relative ONLY when it doesn't agree with their own morality. I think the guy was taking a slap at some liberal trends in the educational institution. Just my guess. 6550. KuligintheHooligan - 6/10/2000 2:19:22 PM Jay, yes, the "contrary assertion" (more properly recognized to be the traditional, longest-held assertion) is that Moses wrote the first five books of the OT. The JEDP hypothesis is a little over a 100 years old if memory serves, begun I believe by Wellhausen or somebody like that. 6551. KuligintheHooligan - 6/10/2000 2:26:56 PM bloodnfire, sloppy reading on my part. I concentrated just on what you boldfaced, the "us" of the verse. Take a look at the verb "said" as in "God said." Is it singular or plural? 6552. JayAckroyd - 6/10/2000 2:36:11 PM Um, okay, KtH. 6553. bloodnfire - 6/10/2000 2:49:31 PM KtH. I can't tell from Strongs whether 'said' is singular or plural. But I miss your point. I'm assuming that the 'Elohiym' of 'God Said' in 'God said let Us make man in Our image', while plural, still refers to 'The Godhead', i.e., God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. It would be one more fascinating aspect of 'The Trinity' if 'Elohim' is indeed in the plural, and 'Said' was singular. :-) 6554. KuligintheHooligan - 6/11/2000 8:50:34 AM bloodnfire, while I certainly do not object to using the "us" of the creation account to refer to the Trinity, I would be about 99.9% sure that that understanding of it was not held by Moses or the early Jews. The best Jewish interpretations of that "us" is either a) the author is using the royal language, the royal "we", or b) God is speaking to the angels. Obviously, any Trinitarian understanding of the passage is reading back into the passage what wasn't possibly understood back then by the original writer and/or readers. 6555. KuligintheHooligan - 6/11/2000 8:51:17 AM Jay, 6556. KuligintheHooligan - 6/11/2000 8:51:38 AM Your question, though, allows me to bring up the main reason why I am so skeptical concerning liberal Christian scholarship. Since the 1800s liberal theologians - using the "scientific method" as their guide and therefore ASSUMING no supernatural items in the Scriptures could possibly have been true -have attempted to discredit the traditional views of NT authorship. Their very first attempts put the four orthodox Gospels, for example, at mid-to-late 2nd century authorship. This was adeptly spanked as utterly ridiculous by the likes of Schaff and Lightfoot, and ever since that time the liberal theologians have moved back, back, back on their dates, to the point where today their views are within a decade for some NT books of the original, traditionally held dates! In other words, their liberal theories have been consistently debunked, over and over and over again. 6557. KuligintheHooligan - 6/11/2000 8:52:03 AM "(Although I seem to recall some recent evidence of passages from John showing up before that gospel was supposed to have been written.)" 6558. RickNelson - 6/11/2000 9:10:50 AM KtH, 6559. RickNelson - 6/11/2000 9:11:11 AM 6560. bloodnfire - 6/11/2000 10:04:01 AM KtH. Your Message # 6554. Thanks for taking the time to reply. 6561. phillipdavid - 6/11/2000 11:01:49 AM just a quick note, Kuligin, re "they must have believed in a plurality of gods." (6554) That was not my position when we discussed this long ago. I put forth an idea about Elohim, to use your words, that was "something more complex." 6562. JayAckroyd - 6/11/2000 2:32:48 PM KtH, 6563. PelleNilsson - 6/11/2000 2:46:34 PM Kuligin 6564. KuligintheHooligan - 6/11/2000 3:16:48 PM Rick, thanks for the account. It may be that no one "bit" on it because it doesn't seem, at least to me, that you are asking for anybody to. OTOH, I have put up a fair amount of material for Ethics in the last couple of weeks and it has received little interest generally speaking. 6565. KuligintheHooligan - 6/11/2000 3:25:36 PM Jay, a great essay. Thanks! Could you provide the URL for the Jesus Seminar when you get the chance? 6566. KuligintheHooligan - 6/11/2000 3:29:55 PM Victor - "Well, 130 is still a far cry from 95, is it not?? Do you expect us to believe that John lived to be over 120 years old??" 6567. JayAckroyd - 6/11/2000 3:30:59 PM KtH, 6568. KuligintheHooligan - 6/11/2000 3:33:07 PM Jay, in conclusion, the thing that really frustrates me about the whole matter is that people will come around and act like it is all new. They'll say things like, "John wrote the Gospel? Humph! It wasn't written until the late second century!" They obviously have just heard something like that but are ignorant about the entire history of the matter. And this is how these same things generally get passed on from one generation to the next. 6569. KuligintheHooligan - 6/11/2000 3:37:37 PM Jay, briefly, being that certain organisms live on the same planet, breath the same air, live in generally the same environment, and so on, I would EXPECT great similarities between them. 6570. JayAckroyd - 6/11/2000 3:44:25 PM Yes, I did understand the logic of your argument, and I do find it somewhat persuasive. And I agree that people look kind of foolish repeatedly saying "This time for sure!!". And I don't think it's unreasonable to take the stance that the least hypothesis is to assume a work is written by the author. 6571. KuligintheHooligan - 6/11/2000 3:49:06 PM "William Shatner didn't write the TekWar series and so forth." 6572. KuligintheHooligan - 6/11/2000 3:52:28 PM Jay, thanks for the hotlink. As for evolutionary theory, I've taken a great interest in it since I was a teenager, but I'd rather not start another tangent in this thread, at least not now. 6573. JayAckroyd - 6/11/2000 3:54:52 PM Put another way, those who hold to macro evolution and believe that it disproves the existence of God don't understand the theory all too well. 6574. KuligintheHooligan - 6/11/2000 3:57:34 PM A fascinating read from that website. Here's something from the Peter Jennings special to air later this month: 6575. KuligintheHooligan - 6/11/2000 3:58:25 PM " 6576. RickNelson - 6/11/2000 11:45:23 PM KtH, 6577. bloodnfire - 6/12/2000 5:06:03 AM Having flown across the country, driven 400 miles, had only 3 hours of sleep and am now, at 4am in the morning, getting ready to head for the Institute and those 35 boys, I feel it's possible, Rick, that I might be that 2850-year-old man! :-) 6578. RickNelson - 6/12/2000 7:40:21 AM Take care bldnfr, I can say I've felt that way too. 6579. JayAckroyd - 6/12/2000 11:06:57 AM 6578 6580. KuligintheHooligan - 6/12/2000 12:44:28 PM "I've always wondered why so many theists don't adopt this lucid position. It leads me to wonder whether their faith is strong as they think it is." 6581. KuligintheHooligan - 6/12/2000 12:52:51 PM Rick, it is terrible what has happened in the name of the Church as you note with the Conquisadors. I shared this South African saying in the International Thread before, but will share it here now too. 6582. jonesatlaw - 6/12/2000 1:18:39 PM His point was basically that evolutionary theory doesn't jibe with the biblical picture of a purposeful God, who need only speak for something to be made. 6583. RickNelson - 6/12/2000 2:02:49 PM Good example of faithful works KtH. 6584. KuligintheHooligan - 6/12/2000 3:30:04 PM I just went to Amazon.com to look something up, and this book popped up on the recommended list for me. It was quite appropo for our current comments: 6585. JayAckroyd - 6/12/2000 5:26:21 PM The anthropic principle is an extension of these ideas. You might want to read Lee Smolin's Life of the Cosmos, which tries to use evolutionary ideas to completely get God out of cosmology. He believes that many of the current problems in the field is that the idea of something outside the universe is still embedded in the way we think about the universe. 6586. mandolin - 6/12/2000 6:32:07 PM I said I would stay out of Biblical interpretation, and I will, and I realize this forum is not the place for detailed discussion of the vast enterprise of evolutionary theory, but Kuligin has made some statements about that theory that I cannot let go unchallenged. I will be brief -- but I am willing to run a thread on the subject if there is interest. 6587. paragate - 6/12/2000 7:46:36 PM Mandolin & Kuligan, It seems to me that what seems to divide many theists from non-theists is the intuition that the universe makes sense on a deep level that transcends our understandings of or projections onto it. Often included in this intuition is the notion that the universe has a purpose & or direction. A reasonable deduction from this intuition would be that evolution must also have a purpose or direction. Some very smart evolutionary biologists such as T. Chardin link the origin and purpose with a deity. It is a kind of exuberant optimism which embraces the universe in this fashion. Such an embrace will always have an intellectually respectable place in the community of minds. No doubt there is a much more cautious view which will also have its place. I love a quote from John Berryman that goes something like: " I don't try to reconcile anything, said the poet at 80, it is a damn strange world." I love this line for the way it illumines the wonder and mystery of the world. 6588. RickNelson - 6/12/2000 8:14:27 PM Wonderful post Paragate. 6589. mandolin - 6/12/2000 10:48:25 PM Rick -- 6590. mandolin - 6/12/2000 11:21:44 PM paragate -- I love Berryman's poetry. Dream Song 14 was once a kind of mantra for me. Your quote reminds me of the great biologist J. B S. Haldane, who wrote "My own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose." 6591. bloodnfire - 6/13/2000 5:07:54 AM Mandolin. Could you perhaps provided a link to Berryman's 'Dream Song 14' ? I'm not sure where to look. 6592. mandolin - 6/13/2000 11:43:52 AM bloodnfire -- 6593. paragate - 6/13/2000 6:08:14 PM Mandolin, Those statistics are interesting....but it is quite possible that they are attributable to cultural fashions as much as to true cognitive dissonance between theism and science. I could imagine a new age when the pendulum has swung back to faith. I would hope such an age would be a lot more enlightened about what constitutes reasonable religious belief and embodied a profound tolerance for all views. But I would love to see an age when science, art and religion really reinforced each other proactively & imaginatively. A supersymetry of human understanding, so to speak. 6594. Indiana Jones - 6/13/2000 6:35:12 PM "My own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose." 6595. bloodnfire - 6/13/2000 8:19:14 PM Well I certainly thank you for writing out his poem, and I did agree with his sentiments regarding the 'strangeness and wonder' of the world. However, I totally disagree about it's being boring, and feel sad for the man. I'm probably missing his point, and he might feel sad for me. That 'inner resource' however is a key I believe. Just supposing it were possible to be indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God, the Creator of all! How indescribably exhilarating it would be ! :-) 6596. Uzmakk - 6/13/2000 8:44:38 PM 6586 Mandolin: 6597. mandolin - 6/13/2000 9:09:44 PM uzmakk -- 6598. mandolin - 6/13/2000 9:12:29 PM bloodnfire 6599. Uzmakk - 6/13/2000 9:15:55 PM I have not read that, Mandolin. Kazantzakis? Is he the Greek author who did a modern version of the Odessey? 6600. paragate - 6/13/2000 9:24:33 PM Kazantzakis wrote the Last Temptation of Christ. His theology emphasizes the humanity of Christ and Patripassianism....the idea that God literally suffers with us. 6601. Uzmakk - 6/13/2000 9:28:05 PM I will look into this. 6602. mandolin - 6/13/2000 9:32:42 PM the same, uzmakk 6603. bloodnfire - 6/15/2000 5:20:51 AM Paragate. I don't remember ever hearing that word 'Patripassianism' before. Do you (or anyone) know which scriptures may support it? I am aware of course that they refer to our 'suffering with Him' (Romans 8:17, etc.) but not the reverse. 6604. paragate - 6/15/2000 7:07:53 AM BnF, I can't remember when I first read the term. I think it was in conjunction with Kazantzakis. I think that such a concept could be linked to Process Theology and the idea of an emergent deity. One might also argue that since Jesus suffered how could the father NOT have suffered as well? As to scriptural reference, don't we occasionally get the sense of suffering-with from the idea of a compassionate God? For example He is aware of the death of every bird. In being so aware, how can suffering not be a property of awareness? 6605. KuligintheHooligan - 6/15/2000 10:49:28 AM The term "Patripassionism" was used very early in the church's history to refer to the Father suffering. It was connected with the notion (later deemed heretical) of Modalism, that God existed as one person but played "roles" or "modes" at various times, this time as the Father, that time as the Son, and so on. One argument used against Modalism was that the Father then would have been the one that suffered on the cross. This was unacceptable to many church fathers. 6606. KuligintheHooligan - 6/15/2000 10:50:17 AM Oh, one more thing. Patripassionism is usually played against the attribute of God commonly referred to as "impassibility." 6607. KuligintheHooligan - 6/15/2000 4:55:48 PM We dealt with euthanasia tonight in my class. Some really good discussion. 6608. Jenerator - 6/15/2000 7:13:08 PM Process Theology is obviously condemned by orthodox Christianity. 6609. mandolin - 6/15/2000 7:35:15 PM It was a book many years before it was a movie, and most non-fundamentalist Christian churches condemned neither the book nor the movie. 6610. bloodnfire - 6/16/2000 5:02:34 AM "And His name shall be called 'Wonderful Counselor', 'The Mighty God', 'The Everlasting Father', 'The Prince of Peace'...(Isaiah 9:6). So in a sense 'The Father' suffered for us, and perhaps, as Paragate suggests, when we suffer so does He with us, as any Father does when His child is hurting. To tie that in with an 'Emerging' deity however doesn't 'ring any chimes' in me. 6611. bloodnfire - 6/16/2000 5:11:12 AM As for Dr. Kovorkian, its easy for me to say what I think I would do if I was suffering with a terminal illness, and to discuss the ethics of it. It's a different 'Kettle of Fish' when one actually is. I believe he means well, and have read of countless other doctors who have acted identically, but quietly. The decision to commit suicide is as personal as any one can make imho, and no one else has any business condemning or interfering. At the same time, I would hope that an 'Indwelt' Christian would see God's hand in his or her suffering, and patiently, albeit agonizingly, wait for that hand to finish it's work. I don't blame anyone who just can't bear it any longer and asks someone to help them end it. 6612. PelleNilsson - 6/16/2000 6:10:27 AM I think euthanasia can be morally justified but I'm strongly opposed to it being a recocgnized medical practice because of the "slippery slope problem". 6613. KuligintheHooligan - 6/16/2000 10:12:09 AM bloodnfire, a nice balanced answer. I too don't view suicide as the unforgivable since, albeit I do think it horribly selfish in many instances. The issue of euthanasia is a difficult one for me given some of the scenarios. 6614. Indiana Jones - 6/16/2000 10:24:33 AM 1) Malachi (probably not right) 6615. KuligintheHooligan - 6/16/2000 10:34:35 AM Indy, excellent on #2, unfortunately wrong on #1. 6616. paragate - 6/16/2000 10:53:50 AM bnF, I like your answer to the Euthanasia question; however, I reserve my highest respect for those who endure tremendous suffering and make something positive of it. My wife's first husband died a horrifyingly painful death of throat and lung cancer, had a bottle of morphine in the refrigerator which he refused(knowing that it would probably kill him) and clearly made use of every precious second left him. My wife believes that in many respects the best year of his life was his last when he achieved levels of self-understanding which had been unable to reach during his life before cancer. 6617. mandolin - 6/16/2000 2:23:34 PM My father died this year after 10 years of progessive vascular dementia. The last year and a half my mother literally had to lock him in to a furnitureless room with padding on the walls so that he would not hurt himself. She had to help him to bathroom, feed him, change his clothes -- everything. He did know who she was, or who he was. He occasionally became violent, and as he was very strong, that was extremely frightening. The way his insurance plan worked, she could have housed him in a nursing home for a while, but then she would have had to sell everything and spend those assets before being eligible for longterm medicare aid. 6618. mandolin - 6/16/2000 2:27:08 PM It seems to me that the Bible provides good support for Process Theology. The God who ordered the murder and/or enslavement of every man woman and child in a city which resisted Jewish conquest is clearly different from the God described in the Epistles. 6619. mandolin - 6/16/2000 2:30:03 PM In Message # 6617, it should read "He did know not who she was, or who he was. " 6620. Ronski - 6/16/2000 3:39:14 PM mandolin, 6621. bloodnfire - 6/16/2000 9:06:22 PM I understand your thinking regarding 'Process Theology', Mandolin, however the Scriptures testify that 'He is the same, yesterday, today and forever'. My understganding of the difference is that God, from the begining of the record, has been teaching us the difference between 'The Law', and the strict, perfect legalism of His Holines, as opposed to Grace, the extension of His mercy to all of those who claim His death on Calvary as payment in full for their own dirty-heartedness. 6622. CalGal - 6/17/2000 1:02:52 AM I think Kevorkian is a seriously sick puppy. He uses the euthanasia debate for cover. 6623. bloodnfire - 6/17/2000 6:45:05 AM Jay. Your Message # 6567 "species share a huge amount of DNA, the amount they share corresponds to where they closely together they lie taxonomically on a cladistic diagram?." 6624. bloodnfire - 6/17/2000 6:51:51 AM Rick. Your Message # 6578. I just love your 'Primordial Soup' with it's 'Holy Cook'. :-) 6625. bloodnfire - 6/17/2000 6:56:55 AM Paragate. Your 6616. I of course agree, and it sounds to me as though you are also gifted with a wonderful wife, as am I. 6626. bloodnfire - 6/17/2000 7:02:35 AM Mandolin. I'm so sorry for the agony your Mother had to go through with you as you tried to protect your Dad from himself. I would hope that the doctors agonized over the decision to remove his pacemaker or not, but the impression you give is that they rather curtly and arbitrarily refused. 6627. bloodnfire - 6/17/2000 7:08:18 AM CalGal. I note your appraisal of 'Doctor Death' as a 'Sick Puppy'. How do you feel about the ethics of keeping a pacemaker installed in the breast of a man who is not only evidently dying, but is seriously damaging himself and those who love him as he does ? 6628. KuligintheHooligan - 6/17/2000 8:25:15 AM "It seems to me that the Bible provides good support for Process Theology. The God who ordered the murder and/or enslavement of every man woman and child in a city which resisted Jewish conquest is clearly different from the God described in the Epistles." 6629. mandolin - 6/17/2000 11:46:36 AM Kuligin, I don't know your background. Can you tell me just what you mean by "orthodox"? Roman Catholic (by far the largest and one of the two oldest Christian organizations)? Orthodox as in Greek, Russian, etc., Orthodox? "Mainstream" protestantism or some branch thereof? If Episcopalians are orthodox, are Presbyterians? Free Will Baptists? Biblical inerrantists? 6630. CalGal - 6/17/2000 11:51:13 AM Blood, 6631. mandolin - 6/17/2000 12:39:50 PM CalGal -- 6632. CalGal - 6/17/2000 12:49:27 PM Mandolin, 6633. mandolin - 6/17/2000 1:08:51 PM bloodnfire -- about taxonomy and cladistics: 6634. mandolin - 6/17/2000 1:13:55 PM CalGal -- we're all under a death sentence. How is removing the pacemaker different from removing life-support such as assisted breathing or intravenous feeding from those in an irreversible coma? They have the same effect much more quickly. 6635. CalGal - 6/17/2000 1:40:24 PM Mandolin, 6636. PelleNilsson - 6/17/2000 2:02:42 PM kuligin -- Message # 6613 6637. sakonige - 6/17/2000 2:11:09 PM 6638. sakonige - 6/17/2000 2:14:13 PM 6639. PelleNilsson - 6/17/2000 2:14:28 PM My wife is a nurse and worked in a geriatrics ward for several years. On the issue of active euthanasia, that is turning off life support whether air or food or whatever, the question is: who is going to do it? Who is going to turn the switch? Where she worked the issue was discussed a lot and nobody would have been prepared to it even if legal. The taboo on taking life is strong. And it has nothing to do with religious belief. 6640. mandolin - 6/17/2000 2:37:45 PM CalGal 6641. KuligintheHooligan - 6/17/2000 2:47:26 PM mandolin, when I use "orthodox" with a small 'o' I mean the traditional beliefs of Christendom. Now then, you may rightly ask, "Which ones?" All three of the main branches of Christendom - Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, and Eastern Orthodoxy - adhere to the conclusions of the first four ecumenical councils when it comes to the person of Jesus Christ. The doctrine of the Trinity, then, would fall under these pronouncements. I merely use the term "orthodox" to make this distintion, so that at least people don't think I am talking about some wacked-out cult or some strange Christian group. 6642. CalGal - 6/17/2000 2:48:21 PM Mandolin, 6643. KuligintheHooligan - 6/17/2000 2:50:12 PM pelle, starting at #6497, my original posts on the topic of euthanasia: 6644. KuligintheHooligan - 6/17/2000 2:50:51 PM pelle (Cont) 6645. mandolin - 6/17/2000 2:52:10 PM Sakonige 6646. KuligintheHooligan - 6/17/2000 2:52:47 PM An interesting debate ensues in my Ethics class this past week about "playing God." Many of the students thought that hooking people up to machines was "playing God" and therefore over the line. In other words, if a person needs to be hooked up to a machine, then we should just let that person die. 6647. sakonige - 6/17/2000 2:57:32 PM 6648. mandolin - 6/17/2000 3:04:45 PM Kuligin -- thanks for your reply on orthodoxy. I asked because of your use of "condemned," which seemed to me to imply a formal process like that of the early councils. 6649. mandolin - 6/17/2000 3:15:47 PM Sakonige -- a ittle more than 3 years before he died, when the prognosis was already clear and his disease far advanced, but my father still knew who he was, his pacemaker needed to be replaced. He did not want it done, but the doctors convinced my mother that he could not make a rational decision and that she should authorize the operation. I wouild not have. 6650. CalGal - 6/17/2000 3:23:07 PM He did not want it done, but the doctors convinced my mother that he could not make a rational decision and that she should authorize the operation. 6651. CalGal - 6/17/2000 3:27:11 PM "Surprised" is too strong a word. It is understandable, obviously. However, the doctors didn't do anything wrong--and in many cases they are legally required to do their best. 6652. mandolin - 6/17/2000 3:34:04 PM The doctors played on the guilts and uncertainties of a woman already battered by years suffering, out of (I believe) their own fear of being sued for not doing enough. They told her it wouild make his last days more comfortable, not that hers would be hell. She couldn't believe then thatbefore he died he would accuse her of murdering his wife and trying to take her place -- a frequent accusation before he stopped speaking sentences altogether. 6653. mandolin - 6/17/2000 3:41:47 PM "sometimes the only way to end someone's suffering is to take active steps to kill them. I wonder often what is best in these cases." 6654. CalGal - 6/17/2000 5:43:14 PM The doctors played on the guilts and uncertainties of a woman already battered by years suffering, out of (I believe) their own fear of being sued for not doing enough. 6655. bloodnfire - 6/17/2000 7:46:01 PM How is your Mother now, Mandolin? I truly grieve for all the pain through which you and your family have been. As a minister and chaplain there are times when I am expected to bring comfort and encouragement to people who are in the same kind of situation you faced. There wouldn't have been words. Only tears and a shoulder to cry on. 6656. RickNelson - 6/17/2000 10:59:44 PM 6657. PelleNilsson - 6/18/2000 4:10:43 AM Kuligin 6658. bloodnfire - 6/18/2000 7:55:04 AM Mandolin. Your Message # 6649. "For myself I have begun taking a weekend every other month and going camping alone." 6659. KuligintheHooligan - 6/18/2000 9:18:43 AM mandolin 6660. KuligintheHooligan - 6/18/2000 9:23:00 AM From the Ethics book I am using for my class, by Feinberg and Feinberg, "Ethics for a Brave New World," some interesting "medical concerns" that they list pertaining to the issue of euthanasia: 6661. mandolin - 6/18/2000 11:20:23 AM bloodnfire 6662. mandolin - 6/18/2000 12:38:53 PM Kuligin -- there is and never will be a cure for a brain which has wasted through strokes to a fraction of it's former size. Even if the tissue could be regrown, the person formerly associated with that body was the result of a unrepeatable, complex interaction of genes and environment over years and through developmental stages which an adult body cannot experience. Even if life could be prolonged, it would be a different person's life. 6663. phillipdavid - 6/18/2000 12:49:02 PM I don't go camping solo, but it is very important for me to spend time alone, to go within; I have a little maxim I always try to remember to live with: If I do not go within, I go without. 6664. bloodnfire - 6/18/2000 5:54:50 PM My reasons too, PD. Thanks for your usual lucid reasoning. 6665. mandolin - 6/18/2000 6:14:12 PM Mty thanks, bloodnfire 6666. CalGal - 6/18/2000 7:08:29 PM snagging a cool number. 6667. Uzmakk - 6/19/2000 11:51:39 AM Cal Gaul, 6668. Ronski - 6/19/2000 12:02:24 PM Physicians are placed in the difficult situation of reconciling the Hippocratic Oath with their duty to relieve suffering due to their exclusive right to dispense powerful drugs, which is granted to them by the Government (and which they are delighted they have). Were doctors not to have this monopoly, they would not have to torture themselves over this issue. 6669. Ronski - 6/19/2000 1:49:10 PM pd, 6670. mandolin - 6/19/2000 2:02:10 PM The camping is not intended to help me get in touch with myself. 6671. Jenerator - 6/19/2000 7:13:31 PM Mandolin, 6672. mandolin - 6/19/2000 9:31:29 PM Jenerator -- I appreciate your message. But pain can be medicated, sores treated, and as long as the person is still there and wants to be, then everything possible should be done. My father was long gone 2 years before he died. There was a walking, occasionally dangerous corpse in that house. 6673. mandolin - 6/19/2000 9:36:50 PM Jenerator -- I especially want to second your recommensation of hospice care. Alabama hospice is the only thing that got my mnother through the last few months. They are a magnificent organization. 6674. bloodnfire - 6/20/2000 4:38:41 AM So we're neighbors Mandolin. Ever get to Mobile ? 6675. mandolin - 6/20/2000 8:15:45 AM We're both in the South, apparently. But my mother lives in Decatur, and I live in Raleigh NC. They moved to Decatur from Louisville KY the year I gradduated from college. 6676. Jenerator - 6/20/2000 7:26:27 PM Mandolin, 6677. bloodnfire - 6/20/2000 7:30:50 PM We live outside Chipley, Florida (40 miles north of Panama City Beach). We have a daughter and her family who live in Mobile, so we go visit every month. I noted your reference to Alabama Hospice and jumped to a conclusion (the way I get much of my exercise :-). 6678. mandolin - 6/21/2000 10:57:23 PM Jen -- 6679. Jenerator - 6/22/2000 5:11:27 PM Mandolin, 6680. PelleNilsson - 6/22/2000 5:29:49 PM Is it time to drop this issue? It cannot be easy for mandolin and I don't think anyone can really understand. 6681. Jenerator - 6/22/2000 6:56:26 PM Pelle, 6682. mandolin - 6/22/2000 10:22:48 PM My father was dead more than a year before his heart stopped. He wasn't just "out of his mind" -- he was flat gone. 6683. sakonige - 6/22/2000 10:53:40 PM 6684. sakonige - 6/22/2000 11:01:17 PM 6685. KuligintheHooligan - 6/23/2000 8:36:23 AM When it comes to these "life and death" situations I tend to have little "fuzziness" in my points of view. But when it comes specifically to the question of euthanasia, I find myself hedging. Matters of abortion? I really feel my views are solid and well-defined. Capital punishment? It isn't personally my first choice, but I am not opposed to it either. But euthanasia? Not at all really clear on the issue 6686. KuligintheHooligan - 6/23/2000 8:36:43 AM 6687. KuligintheHooligan - 6/23/2000 8:42:41 AM It is the issue of "mercy killing" where I find myself the most sympathetic. Perhaps we have all done something like this at one point in time with animals, for example, where it becomes obvious that death is actually merciful for the animal. So then those "funny" hypotheticals come into play, like suppose a person is burning to death in a car accident and there is no way of getting him out. Why not shoot him in the head and end his suffering? Such situations intrigue me, because you are motivated by a sense of mercy in such instances. 6688. KuligintheHooligan - 6/23/2000 8:46:29 AM Here's another "scenario" to consider, perhaps a bit of an odd one, but one that actually occurred about 6 months ago to missionaries with my organization, serving just outside Mombasa, Kenya. 6689. Ronski - 6/23/2000 12:19:44 PM I'm happy I live in a country where there is rule of law. 6690. Indiana Jones - 6/23/2000 12:32:57 PM Seeing as you could not be certain that those making the threat against the hostage would not kill the family members once they were inside (yes, hey didn't at other houses, but they are demonstrating that they are capable of doing so simply by threatening the pastor)... 6691. bloodnfire - 6/23/2000 4:22:07 PM I'm just about to drive to Mobile for the weekend. I have a distinct picture of me driving along with Kuligin. Suddenly we hit a deep pothole. Kuligin is thrown out, the car bursts into flames and I can't get my seat belt undone. Fortunately, Kuligin has a pistol. I can hear him shouting at me...."Blood, would you rather I let you burn to death, or is it okay to shoot you ?"..... 6692. CalGal - 6/23/2000 5:16:50 PM Vic, 6693. Cellar Door - 6/23/2000 8:13:34 PM Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell 6694. labwabbit - 6/23/2000 10:04:56 PM Cal/Vic #6692 6695. Karl Northman - 6/23/2000 10:12:44 PM Christin - a couple suggestions - I know a couple of Daoists, one of whom is a white American who converted when he was in Vietnam.. 6696. Karl Northman - 6/23/2000 10:16:03 PM Well hell, I didn't realize I was about a thousand messages back when I opened this today. Sorry. 6697. labwabbit - 6/23/2000 10:22:07 PM Hello Karl... 6698. Karl Northman - 6/23/2000 10:27:38 PM labwabbit: You have the soul of a fern. I have the brains of a rock. It's all the same to us. 6699. labwabbit - 6/23/2000 10:30:35 PM Allow me to place that one in my "under-consideration" file Karl. 6700. Karl Northman - 6/23/2000 10:47:31 PM The "Kenyan pastor" issue is a confusion because it conflates one's doubts about intentions with ones moral duties. If one KNOWS that the outside guys will kill the pastor, and not kill everyone else, that's one thing. If one knows that the outside guys will kill the pastor, and then kill everyone inside, that's another thing. There are still ethical questions around. There are Quakers who would let them in, even being well convinced that the pastor will be saved, but the people on the inside will be killed. 6701. labwabbit - 6/24/2000 1:41:32 AM The trick here Karl, is to state what you would do and why based on the conditions presented. You have done nothing more than provide ifs and why(s)with adapted and altered conditions to facilitate your opinions. CalGal and Vic have sought to explore reasoning to why certain actions are logical or not. Infinite are the possibilities and conditions one might create in imagination... 6702. iiibbb - 6/24/2000 9:51:01 AM Message # 6688 6703. iiibbb - 6/24/2000 9:58:51 AM I wish I was here earlier for the euthenasia discussion...but I guess that one has past... 6704. CalGal - 6/24/2000 11:02:26 AM But no one will make a move, unless they are truly convinced that they will die. By not taking a risk of dying, they guarantee their death, because they misread the viciousness and slyness of the bad guys. 6705. iiibbb - 6/24/2000 11:06:18 AM Instinct is not constrained by ethics. 6706. KuligintheHooligan - 6/24/2000 11:08:08 AM iiibbb 6707. CalGal - 6/24/2000 11:08:34 AM 6708. CalGal - 6/24/2000 11:13:19 AM Vic, 6709. KuligintheHooligan - 6/24/2000 11:13:32 AM And just so you know, in this actual situation that missionaries let the mob in. They got roughed up a bit but no one got killed. 6710. iiibbb - 6/24/2000 11:19:55 AM Impossible to say...perhaps you're the first one who can notify the police... perhaps they start shooting and becasue you escaped you're the only one immediately available to help the wounded. 6711. KuligintheHooligan - 6/24/2000 11:20:29 AM Yes, CalGal, if only my life were in question, then it seems obvious to me that I should let them in. I would say, though, that I do believe this scenario to be an "ethical" dilemma, because one has to weigh two responsibilities here, one to preserve the lives of others, and the other to protect one's family. That is why I think it an ethical scenario. But if the family is removed, then I don't think the responsibility of preserving one's own life is greater than preserving the lives of others. In other words, letting the mob in becomes a supererogatory deed in one sense, but at least in my own mind I don't think it is "above the call of duty" but rather is "obligatory." 6712. CalGal - 6/24/2000 11:22:48 AM Vic, 6713. CalGal - 6/24/2000 11:29:10 AM Vic, 6714. KuligintheHooligan - 6/24/2000 11:40:20 AM "For me, the fact that my family is there really doesn't have too much to do with it. It is the number of lives. 6715. KuligintheHooligan - 6/24/2000 11:43:32 AM It is the element of doubt in the Kenyan pastor scenario that I think makes it difficult. If I had seen the mob moving down the street killing people in each house, then they got to my house, even if alone, I would KNOW that the pastor is dead anyway, so why open the gate? But because you really don't know for certain if the mob is serious about killing the guy or not, that makes the scenario much more difficult. 6716. CalGal - 6/24/2000 11:45:14 AM Vic, 6717. KuligintheHooligan - 6/24/2000 11:45:52 AM I am curious, but doubt that I could determine, if answers would differ between theists and atheists. What I am specifically thinking about is the question of an afterlife. There is a small part of me that thinks, "Death to the pastor is really no big deal, because he'll be in Heaven anyway." I wonder if not believing in an afterlife would affect my own decision or opinion in any way. 6718. KuligintheHooligan - 6/24/2000 11:49:42 AM When faced with superior power, huddling on the floor might be the best thing to do. If there are several gunmen in various places in the room, jumping one of them will probably not do you much good and result in the immediate death of several people. Most people aren't James Bond! 6719. CalGal - 6/24/2000 11:51:41 AM Vic, 6720. KuligintheHooligan - 6/24/2000 11:52:29 AM I mean, really, didn't anybody else other than me think the Irish engineer an absolute idiot would just standing there next to the fireplace and not even attempting to save himself in some way?? Maybe because he knew there weren't enough lifeboats that he was actually doing something heroic by standing there, but I thought it dumb. I'd try to hang onto a piece of wood or anything. 6721. KuligintheHooligan - 6/24/2000 11:55:54 AM I just saw your last post CalGal. Oh, for me at least, if my house were full of other people, other than my family, the notion to let the mob in becomes a little easier for me. I know for you it is more the matter of numbers, ie, how many people may get killed and not necessarily who those people are. 6722. CalGal - 6/24/2000 11:58:23 AM Kuligin, 6723. Karl Northman - 6/24/2000 9:23:55 PM re labwabbit 6701: 6724. bloodnfire - 6/25/2000 9:07:24 AM CalGal. Your Message # 6707. Loved your 'rant'. My sentiments exactly. Supreme irony when your typical policeman lectures on 'how to behave while a crime is being committed'. 6725. bloodnfire - 6/25/2000 9:17:49 AM Karl. Hello. I think this is the first time I've communicated with you directly. In your #6723 you post..." You see them, and notice that they speak French, from which you assume 6726. labwabbit - 6/26/2000 1:39:12 PM Karl - #6723 6727. PelleNilsson - 6/26/2000 3:36:37 PM labwabbit 6728. labwabbit - 6/26/2000 3:53:56 PM Pelle: 6729. CalGal - 6/26/2000 3:59:01 PM I think the strength of one's ethical values is tested by their exposure to risk. 6730. labwabbit - 6/26/2000 4:09:54 PM Pelle [addendum to #6728] 6731. iiibbb - 6/26/2000 4:15:16 PM Not that I'm a big fan of Freud 6732. PelleNilsson - 6/26/2000 4:15:52 PM Yes, CalGal, and I'm afraid that when the choice is tough, ethics has a tendency to crumble. See also an upcoming post in WWII. 6733. Karl Northman - 6/27/2000 1:28:02 AM quote from calgal.. 6734. KuligintheHooligan - 6/28/2000 12:41:47 PM I have seen on my perusal of the web today two things that greatly disturb me: 6735. Ronski - 6/28/2000 12:50:03 PM 6736. labwabbit - 6/28/2000 12:55:56 PM Kul 6737. KuligintheHooligan - 6/28/2000 12:57:29 PM "Gay relationships should be afforded the same treatment as married heterosexuals." 6738. KuligintheHooligan - 6/28/2000 12:58:09 PM Of course, I recognize that my last response isn't too informed of one. Give me time to think about my answer! 6739. KuligintheHooligan - 6/28/2000 1:03:29 PM I have to formulate a post on paganism and the modern acceptance of things like abortion and homosexuality. I have recently read some interesting material which tracks the rise of neo-paganism in our culture and how human sacrifice (ie, abortion) and deviant forms of sexual behaviour (ie, homosexuality) are also on the rise. The two work today (I mean paganism and unprohibited forms of sexual activity as well as human sacrifice. 6740. Ronski - 6/28/2000 1:17:30 PM Kuligan, 6741. KuligintheHooligan - 6/28/2000 2:11:14 PM Homosexual conduct and activity is supremely irrational. Let's face it, what is done isn't really according to anatomical and biological systems of reason, if you catch my drift (i'd rather not get "crude" on the topic, but I think you can see what I believe). 6742. Ronski - 6/28/2000 2:27:30 PM Kuligin, 6743. Ronski - 6/28/2000 2:30:46 PM As for the term discrimination, there is good discrimination and bad discrimination, and there is discrimination by civil society and discrimination by government. I have been the discussing the latter. You can associate with whom you wish. 6744. christipeters - 6/28/2000 3:41:13 PM Just a small comment on the shooter coming in to a place of business bit. When it happened to me, everything happened too fast to actually think about what to do. One minute we are working as usual, the next minute there are loud bangs and Terry on the floor with blood gushing everywhere. So we stopped the bleeding, called the ambulance, called the SPs, secured the doors, counted noses, and hunkered down. Of course, in this case the gunman was appalled at what he'd done, turned and ran, and comitted suicide in a canyon later that night. I don't know what I or anyone else there would have done if he had stayed there and contiued shooting as his original plan was. Certainly, the building was big enough and had enough doors that if you became aware of what was goong on before he saw you, it is conceivable that you could have successfully hidden or snuck out. I don't think sneaking out is unethical as it gives you a chance to go for help. Still, the OSI said he'd had a good plan and if he hadn't chickened out, we'd all have been dead. (They found the plan in his diary in the trunk of his abandoned car) 6745. christipeters - 6/28/2000 3:42:17 PM Anyway, my point was that a lot of time in real life it is like that - it all happens too fast for actual thought to play any part in what you do. 6746. labwabbit - 6/28/2000 3:43:58 PM cp 6747. christipeters - 6/28/2000 3:53:20 PM labwabbit - 6748. christipeters - 6/28/2000 3:56:04 PM What he couldn't go through with was his plan to kill everyone in the building then wait inside, kill the peole coming in on the necxt shift, then wait until morning to kill the incoming shop chiefs and officers (this was on the 3 - midnight shift). 6749. KuligintheHooligan - 6/28/2000 3:59:13 PM Ronski, 6750. labwabbit - 6/28/2000 4:06:46 PM cp 6751. christipeters - 6/28/2000 4:29:32 PM Yeah, sad all around imo. Saddest, however, for the guy who had to have a new cheekbone built, lost his eye, still has a bullet in his spleen, and was discharged as "unfit for duty" when he was all patched up, thus losing his career as well. 6752. labwabbit - 6/28/2000 5:00:29 PM cp 6753. christipeters - 6/28/2000 5:11:02 PM huh? 6754. labwabbit - 6/28/2000 5:28:23 PM The bottom line being the individual's inability to compromise. He has learned and adapted to, throughout a lifetime, how to hide or sidestep conflicting beliefs with the world around him. Sort of a survival mechanism. The psych was just another situation to "act" out. 6755. alistairconnor - 6/28/2000 6:47:59 PM Tomorrow, in the small town of Millau, in central France, begins a trial which has considerable ethical importance, to my system of values at least. 6756. labwabbit - 6/28/2000 6:53:00 PM For the answer to that in flat terms, just try to get between me and my dinner. 6758. alistairconnor - 6/28/2000 7:10:45 PM What's the basic issue? 6759. labwabbit - 6/28/2000 7:14:52 PM Al 6760. Uzmakk - 6/28/2000 7:15:44 PM AConnor: 6761. alistairconnor - 6/28/2000 7:18:36 PM Well, yes Uz, I think selfish team is a bit over-rated. 6762. Uzmakk - 6/28/2000 7:22:49 PM Yes, if I recall we didn't disagree at all. You said you were preparing to lambast me, but but I clarified something and was spared the experience. 6763. wonkers2 - 6/28/2000 10:58:09 PM The inaction of the Catholic church against Hitler's genocide of the Jews, in a sense, is analogous to the Kenyan pastor scenario. The Pope chose to take care of number one, i.e., the institution of Catholicism. 6764. alistairconnor - 6/29/2000 10:42:44 AM Huligan : 6765. alistairconnor - 6/29/2000 10:47:39 AM Homosexual conduct and activity is supremely irrational. 6766. Uzmakk - 6/29/2000 2:03:34 PM Wish I had time to post more than the following for Mandolin, if he happens to see it. I post here and not in books because this is where our last exchange was. 6767. KuligintheHooligan - 6/29/2000 4:45:14 PM "You, on the other hand, appear to know something I don't, i.e. that hetero-marital sex is best for everyone in the world (and presumably for the inhabitants of all the other planets in the universe too, I can't see why not)." 6768. Wombat - 6/29/2000 5:26:40 PM If cunnilingus is sinful then why did God permit the invention of the taco? 6769. Uzmakk - 6/29/2000 7:45:28 PM wombat: 6770. labwabbit - 6/29/2000 8:39:38 PM If cunnilingus is sinful then why did God permit the invention of the taco? 6771. bloodnfire - 6/29/2000 10:18:08 PM Wombat. The Scriptures teach that within marriage..."He that provideth not for his own, especially those of his own house, hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel". This would appear to me, at least, to include the most intimate caresses, especially those which are so deeply and exquisitely needed (although perhaps you shouldn't tell Kuligin I said so). I have often felt that there are few spiritual and emotional issues which can't be helped enormously by a massive orgasm. :-) 6772. bloodnfire - 6/29/2000 10:19:02 PM And not just one, either. :-) 6773. Uzmakk - 6/30/2000 2:08:23 PM Bloodn: 6774. KuligintheHooligan - 6/30/2000 2:37:03 PM bloodnfire, 6775. rubberducky - 6/30/2000 2:42:32 PM "Besides, don't you think that God believes homosexuality to be wrong, or are you going to do a song and dance around that issue again?" 6776. KuligintheHooligan - 6/30/2000 2:44:41 PM One day you will see him rubber, as we all will. And I hope that you and I will both be prepared for that day! 6777. PelleNilsson - 6/30/2000 2:53:02 PM SeaSailor used to upset me something awful with his false interpretations of Aristotle. 6778. KuligintheHooligan - 6/30/2000 2:56:56 PM Ah, yes, I remember seasailor posing as a sort of Thomas Aquinas/Aristotle "expert." 6779. KuligintheHooligan - 6/30/2000 3:01:50 PM Just as a funny ethics aside, last night 10 of my students skipped the first hour of my ethics class so they could finish watching the Italy-Holland match. Unethical creeps. 6780. PelleNilsson - 6/30/2000 3:07:32 PM To continue in chatting mode, I hadn't realised that you teach evening classes. 6781. KuligintheHooligan - 6/30/2000 3:13:54 PM pelle, 6782. PelleNilsson - 6/30/2000 3:16:28 PM And your mention of Aquinas reminds me that I have a text by him lying around somewhere, in which there are some notes on sexuality. I'll try to dig it out but not tonight. 6783. PelleNilsson - 6/30/2000 3:18:11 PM May I ask you, Kuligin, which denomination you represent? 6784. KuligintheHooligan - 6/30/2000 3:22:12 PM Pelle, 6785. KuligintheHooligan - 6/30/2000 3:26:25 PM A quick sampling of our students includes Baptists, Nazarene, some charismatics and Pentecostal students (actually about 25% of them), independent churches, Lutheran, Rhenish, and Reformed. Also one student from an African Independent Church, which tend to be rather syncretistic churches. 6786. PelleNilsson - 6/30/2000 4:06:45 PM Sorry, I meant you, personally. 6787. Uzmakk - 6/30/2000 4:38:40 PM Kuligan: 6788. KuligintheHooligan - 6/30/2000 5:13:21 PM pelle, 6789. PelleNilsson - 6/30/2000 5:24:09 PM I see. Thanks. In yout description of the students you mentioned "Nazarenes" and "Rhenish". I haven't heard of those before. Well I have heard of Nazarenes as a small Christian sect in Palestine which follows the OT's food laws and practices circumciscion but I don't suppose those are the ones you have in Namibia. 6790. KuligintheHooligan - 6/30/2000 5:37:59 PM The "Church of the Nazarene" broke off from the Methodist Church in the early 1900s. They believed the Methodists were becoming too liberal. So basically they are Methodists. 6791. PelleNilsson - 6/30/2000 5:38:42 PM I'm off to bed now. Thanks for a pleasant chat, Victor. 6792. KuligintheHooligan - 6/30/2000 5:40:21 PM Yeah, it is getting time for bed here as well. Have a good sleep and an enjoyable weekend pelle. 6793. bloodnfire - 7/1/2000 9:51:09 PM Kuligin. Your 6774. Firstly, I was addressing my comments about oral sex to Wombat, who felt that oral sex was sinful. I'm glad to see you don't, and I still feel that..."Providing for one's own" can include all kinds of sexual activity, although I agree with you that sodomy, both heterosexual and homosexual is both physically and spiritually dangerous, and "wrong" in the light of Scripture. 6794. bloodnfire - 7/1/2000 10:05:18 PM As for the Lord Jesus and His spirituality, with or without 'Massive Orgasms', I am not aware of His sexual history. I know He was tempted in all things, as are we. I assume He never masturbated, since onanism is obviously 'sinful' in the light of Scripture. (Thank God for the forgiveness which His perfect sacrifice affords). I expect He experienced 'night emissions'. What do you think ? Did He ever have an erection ? Was His mind so pure that He never found a woman sexually attractive ? The Scriptures don't tell us, other than to tell us that He was sinless. There's nothing sinful, in itself, in an erection, is there ? It's what one does with it (or what One doesn't do with it) that matters. :-) 6795. KuligintheHooligan - 7/2/2000 7:52:16 AM bloodnfire, 6796. bloodnfire - 7/2/2000 4:30:11 PM You know I truly care for you, my brother, and respect you very much. I have at no time had any intention to 'caricature' your attitudes. The whole subject of homosexuality is very sensitive. I understand your desire to proclaim the Scriptures admonitions against homosexual practices. At the same time, I'm sure you'll agree with me that it's very easy for those of us who have never had homosexual tendencies to be adamant, and for those who are so 'orientated' to be defensive. 6797. rubberducky - 7/3/2000 8:15:56 AM "So I doubt Jesus masturbated." 6798. KuligintheHooligan - 7/3/2000 8:32:04 AM rubberducky 6799. rubberducky - 7/3/2000 8:37:01 AM KtH: 6800. KuligintheHooligan - 7/3/2000 9:04:55 AM I don't think that living a celebate life, when one is entirely in tune with God and the spiritual aspects of life, is such a great surprise, not at least to me. There are been literally dozens of men and women who have lived lives entirely without sex. Maybe that for people like us who have enjoyed sex, then thinking about living without it is a little more difficult, than for someone who has never had a sexual encounter doing so. Again, this is speculation on my part. But as far as it concerns Jesus Christ, that his physical desires and urges were entirely checked by a strong spiritual aspect doesn't surprise me one bit. Again, I cite his fasting for 40 straight days. Again, to you and me this may be an incredible stretch for us to do. But for Jesus, he enjoyed such a relationship with God and such a oneness of soul and spirit with the Father that controlling such natural, physical desires as eating was within his ability. Therefore, living a life free of any voluntary orgasm doesn't strike me as "odd" at all. 6801. KuligintheHooligan - 7/3/2000 9:08:41 AM I think certain general principles can apply here. For a person that stuffs his face every day with chocolate, fasting from chocolate during Lent may be a very difficult thing to do. But for someone who has never had chocolate, or eats it very little, living without it is no big deal. 6802. rubberducky - 7/3/2000 9:16:01 AM i'd have to disagree, KtH. 6803. KuligintheHooligan - 7/3/2000 9:25:33 AM As I did note earlier, if Jesus had noturnal emissions that would be completely normal and I suppose even expected. That is why I have said "voluntary" orgasms. 6804. KuligintheHooligan - 7/3/2000 9:29:31 AM Also, the example of chocolate was just an example. The issue of fasting is what I am getting at. You are saying that sex is such a natural and necessary part of humanity that you can't envision a person doing without it. And I am merely pointing out that eating food is most certainly on the same level, if not a higher level of "basic natural needs." And if Jesus could control himself enough to forego it for 40 days, then concluding that he could control his sexual desire and urges too isn't a stretch at all, IMO. 6805. rubberducky - 7/3/2000 9:34:36 AM ok, fair enough, KtH. 6806. KuligintheHooligan - 7/3/2000 9:44:07 AM Not entirely. Jesus no doubt did a variety of things that weren't directly related to his "mission." Keep in mind that his ministry only lasted 3 and a half years. What he did the first 30 years of his life, then, is pretty much a mystery to us. 6807. KuligintheHooligan - 7/3/2000 9:45:43 AM I made an error. The question is, "Is masturabation ethically wrong in the eyes of God?" to which my gut reaction is, yes, it is wrong. 6808. bloodnfire - 7/4/2000 6:49:36 AM Perhaps it's time for a change of topic ? :-) Let's talk about "The Ethics of Grace". Grace, the main thing that's different about Christianity as opposed to all other religions. Let's see if we can discuss it without being 'religious'. 6809. KuligintheHooligan - 7/4/2000 8:26:15 AM Well, it isn't classically an "ethics" issue, but I am not opposed to having it discussed here, if people are interested in doing so. 6810. bloodnfire - 7/4/2000 12:35:28 PM Well, if it isn't an 'ethics' issue, taking the initiative in asking for forgiveness of someone who is behaving in a way, clearly indicating that you have offended them (even though the fault might actually be theirs), it ought to be. imnsho ('ns'=not so :-) 6811. KuligintheHooligan - 7/4/2000 12:56:00 PM Well, a discussion on forgiveness would be interesting nonetheless. 6812. PelleNilsson - 7/4/2000 1:46:47 PM Singularly uninteresting. 6813. alistairconnor - 7/4/2000 6:13:12 PM Well Huligin, I just wanted to say "No hard feelings" for taking a ... poke at you, but in light of the intervening discussion, that might seem ambiguous... 6814. bloodnfire - 7/4/2000 7:21:46 PM Or, come to think of it, Kuligin's 6781 in which he mentions that 6815. KuligintheHooligan - 7/5/2000 8:41:51 AM Alistair, no problem, just no "pokes" in the future if you don't mind! 6816. PelleNilsson - 7/5/2000 2:28:58 PM If I put myself into a Christian frame of mind I would say that any interference by man in the reproduction process is wrong. Childless couples just have to accept their lot, or adopt a child. 6817. KuligintheHooligan - 7/5/2000 5:03:45 PM pelle, 6818. paragate - 7/6/2000 9:46:50 AM I heard a story regarding the new birth technologies the other day which seemed peculiarly repellent. A very wealthy woman in her early forties decides she wants children without the difficulty of giving birth, so she lines up 4 surrogates to simultaneously carry her babies for her. (I am assuming that she lined up four figuring that at least one will miscarry). As I understand it she was still capable of carrying them herself. Meanwhile she is also busy lining up wet nurses and nannies. 6819. rubberducky - 7/6/2000 9:53:02 AM paragate: 6820. KuligintheHooligan - 7/6/2000 9:55:51 AM That's pretty incredible, and it actually touches upon one of the major issues when it comes to genetics and reproductive technologies, namely, that the rich will be able to do things that the poor cannot do at all. For example, they may in time be able to single out certain traits, like eye or hair color, or height, or intellect, and "design" a child. But this will cost large sums of money, so only the wealthy will be able to afford to do so. Thus making the gap even larger between the upper and lower classes. 6821. theDiva - 7/6/2000 9:58:27 AM well, she's depriving herself, isn't she? It's rather pathetic, actually. In addition to being repellent (I mean, purchasing human beings?) 6822. paragate - 7/6/2000 10:03:51 AM I am not sure exactly what bothered me. Maybe, as you say, the worry about what additional privileges will be available in the future only to the very wealthy. Or maybe it was the selfishness that seemed implicit in her desire to project her genes into the future without any muss or fuss or perhaps love. Or maybe it is just my envy of the serenity which wealth can provide. 6823. KuligintheHooligan - 7/6/2000 10:04:11 AM From what I have read, it is either now possible or is expected to be shortly that geneticists can single out the X and Y chromosomes in sperm, thus giving people the chance to decide the gender of their child by then just fertilizing the woman with the appropriate sperm. Do people here think such a thing would be immoral or wrong to do, or is it a good thing for us to be able to do? 6824. rubberducky - 7/6/2000 10:04:36 AM Re: Message # 6820, KuligintheHooligan. 6825. KuligintheHooligan - 7/6/2000 10:09:48 AM rubberducky, agreed. But when it comes to actually "designing" your children, this is seen as immoral in light of the "discrimination" against the poor. What you say it true, but let's face it, in virtually every area where the rich benefit and the poor do not, there are constantly people whining about how wrong and racist and discriminatory such things are. 6826. paragate - 7/6/2000 10:16:38 AM It seems to me that once we have the ability (genetic technology) to really manipulate the resulting child that the impulse to do so is almost irresistible. For example, pumping up IQ or memory capacity or beauty. Look at what lengths some parents already go to to get Johnny into Yale..... Our ability to direct the course of evolution is expanding blindingly fast. I assume that intelligence & talent will be the primary focus. 6827. rubberducky - 7/6/2000 10:26:38 AM Re: Message # 6825, KuligintheHooligan. 6828. KuligintheHooligan - 7/6/2000 10:33:59 AM Well, if you think about it long-term, the rich will be able to consistently "upgrade" their offspring, and the poor will not. Given a couple of decades or generations, the poor will be that much more at the mercy of the rich, who has consistently been able to improve the genetic pool of their progeny, while the poor muddle around in their poverty. So, you have the wealthy designing a "master race" which will be superior in most respects to the poor, who are producing offspring in the normal "hit or miss" approach. 6829. rubberducky - 7/6/2000 10:40:47 AM i think you've seen Gattaca too many times, KtH. 6830. KuligintheHooligan - 7/6/2000 10:48:30 AM rubber, I've never seen that movie, and you are making the mistake that I actually agree with the arguments used in this vein. 6831. KuligintheHooligan - 7/6/2000 10:53:16 AM "being repellent (I mean, purchasing human beings?)" 6832. theDiva - 7/6/2000 10:53:57 AM Hoolio 6833. rubberducky - 7/6/2000 10:58:01 AM KtH: 6834. DaveM - 7/6/2000 10:58:25 AM I, for one, am opposed to the creation of a market for the selling of babies, mothers, organs, etc. The opportunity for private government to exact its toll is simply too great imo. 6835. theDiva - 7/6/2000 11:02:01 AM The whole thing smacks of Nazi Germany, and the wives of wealthy slaveowners putting out their babies to suckle in the slave quarters so they can preserve their delicate figures. Human beings as commodities to be perfected or bought and sold, and not as miracles. 6836. KuligintheHooligan - 7/6/2000 11:06:24 AM "worrying about what might happen isn't a productive way to spend one's time." 6837. DaveM - 7/6/2000 11:08:10 AM Richard Posner, a judge on the 7th circuit (and the arbitrator of the MS anti-trust suit) is a major proponent of the creation of a market for adoption. Here is a webpage, that, though I can't vouch for its verity, documents the Chicago school of Law and Economics and Posner's peculiar approach to baby-markets. It also, of course, notes the Chicago School's connection with the conservative Olin foundation ;-). 6838. rubberducky - 7/6/2000 12:40:05 PM Re: Message # 6836, KuligintheHooligan. 6839. PelleNilsson - 7/6/2000 1:18:40 PM ducky 6840. rubberducky - 7/6/2000 1:31:39 PM Pelle: 6841. PelleNilsson - 7/6/2000 3:22:44 PM ducky 6842. rubberducky - 7/6/2000 3:43:21 PM go to another thread? 6843. CalGal - 7/6/2000 3:56:55 PM worrying about what might happen isn't a productive way to spend one's time. 6844. CalGal - 7/6/2000 3:57:54 PM Pelle, 6845. rubberducky - 7/6/2000 3:58:11 PM for someone with mild OCD, perhaps, CalGal ... haha 6846. PelleNilsson - 7/6/2000 4:18:54 PM CalGal 6847. CalGal - 7/6/2000 5:24:04 PM Pelle, 6848. KuligintheHooligan - 7/6/2000 5:58:30 PM I suppose when Brave New World was written, many people then thought it was just a crock of bull and that we'd NEVER get to the ability to do such things. 6849. bloodnfire - 7/7/2000 6:48:27 AM Welcome to The Mote and to this thread Dave M. (am I behind the times...again...are you not a newcomer ?). Whatever, thanks for your input. 6850. rubberducky - 7/7/2000 8:40:28 AM KtH: 6851. rubberducky - 7/7/2000 8:50:49 AM btw, KtH, delete my Message # 6829 and replace it with: 6852. KuligintheHooligan - 7/7/2000 9:11:52 AM No, I have no problem with health care being discussed here. In fact, I don't think you can have a decent ethics discussion about euthanasia, genetic engineering and the like without at least some reference to the matter of health care, so fire away. 6853. bernie - 7/7/2000 4:54:51 PM 6854. bernie - 7/7/2000 5:01:24 PM 6855. bernie - 7/7/2000 5:03:52 PM It shouldn't have posted twice. As I refreshed the screen, my message was posted again. 6856. bloodnfire - 7/8/2000 8:00:40 AM One of the quickest ways of cloning discovered by man! Don't worry about it Bernie, we've all done it. 6857. jonesatlaw - 7/9/2000 1:04:48 AM Bernie mentions pornography and the net, which raises an interesting question for me. There seems to be a few givens: 6858. AceofSpades - 7/9/2000 3:21:40 AM 6859. AceofSpades - 7/9/2000 3:34:23 AM 6860. CalGal - 7/9/2000 11:54:25 AM I think the limitations of fuel halted us--for whatever reason, we never really got beyond oil. 6861. Greystoke - 7/9/2000 12:20:42 PM Ace 6862. Greystoke - 7/9/2000 12:25:58 PM CalGal 6863. AceofSpades - 7/9/2000 1:19:43 PM 6864. AceofSpades - 7/9/2000 1:22:35 PM 6865. jexster - 7/9/2000 1:27:42 PM We've just never discovered anything 6866. paragate - 7/9/2000 1:33:47 PM It does seem like their has been a lull in technological development compared to the previous 150 years. However, the clouds of really big changes are on the immediate horizon. In medicine, genetics, and nanotechnology. Imagine harnessing quantum computers effectively. 6867. jexster - 7/9/2000 1:35:02 PM WRT progress and technological advance, Paul Krugman analyzing the question from the Industrial Revolution to the present suggests a 20-30 year lead/lag rule accounting in no small measure for the latest techno-econ developments. 6868. AceofSpades - 7/9/2000 1:35:40 PM 6869. jexster - 7/9/2000 1:36:18 PM Actually Gellner's view is more complex but that's the gist 6870. jexster - 7/9/2000 1:38:16 PM You're spot on Ace. BTU delivered is the boundard post. By either default or design, the oligopolist producers have done a good job of keeping price at the proper margin to prevent the development of alternatives 6871. AceofSpades - 7/9/2000 1:39:55 PM 6872. PelleNilsson - 7/9/2000 1:49:32 PM I think we can see two great innovative periods. 1880-1920 (give or take a few years) for technology in general, and the 1940's for information technology (Turing, von Neuman, Shannon, et al). 6873. mandolin - 7/9/2000 4:20:50 PM Well, I log on and see my handle at the top, so I guess I'm it. 6874. mandolin - 7/9/2000 4:22:36 PM It's probably no surprise to those who have seen my previous postings, but I think there's a real revolution going on in cognitive science, and that it has direct application to this topic. 6875. PelleNilsson - 7/9/2000 4:23:26 PM Welcome as host, mandoline! 6876. mandolin - 7/9/2000 4:44:01 PM And thanks to Kuligin, for his well-handled stint at hosting! 6877. mandolin - 7/9/2000 4:46:14 PM Thanks, PelleNilsson. 6878. rubberducky - 7/10/2000 9:02:47 AM to give a taste of just how fucked up "religion" is these days: 6879. PelleNilsson - 7/10/2000 9:17:31 AM ducky 6880. rubberducky - 7/10/2000 9:32:45 AM Pelle: 6881. rubberducky - 7/10/2000 9:50:20 AM people who are with the pope wrt "respect, compassion and sensitivity." 6882. rubberducky - 7/10/2000 9:53:10 AM evidently, "respect, compassion and sensitivity" means silencing those who might have the courage to disagree. 6883. Cellar Door - 7/10/2000 9:53:59 AM The Pope is clearly in love with "Dr." Laura. I say he should rescind the celibacy requirement and go for it. True the "gift" of celibacy is lost, but he'd win the conversion of the Jews, no? 6884. CalGal - 7/10/2000 10:22:47 AM Now there's some insightful feedback. The pope complains about gays, he must be in love with Dr. Laura. Sure. 6885. rubberducky - 7/10/2000 10:31:25 AM CalGal: 6886. Uzmakk - 7/10/2000 10:32:01 AM Lovely stuff. Pity I really can't join you until August. Am a busy chap. 6887. rubberducky - 7/10/2000 10:36:52 AM i misquoted you CalGal 6888. CalGal - 7/10/2000 10:47:49 AM pardon? perhaps you can point out which post i used that word in this thread? 6889. rubberducky - 7/10/2000 10:55:18 AM CalGal: 6890. CalGal - 7/10/2000 11:39:43 AM ah, i see. is he bitter? 6891. Ronski - 7/10/2000 11:53:23 AM I'm afraid the sum of the statements which have come from the Vatican during this pope's tenure has been quite harsh. See the pastoral letter released in the mid 80's. It virtually condoned gay bashing. 6892. rubberducky - 7/10/2000 11:54:59 AM CalGal: 6893. Uzmakk - 7/10/2000 12:50:49 PM Duck: 6894. Cellar Door - 7/10/2000 2:12:22 PM Ducky's been here quite some time, Uz. And coming out has been no picnic for him. 6895. Cellar Door - 7/10/2000 2:16:28 PM The Pope's favorite choirboys. 6896. Ronski - 7/10/2000 2:30:30 PM 6897. KuligintheHooligan - 7/10/2000 4:08:36 PM Well, this comes as a surprise, but no offense taken. I just didn't realize I was being bumped now. 6898. Jenerator - 7/10/2000 9:04:40 PM Rubberducky, 6899. Jenerator - 7/10/2000 9:16:23 PM Also, one of the headliners from the Pride 2000 in Rome was The Village People (a group that I had the distinct pleasure of meeting last week as part of the 4th of July extravaganza I worked on.) They flew from Italy to Garland, Texas! 6900. mandolin - 7/10/2000 10:11:47 PM Kuligin -- I said in the new feature and thread thread that I was ready when you wanted to step down -- the next day I was up there. 6903. mandolin - 7/10/2000 10:23:23 PM You don't get to be Pope without being a consummate politician -- but that's not a bad thing. And like most consummate politicians, the Pope has a many-faceted and not always consistent approach to the world. He has done many genuinely brave and unselfish things, and has done much to promote peace and certain kinds of equality and justice. But he has been a force for evil as well, especially in his hardline position against birth-control, and secondarily in his intolerant attitudes toward the human and spiritual aspirations of women and gays. 6904. DaveM - 7/10/2000 10:26:16 PM Psss. (Mandolin - as maintainer, you can delete double posts) 6905. mandolin - 7/10/2000 10:32:57 PM (Thanks, Dave -- I'll do that to 6901 and 6902) 6906. rubberducky - 7/11/2000 8:14:08 AM Re: Message # 6898, Jenerator. 6907. rubberducky - 7/11/2000 8:15:56 AM Message # 6906 continued: 6908. rubberducky - 7/11/2000 8:24:39 AM Re: Message # 6899, Jenerator. 6909. Uzmakk - 7/11/2000 9:15:21 AM lurk 6910. paragate - 7/11/2000 9:17:13 AM RubD. I happen to agree with you that the church's attitudes towards homosexuality are primitive traditions based on cultural needs circa 500 BCE. Personally, I think the church should bless gay love just as they do hetero love. And it does seem hypocritical to bewail gay pride marches from the point of view of an institution that is comprised largely of closeted gays. They get to parade around in skirts every day after all. 6911. rubberducky - 7/11/2000 9:24:21 AM Re: Message # 6910, paragate. 6912. Uzmakk - 7/11/2000 9:42:25 AM Well, I'm not so sure, Paragate. I think AIDS has had much to do with the current form of the gay rights movement and what is currently being pushed. I just heard Edmund White and his nephew,(White is apparently a well known gay author), refer to the 70's as the heyday of gay culture. i.e., lots of indiscriminate sex with strangers, i.e.,the refreshment conception of sex. On the Mote we have Doc Brown trying to talk Diva into taking a drug that will make her so horny she won't be able to resist doing half of D.C. The movie title-- Diva Does D.C.(I understand Doc has already purchase a very high quality motion picture camera.) Ofcourse, as with most things, we are speaking of balance and ratio. Ducky does seem ratiophobic which is atleast as serious a problem as homophobia to my way of thinking. 6913. Uzmakk - 7/11/2000 9:47:40 AM Once again, I don't like the distinctions, gay and straight. What we should really be speaking about is civilized behavior. 6914. Uzmakk - 7/11/2000 9:56:37 AM I think the church's problem in the past is what happens when heterosexuals begin to act like homosexuals like at the height of gay culture. Baby markets up 3 3/4, then and now. Do I have faith in the prospects for the great mass of humanity? Not if they become hedonists. 6915. paragate - 7/11/2000 9:58:11 AM Uzmakk, Civilized...exactly right.. which is why I support blessing gay marriages. Imo sex is best within a more or less lifelong pair bond. We should be supporting such bonds/bonding. I do not support sexual licentiousness...but then maybe I would have thought differently at 18. 6916. Uzmakk - 7/11/2000 9:58:18 AM God bless the Pope. 6917. Uzmakk - 7/11/2000 10:02:59 AM I do not know if that is true, Paragate. I am not a homosexual. But I think for a large part of the gay community marriage is a laughable idea. 6918. Cellar Door - 7/11/2000 10:16:52 AM "And it does seem hypocritical to bewail gay pride marches from the point of view of an institution that is comprised largely of closeted gays." 6919. PelleNilsson - 7/11/2000 11:28:37 AM Cellar 6920. Ronski - 7/11/2000 11:44:11 AM Not that this would suprise anyone, but I do not laugh at marriage. My partner and I would marry each other as soon as it were permitted, and will probably get CU'd ("civil unioned") during one our future trips to Vermont. 6921. Cellar Door - 7/11/2000 3:11:35 PM I go into this in my book, Pelle. I also reccomend "The Invention of Heterosexuality" by Jonathan Ned Katz (Dutton, 1995) 6922. Ronski - 7/11/2000 3:22:26 PM 6923. Ronski - 7/11/2000 3:25:36 PM Cellar, 6924. PelleNilsson - 7/11/2000 3:39:22 PM Cellar 6925. Uzmakk - 7/11/2000 4:12:21 PM Cellar: 6926. Cellar Door - 7/11/2000 4:13:06 PM Precisely, Pelle. While I don't share Foucault's enthusiasm for fist-fucking he was right about a lot of things -- particularly the flow of history. 6927. Uzmakk - 7/11/2000 4:17:10 PM 6922, Ronski: 6928. Cellar Door - 7/11/2000 4:20:33 PM "I think your hypocrisy may be my maturity." 6929. Uzmakk - 7/11/2000 4:21:53 PM 6918 Cellar: 6930. Uzmakk - 7/11/2000 4:23:38 PM No, that is not it at all, Cellar. 6931. PelleNilsson - 7/11/2000 4:38:46 PM Well then, I'd prefer to take the situation back to pre-19th century. I regard homosexuality as part of the normal variation of the male libido --nothing to be upset about. It's just there. 6932. Cellar Door - 7/11/2000 4:42:00 PM And the female libido, Uz? 6933. Cellar Door - 7/11/2000 4:42:31 PM I mean Pelle. 6934. PelleNilsson - 7/11/2000 4:44:13 PM The same of course. Unless you meant something else. 6935. Cellar Door - 7/11/2000 4:45:55 PM Well then we're on the same page, Pelle. At least in some respects. 6936. PelleNilsson - 7/11/2000 4:52:00 PM Good. 6937. Ronski - 7/11/2000 5:01:11 PM Uzmakk, 6938. Uzmakk - 7/11/2000 6:13:23 PM I knew that, Ronski. 6939. Uzmakk - 7/11/2000 6:16:37 PM Down! Down! Down!......Nothing to be concerned about?........Down, down, down I say! 6940. marshame - 7/11/2000 7:15:02 PM "Of course it is a yawner, as you put it. That is the point, the silliness of arguing from a fundamentalist point of view." 6941. Uzmakk - 7/11/2000 7:27:10 PM Marshame, you Christians have to reformulate some of your dogma for waverers like me. 6942. marshame - 7/11/2000 7:28:01 PM Any one in particular that has you wavering, you ole sinner you? 6943. mandolin - 7/11/2000 9:44:35 PM Cellar Door is right about "homosexulality" and "heterosexuality" being recent social inventions, although many societies have used open expression of sexual desire between members of the same sex as a weapon of convenience against people they wished to condemn anyway. 6944. Cellar Door - 7/11/2000 10:03:43 PM Quite right, Mandolin. Before he morphed in Jack Vincennes, 109 109 showed a marked enthusiasm for llamas. 6945. Jenerator - 7/11/2000 10:57:06 PM Rubberducky, 6946. bloodnfire - 7/12/2000 5:46:21 AM Marshame. Your Message # 6940. "Ronski, that is total crap! It is beyond a "stretch" to call it a fundamentalist point of view. Rather, it is the viewpoint of someone with an agenda and a point to prove, who reads into the bible what he wants to in order to come to the conclusion he has already reached. 6947. bloodnfire - 7/12/2000 5:47:02 AM For someone like myself, who now humbly and gratefully feels privileged to call God 'Ishi' ('My Husband') as opposed to that which I used to call Him..'Baali' ('That Far-Off Unknown God'), it is such a blessing. So much so, that I believe He gave me this chorus this week.... 6948. Cellar Door - 7/12/2000 10:37:33 AM "He's never been in office to "silence the masses", what total nonsense." 6949. marshame - 7/12/2000 10:47:25 AM Bloodn 6950. Indiana Jones - 7/12/2000 10:47:42 AM I thought he was there to say the masses... 6951. rubberducky - 7/12/2000 10:48:02 AM Re: Message # 6945, Jenerator. 6952. Indiana Jones - 7/12/2000 10:48:06 AM toys 6953. rubberducky - 7/12/2000 10:51:28 AM Re:Message # 6947, bloodnfire. 6954. rubberducky - 7/12/2000 10:52:12 AM IJ: 6955. Uzmakk - 7/12/2000 10:57:28 AM 6943: Mandolin: 6956. marshame - 7/12/2000 11:02:21 AM Bloodnfire 6957. marshame - 7/12/2000 11:05:47 AM Since were talking about how supposedly similar we are animals, and this being the philosophy and religion thread, then I do think we should discuss our similarity to sheep, since this is the most common reference Jesus used. Sheep are dumb and must be led. They are filthy. They will follow each other no matter where the herd goes. Their babies are the common denominator of sacrifice. Yeah, I see a lot of human similarity! 6958. Uzmakk - 7/12/2000 11:16:37 AM homo ovis my dear, Marshame, homo ovis. I tell you you must reformulate things for the intellectually prideful mind. I know the bible certainly mentions this. 6959. Uzmakk - 7/12/2000 11:18:50 AM I'm trying to help, Marshame. Really I am. 6960. marshame - 7/12/2000 12:38:01 PM Uzzmak 6961. marshame - 7/12/2000 12:38:25 PM I believe in Biblical terms, that would be "tickle their ears." 6962. PelleNilsson - 7/12/2000 1:05:22 PM marshame wrote 6963. marshame - 7/12/2000 1:16:28 PM Pelle 6964. marshame - 7/12/2000 2:10:10 PM toys 6965. marshame - 7/12/2000 2:11:46 PM Oh yeah, and not just snotty Christian, but typical snotty Christian. But like I said, I will let it go by in the spirit of Motieness. 6966. PelleNilsson - 7/12/2000 2:45:20 PM marshame 6967. Uzmakk - 7/12/2000 2:55:02 PM Oh come on, Marshame. Christians are snotty. To be a Christian is to be snotty, after all you have found "the way". Be snotty, be proud, and don't let that PelleOdin character get your goat. ....or sheep. 6968. Uzmakk - 7/12/2000 2:57:46 PM Am finding my Process Theology reading very interesting. This particular book relates it to Christian Theology. 6969. Cellar Door - 7/12/2000 3:15:33 PM Christ wasn't snotty. 6970. Uzmakk - 7/12/2000 3:21:13 PM Quite right, Cellar. He was an extremely cool dude and quite possibly the son of God. 6971. marshame - 7/12/2000 6:24:03 PM heck, we're all sinners, some are just snottier than others. 6972. mandolin - 7/12/2000 6:51:45 PM marshame -- 6973. mandolin - 7/12/2000 7:04:10 PM uzmakk -- 6974. arkymalarky - 7/12/2000 7:09:33 PM The teacher I practice taught under had gay ducks. 6975. mandolin - 7/12/2000 7:10:12 PM marshame; 6976. mandolin - 7/12/2000 7:11:33 PM band practice - will return later 6977. Uzmakk - 7/12/2000 7:24:34 PM 6972: Mandolin: 6978. mandolin - 7/12/2000 10:42:10 PM Not really. You can assert, as a matter of faith, that the Bible or the Rg Veda, for example, tell the literally true story of creation, and you can assert, as a matter of faith, that evolution by natural selection is not the mechanism by which all living things have evolved on earth from a common ancestor, and I have no quarrel with such assertions of faith. It is entirely possible that, for reasons unknowable or hidden from mortals, God (or the gods) created the world with the appearance of great age and biological evolution. 6979. mandolin - 7/12/2000 11:07:02 PM I'll be gone most of the weekend (driving to Alabama and back), but soon I'll add some links in the mustard bar. Don't think there's any reason to remove any of what's there already. 6980. Uzmakk - 7/13/2000 9:02:51 AM To answer you very simply, Mandolin, I view human conciousness as a new phenomena in the Universe. There is nothing like it. It is unique. It seems as monumental as the other monumental boundaries in the universe: 6981. Uzmakk - 7/13/2000 9:03:37 AM Man appears a short while ago and now he is ready to fiddle with creation. Any monkeys or horses ready to do the same? More of a transformation than an evolution I would say. Which is the more practical concept? Genetic engineering is going to be more of a mechanical and manufacturing process. An act of building. An act of creation. 6982. Uzmakk - 7/13/2000 9:06:37 AM PS, if some guy wanders out of the desert and says something that makes sense to me, tells me to do something, something good, I will consider that considerably more important than my relationship to the bonobos and the gorillas. 6983. Uzmakk - 7/13/2000 9:30:14 AM and a transformation can certainly be considered a creation. 6984. marshame - 7/13/2000 12:15:15 PM Mandolin 6985. marshame - 7/13/2000 12:19:20 PM Mandolin 6986. mandolin - 7/13/2000 12:51:43 PM uzmakk -- I'll answer you in detail later -- either tonight or tomorrow 6987. PelleNilsson - 7/13/2000 1:13:26 PM Concerning the origins of ethics, this book by Frans de Waal looks interesting. 6988. paragate - 7/13/2000 1:57:58 PM Pelle, Interesting link. It strikes me as plausible that many animals have "empathy", and perhaps many other vaunted human abilities. No doubt life is developing, adapting, feeling, and thinking. But WHY? These possibilities must be implicit from the start and at the end. Again, why? IMO it is not nonsensical to ask this why. And it seems irrational to preclude answers. The universe has too many marvels to exclude the possibility that a grand of intelligence of some sort is at work. 6989. PelleNilsson - 7/13/20
"Virtue ethics has it all over rational ethics because the latter attempts too much precision, is too rule bound and mechanical and falls into endless debates over justification."
really? id suggest the two are equally difficult to justify. everyone's rational for what they do is different from situation to situation. there are just as many, if indeed not more, ways to interpret what is vitreous. this is even more the case if one bases one's virtues on some sort of holy text.
my Message # 6368 should have said in reference to Message # 6349
Which is exactly what some people do.
Mind you, I'm not really attacking those who live by other approaches. I'm pointing out that Doc's generalizations are generally useless.
"Consider the issue of eating babies (ugh!). If we have 1000 cultures that consider it wrong, but only one that considers it a valid practice, are you concluding that we do not have a universal absolute?"
Kuligin, i don't think it matters, in an ethical discussion, how many people believe the action in question is wrong/right. the whole point is to justify it own it's own merits in the given situation. thus, eating babies isn't anymore right or wrong in and of itself -regardless of how many people do or do not eat said babies. it all depends on the given circumstances and the people involved.
ah - gotcha.
I said that the absolutist ethical categories require a much simpler decision maiking process, and I stand by what I said. Make a flow chart of an absolutist decision about whether or not to tell a lie, then make a flow chart for any of the other category deciding the same thing. I am confident that the absolutist chart will be mighty short.
But you are assuming no absolutes. I was merely pointing out that just because different cultures have different ethical points of view, doesn't mean there are no ethical absolutes. There could indeed be absolutes and some of those cultures are violating them.
Perhaps I just misread your post. You seemed to conclude that because cultures have different standards, there are no moral absolutes. I would disagree with that conclusion.
"I can hear CalGal's outrage from here, and every other woman in this thread"....
actually, the passage in question made me laugh because it was so clearly (to me, anyway) something Jesus would never have said. PD's explanation was interesting.
"But you are assuming no absolutes."
correct - there aren't any absolutes that i see here.
"I was merely pointing out that just because different cultures have different ethical points of view, doesn't mean there are no ethical absolutes. There could indeed be absolutes and some of those cultures are violating them."
well, so you say. how, then, do you determine these absolutes? i again go back to in the limited arena of human experience and history, there is always some culture, some person to disagree. you seem to want to base these imagined absolutes on some sort of consensus, but i question what that gets you in the long run. if 100 people tell you that spam tastes better than sirloin, then i take it you have 100 people who have no taste buds - not that spam is indeed better.
"You seemed to conclude that because cultures have different standards, there are no moral absolutes. I would disagree with that conclusion."
sorta. more along the lines of moral standards, to me, must a basis in logic to be valid. the cultures of people are irrelevant to the establishment of that logic. there can't be a universal logic just as there can't be a universal moral absolute.
This sounds like you DO believe in an absolute then, that sirloin is better than spam! And everybody that disagrees just doesn't know what they are talking about.
As for moral absolutes, a theist could argue that the existence of God and his communication to mankind does necessitate the existence of moral absolutes. Your POV is clearly a philosophicalnaturalistic ethical system, not a transcendental/theological one. Therefore, you a priori assume no ethical absolutes. A theist would not.
All I was pointing out was that differing cultures do not automatically mean no moral absolutes. You could have those absolutes and some cultures simply violate them.
"This sounds like you DO believe in an absolute then, that sirloin is better than spam! And everybody that disagrees just doesn't know what they are talking about."
well, not exactly. more along the lines of absolutes is spam and no absolutes equals sirloin and one exists is tastes better. is that confusing enough? put another way, just because a lot or some or one person says that there are ethical absolutes doesn't make it so. just as you seem to say the opposite - that claiming no absolutes doesn't mean that there are none for humans to follow.
"All I was pointing out was that differing cultures do not automatically mean no moral absolutes. You could have those absolutes and some cultures simply violate them."
yes, but you ducked the question i asked. how do you, without "God", determine these absolutes? if "God" is the only way, then i don't see what has been accomplished. i brought up the different cultures because it seems to me to provide sufficient proof of man's inability to decide what these imagined moral and ethical absolutes are to be.
I certainly agree with this post... perhaps it's a better discription of my set one
Message # 6364
I merely chose those 4 off of the top of my head. I'm sure there are more that I could list if I thought about it. Their source is what I feel in my heart and soul. The basis of these particular are pretty well impossible for me ignore. If I ever do, and I make mistakes, the guilt I feel is tremendous.
I think my feelings here coincides with Para's post above, that these are not very well described in rational terms. I like his use of the word 'virtue based ethics' in this case. I was mostly trying to fit my personal thoughts into your ordinational scheme.
There may be some things we try to elevate to the status of ethics, when perhaps they're just a rationale for behavior.
perhaps a little white lie, in my case, is the term I give for an unconsidered answer. My mom asked me if I liked the wallpaper in the kitchen... I said 'yes'...
Ok, I can't say I really like the wallpaper, but I don't live in my parents' home anymore, they should get what they like.
That to me is a little white lie...
What are not little white lies to me would be something like when I let my mom know I bought a gun. I could keep her in the dark I suppose, but I told her the truth despite the potential friction it might have cost me.
I was late for a meeting the other day, and when my boss asked me what I thought about the meeting I let him know that I had shown up late... I could have told a lie and said I thought it was good. He would have never known, or probably cared that much as the meeting didn't require my attendance, but I told him I'd shown up late anyhow.
I am very habitual about revealing information despite the fact it may paint me in a bad light. It's the unconsidered answers that constitute the bulk of my "white lies".
You can't really call something a moral value, unless you're prepared to sacrifice yourself in favor of the value. A classic for me is that I've said once amungst a group of friends, that I couldn't think of a many things I wouldn't do for a million dollars... but there are things I wouldn't do... and those things are the ones that truely fall within my personal elthical values.
And yes, I would lie to my boss about missing a meeting for a million bucks... but I wouldn't murder anyone, I wouldn't disown a family member, I wouldn't disown a friend, I wouldn't turn my back on my faith.
I'd say, "That is the prettiest pink. I like it a lot." or "I think flowers are a great choice for kitchen wallpaper."
I don't waste lies on things I can get out of without it being an issue.
ducky, agreed. As for the question I dodged, I did dodge it because it is an issue I want to get to later, more fully. I'm trying to remain somewhat focused, at least at first, in this thread. It is, though, a very good question that needs to be addressed.
iiibbb, yours is a "personal preference" or "conscience" system it seems to me. Many Christians would say that a conscience-based ethic is a good one. I tend to lean the other way, that it isn't one that can ultimately be trusted, but that is because I believe in God.
Your explanation about "little white lies" is a good one. I tend to view lying as it is always wrong when you are attempting, through lying, to protect yourself. In other words, you did something you probably shouldn't have done in the first place, then you lie to protect your butt. When it comes to lying to protect others, then the issue gets thornier for me.
CalGal, do you have a "lie quota" each month or week? :-)
If you assume that there are no absolutes because you can almost always find someone or some group who subscribes to a bizarre custome like eating babies.
It forces me to ask the question, does evil exist? Evil is what allows ethical codes to be broken. Sometimes evil is committed by someone who is merely too weak to resist... sometimes it is committed because the person is willingly outside ethical bounds.
Then what do you do when there are heartfelt, and diametrically opposed ethical values, as with abortion. Both camps regard the other side as evil... they certainly try to portray the other side as evil.
There's an ironic little line from an old Dire Strait's song
[if] two men say they're Jesus,
one of them must be wrong.
Actually, yours is a good example and I would refer us again to the six options I originally posts in Message # 6343. Some would say that it would ALWAYS be wrong to kill, "trust God" and such (I think this is particularly interesting in certain abortion circumstance, like a tubal pregnancy for example).
I don't have that much problem with conscience based ethics, if your honest intent is to do right. Even if you believe in God, I have to believe that my conscience is one avenue God speaks to me. Even if I make the wrong choices here, that's the whole point of forgiveness... in many cases it's the effort to do the right thing that is important, and impassiveness or selfishness which will get you in trouble in the eyes of God.
Vic--no, not really.
I consider a flat out misrepresentation of reality to be morally wrong for me (key plot point). Now, in saying that, it's important to know that I elevate ambiguity to levels that most people would consider equivalent to lying. But that's because they don't question assumptions spaces, and that's on them.
Have I told lies? Yes. If I were to find a pattern to the lies I tell, it would be times when I deliberately misrepresented my opinion, and I think I generally did it to please someone else. (which is not the same thing as avoiding hurting someone's feelings).
There are not that many times that I have lied; certainly as an adult I can probably remember every time that I've done so. I think my assessment of my own lying would be akin to your concept of sin. I failed, I'm not perfect, I blew it. I remember them always, I try to make sure I don't do the same thing again.
So when I talk of "wasting" lies, I mean that I only am tempted to do it when I am out of options in a quest to please someone, and there are too many easy ways to avoid hurting someone's feelings without even going near there.
My ethics haiku
Message # 2157 in thread 36
Don't have time to go back and reference your post, but you gave a list of mangods. I don't think any of them were mangods in the way that Christ was a mangod. I mean a commonmangod. In modern times the headline in The Sun would read, Mary exclaims," Mygodmyson was born in a crack house". You gave a list of kinggods, empororgods, herogods etc.
The Norse gods are the only ones who truly suffer, it seems to me: they can die, and Odin has to really sacrifice an eye for wisdom and never get the eye back.
hummmmm
I don't mean to imply that sociobiologists or evolutionary psychologists have the answers. But at least they've got the questions right.
And yet they are profoundly impaired. Antonio Damasio describes one such patient in Descartes's Error: "he no longer showed respect for social convention, ethics in the broad sense of the term were violated; the decisions he made did not take into account his own best interest ... There was no evidence of concern about his future, no sign of forethought." (p. 11)
It is embarrassing for spirit-based ethics that such local damage to a physical organ can so profoundly impair moral behavior, and it is embarrassing for reason-based ethics and for the claims of strong AI that the impairment leaves intact virtually everything we understand by reason. Still more embarrassing is that what is lost is the emotional connection between physical states of the body, including pain and pleasure and comfort, and decision-making. The victims are unable to make viable ethical choices because they''re emotional world is flat and featureless and they cannot model the consequences of their actions in terms of how they and others will feel about those consequences.
For rationality and Strong AI (the idea that the mind is software and can be run on any convenient hardware), the embarassment is that rational decision-making depends on emotion and on bodily image and metaphor: without them, it fails miserably as an ethical guide. Leibniz's idea that one day philosophers might settle disputes by calculating is completely wrong.
But you do ask a question that I've really pondered over because of experience with schizophrenics. Or take a Down's syndrome child. Isn't their respective illnesses integral to who they are as persons? In which case, "healing" them in an afterlife might be equivalent to spiritual lobotomies.
I don't necessarily believe that...just something I've thought about.
I am sure you are correct, Mandolin. I had forgotten that Mary and Joseph had intended to stay at the Hampton Inn and deliver at Beth Israel, and that a slow donkey and a Roman Byoorocratic Snafu were responsible for their ending up in that manger. I must say that Mr. Bloodin certainly has faith though. He works with the crack addled.
Spiritual: The damage doesn't mean that the spirit has been changed. One could easily argue that the damage blocks the expression of the spirit, the ability to access that part of oneself.
Rational/logical: just because most people normally make these decisions based on a combination of emotional connection and self-interest doesn't mean that they have to. In fact, there are plenty of examples of people with almost no ability to emotionally connect with others who still behave well within social norms--because it is in their self-interest to do so. But these people have been like this since childhood, so they grew up defining self-interest with no emotional basis. Someone who had, instead, relied on emotional connections for some portion of their ethical makeup and was then robbed of that connection would have to relearn a new way of fitting in, after having been shown the advantages (more money, less hassles, fewer people jumping up and beating the shit out of him, etc.).
Now, if a rationalist was arguing that emotions play no part in any of our ethical decisions, then they are flat out wrong and justifiably embarrassed. If, instead, they are arguing that ethics are sheerly a matter of self-interest, then I think this would cover it nicely.
There are patients who lived all their lives with this defect. From Damasio, p. 57 "Perhaps even more telling is the third case ... [the] patient sustained frontal lobe damage around the time of birth. ... Although he was not a stupid child, and although the basic instruments of his mind seemed intact, he never acquired normal social behavior. ... This patient was never able to hold a job .. in general he tended to be docile and polite.... His sexual interests were dim, and he never had an emotional involvement with any partner. Reward or punishment did not seem to influence his behavior."
These people cannot act out of self-interest -- that is one of the things lost to them. Self-interest depends on more than mere rationality, and so is not available to the disembodied reason folks.
Occam's injunction against unnecessary multiplication of entities applies here: if there were no adequate (or increasingly adequate --obviously it's a work in progress) explanation for human and other animal behavior which did not depend on an external source (spirit or radio waves), then your analogy would have considerable force. But there is such an explanation -- the embodied mind, which, unlike spirit, has definable characteristics and is testable and which, also unlike spirit, has led in a short time to increased knowledge and understanding of human behavior.
I'm feeling cranky today -- lost sleep last night due to cramps from over-exertion.
I can't see why anyone would want to do so--it's an accident that caused it, no?
As for construing it as such, it's the spirit. Something we can't touch or see or know about anyway. So I don't see why someone couldn't make that argument. There is no way to know that the spirit has been fundamentally changed--and, in fact, I've always found it hard to believe that these people have changed so much as been destroyed.
You quoted from another source: Reward or punishment did not seem to influence his behavior.
Not as the author defined it, anyway. Were I trying to argue for the rationalist side of things, I would just say that these people need to have self-interest defined differently. It would be a long and arduous process, given that they were adults when the damage occurred. And at this point, that'd be enough to refute the notion.
Personally, I think that ethics is neither wholly reasonable nor provided absolutely by divine guidance. I just don't think that the loss of previous ethics by a person who suffered brain damage does much to disprove the beliefs of those who think it all one or the other.
And yes, you're right that those who use spirit as a an explanatory concept will not be swayed, since they are used to depending on something other than evidence.
Mandolin... I'm not disputing what you say, what follow are entirely rhetorical questions.
----
Is there any significance to ethics having a physiological mechanism? There probably is a physiological mechanism that maintains our spirit or soul, just as there is a physiological mechanism for memories...but so what?
----
This next part is entirhe examples of some species destroying one of the young so that the other can survive. I guess one thing I believe really separates us from the other species is our sense of history. I've seen lots of examples of animals abilities to communicate, reason, even think to some extent... but I've never seen an ability to consider thousands of years of history...
Because of this, as someone who believes in God, I think that it is possible for some ethical values transcend what pragmatism such as killing one offspring to ensure the survival of both... while that might be good for birds... I don't necessarily think it's good for people...
Entirely rhetorical thoughts.
You say "while that might be good for birds... I don't necessarily think it's good for people... "
and that is exactly the point, and also part of the answer to your question "Is there any significance to ethics having a physiological mechanism?"
I brought up birds only to show that evolution can favor reproductive schemes in which it is necessary to sacrifice some offspring in order to guarantee the survival of others. Given that possibility, an intelligent species which has evolved that way will not share the same ethical notions as us concerning eating babies, no matter how sophisticated their culture or how long their history.
But I'd say an animal (or other kind of creature) has to be able to form mental images of possible behaviors and consciously evaluate them (i.e., form a mental image of its decision process) as a means of effectively choosing between various actions in order to be said to be doing ethics.
Wonder Weapons
US New & World Report Cover story
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/970707/7weir.htm
The Mind Has No Firewall
TIMOTHY L. THOMAS
From Parameters, Spring 1998, pp. 84-92.
U.S. Army War College Quarterly
http://www.angelfire.com/or/mctrl/thomas.html
Some Aspects of Anti-Personnel Electromagnetic Weapons
Synopsis prepared for the ICRC Symposium The Medical Profession and the Effects of Weapons
http://www.angelfire.com/or/mctrl/aspects.html
I remember saying to myself(thirty years ago....has it really been that long?), gently drifting down from a transformative psychic trip, "What am I going to do knowing what LSD can do to my brain?" The question glowed with wonder and the need for ethical action. However, the knowledge that my mind could be so tremendously affected by micrograms of chemical action did not lead me to the conclusion that "I" am my "Brain". Indeed quite the contrary....it made me hyper aware of the rarified spirituality of consciousness and the divine milieu in which consciousness is ultimately embodied.
The categories which helped me to explain my experience were the ancient, time-tested languages of mysticism & relgious expression. I believe that the keys to understanding such mental events are simply not in the hands (and never will be) of brain research. The true empiricists of spirituality are the yogis and saints. It is going to take more than Occam's razor to excise spiritual categories without truncating or blinding human knowing.
But perhaps these are just last words of a backward-looking reactionary.
Some Aspects of Anti-Personnel Electromagnetic Weapons
Synopsis prepared for the ICRC Symposium The Medical Profession and the Effects of Weapons
The Mind Has No Firewall
TIMOTHY L. THOMAS
From Parameters, Spring 1998, pp. 84-92.
U.S. Army War College Quarterly
Wonder Weapons
US New & World Report Cover story
I think animals live for the most part completely in the moment, and can only consider experiences within their lifetime. Humans, on the other hand, have the benefit of generations of experience... we're also able to communicate ideas over great distances. Birds in South Africa do not benefit from the experiences birds in Alaska may have. Even before the interent, human knowledge has had the ability to move between cultures, although much slower than today.
This not only reveals that we're on a different plane of conciousness than animals, but I think it is what allows us to even have an ethical system to begin with.
Creation
(Sorry for the interruption)
"Parameters" is the Army War College's Quarterly publication. Pretty solid depiction, I'd say, not to mention US News & World Report. Do a web search on acoustic weapon and you'll get to see all the websites the military has up on them, plus all the websites that human rights organizations have up on them too. Africa2000 has some interesting reports on the use of laser weaponry in Somalia. Surprisingly, NASA Lewis Research Center has been quite active in research on affecting and controlling biological processes via microwaves. Pulsed microwave technology for 'voice of God' effect has been worked on since the 1960's.
Picture of the Army's acoustic cannon
But don't let these facts get in the way of the truth as presented by network TV - a cartoon at that - which, we all know, is completely respectable, totally responsible, and absolutely accountable in their role as the 4th or 5th estate.
The Russians have been quite active in researching how microwave and EM and acoustic technologies can be used to control the behavior of a human. (Oh! big surprise there)
I enjoy reading the discussion. Sorry that I cannot contribute nore, being in the countryside, facing various constraints, supply of electricity being one.
I do recall reading the U.S. News piece when it came out. My point is simply that the existence of these weapons is not widely known. I also recall that speculation was that they were more likely to be used in domestic crowd control than on the international battlefield.
"The Russians have been quite active in researching how microwave and EM and acoustic technologies can be used to control the behavior of a human. (Oh! big surprise there)"
Can anybody elaborate or point out a web-site? This sounds ludicrous to me, but I am of course interested in reading more.
Forget it... I see the web-sites all spelled out, nice and tidy. I will do a bit of reading later.
Exactly ! Very well said. It's that 'connection to Agape' which is the life and death difference between 'Religion' (and the struggle to be ethical), and Agape, the Love of God, Who brings His ethics with Him into our hearts and lives.
Just what is the connection to Agape for those whose ventromedial portion of the frontal lobes have been damaged?
What is the connection to Agape of our near-relatives, the bonobo and the chimpanzee?
What was the connection to Agape of the neandertal people?
Agape is a human construction, sensible only in terms of our biology. That does not lessen its worth.
Is your concern that warfare will be more acceptable if and when it's less bloody?
My concern is the militarization of law enforcement and the use of this type of weaponry in law enforcement against civilians & children, specifically the use of the Russian acoustic weaponry, operated by Russian officials, at the siege of Mt. Carmel. And you'll have to pardon my unglobablized butt - foreign forces on American soil sticks in my craw.
re - Even the paranoid rant from Parascope didn't make that claim.
Yes, it did. And it was presented to the International Red Cross symposium as noted in the article. And both the BBC World and FBI has videotape of the acoustic weaponry in operation.
But let's all just sit around with our fingers up our noses, and wonder why didn't people come out of a burning building, and then participate in a little character defamation (what the hell, they're dead anyway, aren't they) and write their lack of action when they're on fire to being insane whackos.
They didn't come out of the burning buildings because they couldn't. They had been incapacitated or killed already by the acoustic weaponry (completely capable).
Dr. Henry Lee was on one of the news shows this weekend. He's a forensic expert, hired by the Boulder police & DA to help solve the JB Ramsey case, and he mentioned that 2 of the things you need to solve a crime were a good crime scene and witnesses. The feds destroyed the crime scene. They murdered the witnesses.
If the mafia did this, you wouldn't have any trouble understanding it.
re discussion placement - I placed it within 'Ethics for a Brave New World' because this weaponry has been employed elsewhere (Somalia - see Africa2000 website), and because this is not the last time we'll see it employed on civilians and children, and I think there are significant ethical issues here.
P.S. - that paranoid rant was reviewed and corrected by Noam Chomsky, noted MIT linguist and dissident. Not your average paranoid nutcase.
And I believe that enough references were provided in all of the articles such that you can verify for yourself their claims as valid and not paranoid rants.
- theist
2)Have you always held this view?
-no
3)Did your parents hold this view?
- no
4)Were you raised in any particular faith?
- yes - Methodist.
5) If yes, how often did your family participate in organized observance?
-monthly
6) Compared to your upbringing do you participate:
-less often
7) If you have or were to have children would you raise them in your faith?
I tell her what I think when asked.
8) Do you participate in organized religious observances primarily:
- other (please specify)
I don't participate in organized religious observances.
9) Which of the following best describes the faith of your parents:
- Christianity
10) Which of the following best describes your own faith:
- Other (please specify)
Pan-theism.
11) Do you follow a particular sect or denomination of your faith?
I am not aware of any organized religion that espouses my beliefs.
The passage does not say where or by whom "Russian equipment" was generated, and does not say the "unusual EM weapon" were Russian: it does say that "this contingency[use of Russian weapons] did not proceed."
And despite the ICRC and Noam Chomski, look here for just how silly things citing Mankind Research Unlimited get. Kirilian photography indeed.
But Indiana's suggestion is a good one -- start a thread.
It says that "IT IS UNDERSTOOD this contingency [use of Russian weapons] did not proceed."
For some of us, this sounds suspiciously like the compound destruction contingency plan that did proceed, apparently without the requisite approvals needed from Washington (Janet Reno's deposition cutting loose the FBI & ATF cowboys).
You may not be disturbed by the use of TACTICAL warfare weaponry on civilians - women and children included. I am. Funny how the children's safety was such a concern in terms of Koresh's marriages and impregnation of them, but their safety just wasn't a priority when deciding to adopt and use TACTICAL WARFARE weaponry.
And given that the Catholic Church essentially labeled science as silly for untold numbers of centuries, specifically the idea that the universe didn't revolve around us, is that label really as impactful as you imagined?
I've checked around on the website here, and haven't found any documentation on starting a thread.
You can post a request for a new thread in 'New Threads and Feature Suggestions'. Wabbit will create one if there is enough interest (i.e., other Moties supporting your request); then she'll e-mail you a URL for the maintenance site.
FAQs. It's a draft, so if you have any questions, just post in Suggestions. Welcome.
Is anyone familiar or a fan of Ernest Gellner's philosophical and socio-cultural anthropology?
I have recently read 3 of his books and seem to recall that the Fray or Slate ran a review or discussion of one of them some time back Sword, Ploughshare & Book?
I think he's rather ecclectic and kinda fun to read
Big Brother again?
Some outside manipulator causing unethical behavior on a mass scale seems overblown and paranoid. X_File stuff.
Ethics of the Brave New World could look at the Green Party and Ecology as well as weaponry, science, politics and such.
I propose that the ethics of this Brave New World need evolve into a new era of ecological and culture sensitive centered world. Globalization is going to allow the rich of this globe to expand their kind of ethics into broader spectrums. Such as was seen in South East Asia when Sorros(sp?) dumped the cash he bought back on their economies and caused wide spread havoc.
Other examples of ecological ethics are the rain forest devestation which has gone unabated into the new millenium. What of that?
Also what of the last nomadic peoples of this planet. The entire globe is now to a few namadic peoples and those of the rain forest are the least among that population. Those in the Amazon, the Congo, and the Island of Borneo are the last rainforest nomads I've known. Of these the last truely nomadic, defined that the governments have not completely obliterated that lifestyle, is in Borneo. The people are the Penan. Only 400 nomads exist there, per govt. documentation. Of the total 10,000 documented Penan in the world. The Malaysian govt. having decided that their Adat law of customary land rights is in the way of progress and they must settle in govt. planned homes. And they must pay the govt. back for these by working on palm oil plantations and paying a % back to the govt. Along with taxes of course.
So, what of this as a topic of Ethics for the Brave New World.
Does it seem to anyone, anywhere that such activity deserves go unchallenged? Is the rights of any peoples to be given respect for their cultural heritage unworthy? What of this, is it that progress, without just consideration should be allowed, unabated and challenged for its congruency with the peoples and lands that are affected. Who has the right to be of such power.
Well it's like this. The Berisan National government of Malaysia is considering itself the supreme rule of all Malaysia. To say negative things against BN is to be considered a tratitor to Malaysia. NO JOKE!
The way of democracy in BN is that it's the BN way or the highway= blackballed, ostracised, expelled, jailed even. As with Anwar Ibrahim and the trumped up case pending with him for going on a second year. Oh, and Anwar's brother, sister, daughter have all been targets of slander, from rumour. SO, what is the ethic of this behavior, eh?
Let me know how this all is supposed to pan out in an ethical manner will yah?
Anyway, given these tidbits, anyone wish to expand upon the ethics as I've demonstrated with my examples?
Jexster -- what is the main thrust of Gellner's work?
I appreciate the effort to give me reading material of some source with regard to these concerns. I am concerned with current and ongoing events, which I have given examples of. And I am somewhat aware to date of the legal and political actions being done wrt these particular events. However, the broad issue is that outside political leverage is what is needed to abate the greed spawned by the raping of natural resources and theft of native land by devious political menouvering in Sarawak, Malaysia.
Let me ask it differently for my edification. I am interested in the opinions of my Mote friends. Let me know specifically what is in your minds with regard to the ethics wrt the examples I gave, or examples of similar situations any of you are aware of.
Suppose you know two people, and one of them says he is going to kill the other. He has a gun and you know where it is. Do you steal the gun to prevent the murder?
The real funny thing about this is that one of our evening students works for the Namibian police. They are pretty much a joke here. If you call them and tell them someone is breaking into your house, come please help me, they will probably say, "We don't have a car. Can you come and pick us up?"
Anyway, someone said he wouldn't steal the gun because stealing is ALWAYS wrong (the unqualified absolutism from the earlier options) but he'd call the police and tell them. At that the police officer chimed in, "We won't come!"
i'd most likely report it to the police and the intended victim were the 2 people not known on a personal level to me.
this has nothing to do with ethics, in my own personal opinion, just a wish to look out for number one in case the dufus is home when i decide to play vigilante and steal the gun.
But, unfortunately, none of my students used the word "dufus" in their opinions!
I need to be more thoughtful of my students and their education!
As the discussion continued, I moved the issue to being right there when the murder was about to happen. Then at that point, do you kill the one guy who intends to murder the other?
In Kuligin's senario, the preservation of life takes precedence over theft.
Is the preservation of life the highest ethic? It may be, or perhaps personal liberties may be the supreme ethic.
Unfortunately, as Pelle pointed out, personal gain is the supreme ethic for many people. By necessity we must do things for personal benefit, but at some point it becomes unethical.
In Kuligin's senario, the preservation of life takes precedence over theft.
Is the preservation of life the highest ethic? It may be, or perhaps personal liberties may be the supreme ethic.
Unfortunately, as Pelle pointed out, personal gain is the supreme ethic for many people. By necessity we must do things for personal benefit, but at some point it becomes unethical.
It beats the alternative.
"Agape" describes the kind of unconditional love which God displayed on Calvary's cross. The Scriptures affirm
that 'God is Agape'(1 John 4:8). They also say that those who 'Have Agape'...'Have Life' and those who do not
'have Agape' do not have Life.
(1 John 5:11 and 12). So, being 'connected to Agape' is the difference between being 'alive in God' (with Him alive in you), and being a walking dead man or woman, spiritually, (however 'religious' or 'spiritual' one may regard oneself to be).
I doubt whether there is anything wrong with the ventromedial portion of your brain. The challenge is to your heart. :-)
People with damage to the ventromedial region of the frontal lobes "do not have Life"? (damage to a few other small regions of the brain can heve the same effect, BTW) Or is that me? What happened to "unconditional love"?
(1 John 3:16) which made and makes that life available to us all.
Read John 14:21..."He that hath My commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth Me: and he that loveth Me shall be loved of My Father, and I will love him and will manifest Myself to him"
This suggests to me that the 'Unconditional Love' of God which resulted in His death on the cross became 'Conditional' from the moment He cried..."It is finished". Thereafter, while God is still 'Agape Love' it (He) is extended to those who respond to His sacrifice with loving obedience.
What do you think Kuligin ?
Are they candidates for salvation? Are gorillas? We share about 30% of our genome with cabbages. Are they candidates? What is the threshold, and how did it come into existence? What makes you think we're so special?
Moreover, at the subatomic level, I guess we're all built entirely out of just protons, neutrons, and electrons, so it's not enough to look at the constituent ingredients and pronounce something the same. The works of Barbara Cartland and William Shakespeare were both formed from the same 26 letters arranged (basically) using the same rules of English grammar.
What resulted may look superficially similar, and it would be difficult for a scientific instrument to judge what makes the one different from the other. But most human readers would say one is the literary equivalent of a cabbage whereas the other is not.
There is no longer any doubt among cognitive scientists, neuroscientists, brain researchers, etc, that the mind is an activity of brain and body interaction. There are arguments about the details, but the evidence for the general thesis is overwhelming and overwhelmingly accepted by biologists. It's no longer just a matter of being parsimonius a la Occam.
There also no doubt -- nor has there been for 50 years, at least -- that the brain and body are products of evolution by natural selection as basically outlined by Darwin. Again, there are arguments over detail and over the relative importance of various mechanisms, but there is no doubt about the general conclusion.
Of course, none of this directly addresses the nature or existence of a soul. But what is there left for a soul to do when trauma to specific areas of the brain can destroy, separately or in combination, capacities to feel specific emotions, to reason, to make ethical or moral decisions, or to learn anything at all? And if there are souls, how did they get attached to us, to this particular set of genetic patterns? Did neanderthals have souls? Do chimps? Do cabbages? How do you tell? Those are NOT mere rhetorical questions.
Directionless is fairly easy. Tapeworms and blue-green bacteria have exactly as much evolutionary history as we do. It's always differential reproductive success in a particular environment, and sometimes multi-cellularity or parasitism or eyes or intelligence add to that success and sometimes they don't. Life doesn't evolve toward anything: 'life' doesn't evolve at all. Particular gene pools change over time because their phentypical expression leads to more or less reproductive success in a more or less stable local environment.
But can anyone really have the spectacular pride required to believe that 12+ billion years of universal history and 4+ billion years of life on earth -- including, for instance, the supernovae of thousands of stars which created the elements (other than hydrogen and helium) of which we are made, the near collision with a Mars-sized body which tore the moon out of the earth, ensuring that earth's rotation would slow enough that hurrican-force winds would not continuously scour the earth's surface and that tides would periodically expose early life forms to the atmosphere, facilitating the evolution of living things on land, the tremendous Ice Age the end of which probably precipitated the Cambrian explosion, and the impact which 65 million years ago destroyed every living thing on land bigger than a dog, enabling the spectacular radiation of mammal species of which we are a part and which we may be ending -- that all of this was arranged for us? Why not the oyster, as Mark Twain asked? Why not the cabbage? Why not the inhabitants of a planet in the Lesser Magellanic Cloud?
mandolin (6487): I think you state this too strongly. Most researchers now think that as we talked about upthread, the brain's physical state is indeed equivalent to the mental state of consciousness. That is, two brains in exactly the same physical state of neural connections and firing synapses would also have exactly the same internal consciousness. But the belief isn't proved (nor likely proveable) nor is it unanimous. Moreover, scientific consensus has never been equivalent to infallibility.
Second, being "roughly equivalent" isn't the same as identical at all. Going back to the DNA example, despite all our similarities, the human organism will frequently reject an organ transplant even within the same family. So again, whatever makes the human mind unique may be something structurally very subtle. And because it's generally difficult to study live human brains, we're nowhere near fully understanding how the brain works really.
As far as evolution, I don't see that as particularly relevant. When a sperm cell fertilizes an egg, the resulting biological organism is pretty much planned from the start and has the seeds of its final "state" set within it, even though it goes through a long natural process to get there. So could a universe. If you've ever messed with artificial life simulations, you know that the end result is pretty much predicated on the parameters with which you start the system. (You can also interject "randomness" if you want, but true randomness is pretty difficult to prove.)
What I'm saying is that evolution and a creator aren't incompatible.
Most believers in souls I think agree that the soul leaves the body at death. Perhaps it's not even necessary for the body to die: maybe someone can still be alive but soulless. (Why should stopping the heart be anymore likely to cause a soul to vacate then running an iron rod through a person's brain but leaving him or her alive?) If someone is brain dead but maintained by a ventilator, does that person still have a soul?
As far as whether anything else has a soul, I don't know. It may even be that souls vary as much as everything else.
Blake (paraphrased from memory): "To see the universe in a grain of sand, to hold eternity in the palm of your hand."
"Are [gorillas]candidates for salvation? We share about 30%
of our genome with cabbages. Are they candidates? What is the
threshold, and how did it come into existence? What makes you think
we're so special?'
Man is the pinnacle of God's creation because we are made in His image. And, according to Genesis, God has made man the steward of his creation (which includes gorillas and cabbages.)
I'm sure that we can all agree that man has not lived up to God's expectation in this regard.
It's off-topic, I know -- but what reason is there to believe fragmentary, patched-together texts from some minor Middle-Eastern tribe are the word of a universal god?
you wrote I'm sure that we can all agree that man has not lived up to God's expectation in this regard.
Well, no. Many of us do not believe in any god, others believe in some other god or gods, and even orthodox Christians believe in the omniscience of their god (an omniscient god won't have unfulfilled expectations).
But if all you mean is that we haven't acted as good stewards, then most would agree.
You are correct that there is no conflict between a creator god and evolution. But there is a good deal of evidence that evolution does not follow any plan -- or, if it does, the plan is indistinguishable from chance winnowed by local environment including other organisms. Such a god, with such a plan, is irrelevant to any human purpose, and only adds another layer of stuff to explain.
I would argue that 'purpose' is a human construct and only has meaning in a human context. We need to understand ourselves and our interaction with the rest of the world in order to make ethical decisions or even to talk sensibly about what ethical decisions are.
Euthanasia - Taken from the Greek meaning "good death," euthanasia is the topic which covers the matter of either taking a life or allowing a person to die in order to avoid further suffering of that person. A clarification of terminology is needed so we can talk intelligently about this.
1. voluntary vs. involuntary - voluntary euthanasia occurs when the patient or person requests it, involuntary occurs when the person is put to death without requesting or granting it
2. active vs. passive - active euthanasia involves purposefully or actively taking a life, while passive euthanasia refers to the withholding or refusing of treatment necessary to sustain life
3. direct vs. indirect - when the individual himself carries out the act it is direct euthanasia, whereas if someone else does it, it is indirect euthanasia
4. death with dignity, mercy killing, and death selection - death with dignity refers to allowing a person to die naturally, normally, with dignity, not hooked up to machines which do not make this a truly "human" death. Mercy killing refers to killing a person because that person is suffering from extreme pain and has no other way of escaping that pain save for death. Death selection is the removal of people whose lives are no longer deemed socially useful or necessary.
5. ordinary vs. extraordinary means - this refers to how one is kept alive. Ordinary means are air or food or water, while extraordinary means may involve being hooked up to a machine that does the breathing for you, and so on. Some allow for euthanasia when it involves refusal of extraordinary means but not ordinary. In other words, the person is allowed to die an "ordinary" death.
ˇ Is mercy killing ever morally permissible or justifiable?
ˇ If euthanasia is morally justifiable, are there cases where it would be morally obligatory to remove a patients suffering?
ˇ Is requesting a lethal dose of a drug equivalent to asking for help in committing suicide?
ˇ If voluntary euthanasia is suicide, is suicide ever morally justifiable?
ˇ Is there any moral difference between killing and letting someone die?
Personally, I would love to see a debate between two people diametrically opposed on this topic. They could debate here over a day or two, then others can jump in only after those two people were finished making their respective arguments and counters. Of course, we'd actually need two people willing to do this...
Are you referring to the Old Testament when you say "...fragmentary, patched-together texts from some minor Middle-Eastern
tribe?
The Old Testament is a collection of 39 books from several authors, ranging from kings to shepards, to farmers to diplomats. Although written over a period of approximately 1500 years, it is amazingly consistant, non-contradictory, and coherant in portraying the story of God's relationship with his chosen people. There are volumes and volumes of archeological substantiation for the locations and history of the many, many towns, cities and nations mentioned. There are many prophesies in the old testament, which came true, and none that did not.
Just as one example, are you aware that among the Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qamram, was an entire book of Isaiah, which is one of the longest books in the Old Testament (66 chapters.) It is assumed to have been buried there around the time of Christ, based on the findings that these caves were maintained by an Essene community. The significance of this particular find is that this copy of Isaiah is fully 1000 years older than the then previously extant copy (in other words, a copy dating back to the time of the Crusades.) Comparison of the two documents reveals virtually no change in the documents, other than a few stylistic differences. Repeat: virtually no change in the copying of this sacred text for over 1,000 years!
So although it is popular to believe that copiers of the old sacred texts freely edited and inserted materials into the texts that they were copying, the archeological evidence reveals exactly the opposite!
Morally, yes. Legally? Rarely. (I realize you didn't ask about that, I was just making the distinction.)
If euthanasia is morally justifiable, are there cases where it would be morally obligatory to remove a patients suffering?
No.
Is requesting a lethal dose of a drug equivalent to asking for help in committing suicide?
Yes.
If voluntary euthanasia is suicide, is suicide ever morally justifiable?
Yes.
Is there any moral difference between killing and letting someone die?
Yes, there can be. And there is also a legal difference (imo).
Just a slight clarification. Some would say that there are still yet-to-be-fulfilled OT prophecies.
"fragmentary, patched-together texts" sounds like someone who is steeped in liberal theology.
As for the matter of evolution and God, it is clear that evolutionary theory does nothing to one's theism, per se, i.e., it does not discount nor disprove the existence of God, nor does it make the existence of God unnecessary. However, I personally believe that theistic evolution, the belief that God used evolution in the creation process, does not jibe.
As for the morally obligatory one, as you no doubt are aware, some people would not only say that euthanasia is morally justifiable, but also morally obligatory. In other words, if we do not do it, we are committing a moral no-no.
Thanks for the clarification. To state more clearly what I was trying to say, there is no prophesy in the Old Testament that was proven false i.e. prophesy that one thing will happen, and something else happens.
I'm very familiar (though not on a scholarly level) with the textual history of the Bible. While some of the later books do show the textual integrity you speak of in regards to Isaiah, it's also clear that Genesis, for example, is a conflation of at least 3 major sources, each coming from disparate theological perspectives, and is riddled with contradictions.
The archeological record you speak of supports Homer about as well as it does the equally parochial and roughly contemporaneous historical books of the OT.
I've made it clear what I think of moral debates if God doesn't exist, so the only relevant questions I see are whether God exists, whether we can know what He wants, and what in this instance His wishes are. I think it's a bad practice to speak for God unless you have some kind of direct revelation, so (having such little personal experience with suffering) I can't comment as an individual and it's not something I would take it upon myself to comment on in the general case.
These are my personal inclinations (meaning I could be persuaded otherwise as my life progresses):
1. Is mercy killing ever justifiable? Yes, that is I think in certain situations I personally would approve of it.
2. Is it ever morally required? I don't think I would ever condemn someone else for not doing it. But a situation might arise in which I felt I had to do something.
3. Is requesting a lethal drug dose equivalent to suicide? Yes
4. Is suicide ever justifiable? My inclination is no. This may seem contradictory with 1, but IMO you should be willing to suffer more yourself than to force others to suffer. I also fear that if suicide is against God's wishes, then you have died in a state of rebellion.
5. Any difference between killing someone and letting someone die? Yes. In many cases no, but consider, for example, Sophie's choice.
The best explanation I have heard on this subject is the question of what we are prolonging. Where we can act to prolong life, we should. Where we act to prolong death, we should not. So I would object to taking an active step to cause someone's death, but I think it is permissible to take passive action (not insert feeding tube, not hook up to respirator) and in doing so, accelerate the process of their dying.
2. Is it ever morally required? I cannot think of an instance when it would be universally morally required. I do not think that a desire to shorten suffering is adequate to require killing someone.
3. Is requesting a lethal drug dose equivalent to suicide?
Yes
4. Is suicide ever justifiable?
No. Desireable maybe, and understandable maybe, but not justifable.
5. Any difference between killing someone and letting someone die?
Yes, as in No. 1 above, killing someone involves action, and letting someone die involves withholding action. Obviously, you can kill someone by withholding food and water, and that action would not be justified as long as they can eat and drink. When the act of eating and drinking involves permanent extraordinary measures, then I believe you can justify letting them die naturally, rather than prolonging their death by artificial means.
I put the bird in a shoe box on a soft towel in a quiet room and let him die. It didn't take long. The cats, meanwhile, paced nervously about, wanting to get into the "hospice".
re: injured birds,
I submerge them in warm water for a few minutes in a darkened room. Many birds go to sleep immediately in the dark.
In the Noah story, in one version, there are 2 of every animal. In another, there are 2 of every unclean animal and 7 of every clean animal.
Of course, you may not want to count contradictions in obvious fiction like the Creation and Flood stories.
CalGal's legal/moral distinction is important, but I'll address only my feelings on the moral side. I am not a lawyer, and I suspect the law is different in different states anyway.
ˇ Is mercy killing ever morally permissible or justifiable?
Yes -- but it makes a difference whether or not you know something of the sufferer's feelings and intentions prior to the trauma.
ˇ If euthanasia is morally justifiable, are there cases where it would be morally obligatory to remove a patients suffering?
I certainly hope that someone feels that way about me.
ˇ Is requesting a lethal dose of a drug equivalent to asking for help in committing suicide?
Yes
ˇ If voluntary euthanasia is suicide, is suicide ever morally justifiable?
Absolutely.
ˇ Is there any moral difference between killing and letting someone die?
If a dying person wishes to die now, is suffering and cannot end that suffering, and is of sound mind, then it is morally wrong to allow the suffering if you can end it by killing that person.
Unless each and every one of those conditions applies, killing and letting die are both equally wrong.
In other words, there are circumstances in which I would not morally condemn someone for assisting in a suicide or directly taking a life. But I could think they had acted morally and still not support laws that would make their actions legal. If you follow.
Yes.
2) If euthanasia is morally justifiable, are there cases where it would be morally obligatory to remove a patients suffering?
Possibly. It depends on the person. I don't think there is a universal obligation, no.
3) Is requesting a lethal dose of a drug equivalent to asking for help in committing suicide?
Of course.
4) If voluntary euthanasia is suicide, is suicide ever morally justifiable?
Yep.
5) Is there any moral difference between killing and letting someone die?
Yes. killing is taking an active involvement. merely allowing someone to die is withholding active involvement, as i believe marsha stated.
I think, in these debates, i'd have the most difficult time saying that any given thing is in no way justifiable and/or morally/ethically forbidding.
"1. Is mercy killing ever justifiable?
The best explanation I have heard on this subject is the question of what we are prolonging. ... I think it is permissible to take passive action (not insert feeding tube, not hook up to respirator) and in doing so, accelerate the process of their dying."
&
"4. Is suicide ever justifiable?
No. Desireable maybe, and understandable maybe, but not justifable."
my question, then, is two-fold.
1) how and why is something "permissible" & not "justifiable"? do you mean morally?
2) if i am dying of something horrid and ask i to no longer be fed thru a tube, as i had to be to live, then i am, in effect, asking for suicide, right? since i would be merely "prolonging death", how is it not "justifiable" for me to ask this?
How about an example of a fulfilled prophecy which does not result from any of the following:
being written after the fact
common sense (I can confidently prophesy that one day the govt of the US will cease to exist)
disputable interpretation (note that the Messiah falls under this category -- Jews do not believe their prophecy has been fulfilled)
Sorry, I don't find a creation story in Genesis 3. That chapter is the story of the fall of man. If you're referring to Genesis 2, it's obvious from the reading that Genesis 1 lays out the creation in total, and Genesis 2 goes specifically into the creation of man. A literary device is used which is very common: paint the broad picture, then narrow in on the part you want to emphasize. Now what did you say was contradictory?
Re contradictory stories of how many animals on the ark: In Genesis 6:19, God tells Noah his grand plan and that he will bring two animals of each kind. Then in Genesis 7:2, God tells him to bring clean animals by sevens and the others by two. How is that contradictory? First he tells him that he will have two of each animal, then he expands that to be seven of the clean (which includes two of each) and two of the unclean. So that is hardly contradictory.
Re your link, it was quite interesting, but I'm not going to respond to the points of that link. I could post hundreds of Biblical apologetic sites and ask you to respond to them, I guess. If you want to talk about something specific, such as the prophesies in Isaiah, then let's do it, but let's use our own informed arguments, not get into a link war.
Mind you, none of this in any way lessens my belief in God or in the existence of a spiritual world beyond this one -- an afterlife.
But there really isn't the slightest reason to believe that the Christian bible or any other ancient religious text has all the answers to life's mysteries. They are all written by men searching for the divine, but not necessarily finding it.
The Secular Web is published by the Internet Infidels, an educational nonprofit organization of unpaid volunteers dedicated to the growth and maintenance of the most comprehensive freethought web site on the Internet. Our mission is to defend and promote metaphysical naturalism, the view that our natural world is all that there is, a closed system in no need of an explanation and sufficient unto itself. To that end we publish the very best secular books, essays, papers, articles and reviews. We also stand as a bulwark against the forces of superstition, especially the radical religious right, whose proponents would have us fear knowledge rather than embrace it. We want to uphold the dignity of humanity and to encourage the avid pursuit of philosophy and the scientific enterprise. To disbelieve in the gods, as Emma Goldman wrote, is at the same time to affirm life, purpose, and beauty.
But this -- 15: And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
16: And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
18: And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19: And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
20: And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
21: And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22: And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23: And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. -- is not an elaboration, but a flat contradiction of the order of creation in verses 20-26 of Gen. 1
Nor is Noah's 2 and 7 a mere elaboration --they're different texts, variants, as commonly happens in fairy tales, that got stuck together.
If you're going to defend Genesis as literal truth, then we have nothing to say to each other. You will think me a damned fool, and I will think you an ignorant fool.
I could have sworn that I have had this exact dialogue with Resonance.
Do you have an answer to my question in Message # 6518?
At the risk of 'wasting my fingertips', it is of course the Scriptures which have persuaded me that we're so special. They do not speak of gorillas or cabbages being created...'In the image and likeness of God'. Let's drop it now. There's a good discussion going on euthenasia and you are perhaps as happy with your understanding of the truth as am I.
I wish you well.
Sorry to take a day to get back to you, but this took a little time to pull together. In Mmsg num=6518>, you asked for an example of a fulfilled prophecy which does not result from any of the following:
1) being written after the fact
2) common sense (I can confidently prophesy that one day the govt of
the US will cease to exist)
3) disputable interpretation (note that the Messiah falls under this
category -- Jews do not believe their prophecy has been fulfilled)
My example is this:
The people of Israel will be taken captive to Babylon where they will remain 70 years. They will be set free to return to Jerusalem by Cyprus.
1) This was not written after the fact as will be demonstrated below.
2) This is not a matter of common sense. If it were only that the people would taken captive, then it would be under your common sense category. But to specify the duration (70 years) and the name of the person who would set them free is certainly prophetic.
3) This is not a matter of disputable interpretation, as it revolves around historical events.
Now, as to the question as to when the prophesy was written and when the evidence of its fulfillment was written. There are numerous other Biblical citations that could be given, but I'm trying to keep this to a clean, clear minimum. Note that the prophesy was given very long before the occurance, and the specificity of the details, as well as the frequency of the prophesy and its urgency increased as the event approached.
The southern tribe of Judah was taken captive by Babylon beginning in 605 BC.
They were released by King Cyrus King of Persia in 536 BC, following the fall of Babylon in 539 BC.
The prophesy:
1. The people of Israel will be taken captive
Prophesied by Moses in 1500 BC, 895 years before the captivity (Leviticus 26:33, Deuteronomy 28:64)
Prophesied by Ahijah, between 931 and 906 BC, at least 301 years before the captivity (I Kings 14:15)
2. The people will be taken to Babylon
Prophesied by Micah, between 733 and 701 BC, at least 96 years before the captivity (Micah 4:10)
Prophesied by Isaiah, between 739 and 681 BC, at least 76 years before the captivity
(Isaiah 39:6)
3. The people will be in Babylon 70 years
Prophesied by Jeremiah, between 627 and 574C, at least 38 years before they were released
4. The people will be set free by Cyrus
Prophesied by Isaiah, between 739 and 681 BC, at least 145 years before they were set free.
The prophesy was fulfilled as recorded by Ezra sometime between 538 and 516 BC. (Ezra 1:1-3).
In this case, the reason the people were prophesied to be taken into captivity is because they had turned their backs on God and had fallen after false gods. God would use Babylon (the very seat of evil) as his instrument to deal with them, and when they had served their time in exile, he would permit them to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the city and the temple. From the very beginning, the prophesy had great religious significance.
Oh, I see that in my paragraph describing the prophesy, I said that the people would be set free by "Cyprus". Of course I meant Cyrus, but as you all must know by know, I have a fixation with cyprus bark mulch.
singular Yahweh), who are made to till the land as servants of the
"Lord."
Btw, there are close parallels in the second chapter of Genesis to the Sumerian creation accounts and to the creation of physical man in the Christian-Gnostic texts.
First, some dates, and then verse by verse commentary. I've used the online Britannica for most of my sources, not because I think it infallible, but because it does represent a kind of scholarly consensus and because it is readily available to all. There will be disagreements among scholars, but everything there will be at least supportable.
"the Babylonian Exile, which traditionally lasted 70 years, though it began in 597 BCE, the temple was destroyed in 587/586, some exiles returned in 538, and the temple was restored in 516"
Only way to get 70 (or perhaps 71) out of those dates is to count from the destruction to the restoration of the Temple. From the beginning to Cyrus's release is 60 years -- from the destruction of the Temple to the release is 48 -- from the beginning to temple restoration is 81.
Prophesied by Moses in 1500 BC, 895 years before the captivity
(Leviticus 26:33,
Leviticus ch 26 does not prophesy, but threaten -- verse 14 says "But if ye will not hearken unto me" [emphasis mine] and "if" again in verses. 21, 23, 27, all these terrible things will happen (nowhere mentioning Babylon or 70 years) and then, in verse 40, "If they shall confess" they'll be restored. But no mention of Cyrus.
The source of Leviticus is P, the priestly document, which dates fron the 6th or 7th century BCE, most emphatically not the time of Moses. Though most scholars think much of it has old sources, parts of it have been thought to date from post-exilic times.
Deuteronomy 28 also threatens rather than prophesies, in much the same langauge as Leviticus, again without mentioning 70 years, Babylon, or Cyrus. -- in fact verse 68 threatens instead "And the Lord shall bring thee into Egypt again with ships."
The source of Deuteronomy is unique among the Pentateuch, and dates from the 7th or 8th century BCE. It is sometimes considered to be more appropriately grouped with the historic books.
Prophesied by Ahijah, between 931 and 906 BC, at least 301 years before the captivity (I Kings 14:15)
Again, no mention of time place or people --just that "The Lord shall smite" Dates from the after the fall of Jerusalem, using sources from 7-8th century.
Prophesied by Micah, between 733 and 701 BC, at least 96 years before the captivity (Micah 4:10)
In Micah Babylon does indeed get mentioned. But no 70 years, no Cyrus. And by this time Babylon was a major power, and Israel was corrupt and weak.
Prophesied by Isaiah, between 739 and 681 BC, at least 76 years before the captivity
4. The people will be set free by Cyrus
Prophesied by Isaiah, between 739 and 681 BC, at least 145 years before they were set free.
I've put the 2 Isaiah remarks together. For this I'll quote -- it's after the fact, not prophecy
"First Isaiah contains the words and prophecies of Isaiah, a most important 8th-century BCE prophet of Judah, written either by himself or his contemporary followers in Jerusalem (from c. 740 to 700 BCE), along with some later additions, such as chapters 24-27 and 33-39. The first of these two additions was probably written by a later disciple or disciples of Isaiah about 500 BCE; the second addition is divided into two sections--chapters 33-35, written during or after the exile to Babylon in 586 BCE, and chapters 36-39, which drew from the source used by the Deuteronomic historian in II Kings, chapters 18-19. The second major section of Isaiah, which may be designated Second Isaiah even though it has been divided because of chronology into Deutero-Isaiah and Trito-Isaiah, was written by members of the "school" of Isaiah in Babylon: chapters 40-55 were written prior to and after the conquest of Babylon in 539 by the Persian king Cyrus II the Great, and chapters 56-66 were composed after the return from the Babylonian Exile in 538"
Prophesied by Jeremiah, between 627 and 574C, at least 38 years before they were released
Common sense (Babylon -- conflict had already come) and convention -- 70 years is the conventional human lifespan -- you'll spend a lifetime in captivity -- and as noted above, you have to be selective about dates to get 70 years out of the events.
marshame, I'm going to take bloodnfires' advice and, for my part stop this. I wish you peace and happiness.
But the fact that you are using only one reference to maintain your up to this point lame points displays the real reason why your arguments have been, well, lame so far. Especially the whole "common sense" arguments you have just used wrt the Jeremiah prophecy. I actually laughed out loud with that.
However, I will say this. What you are saying isn't original, as you have already noted. The attempt by liberal scholarship to place late dates on prophetic passages is a rather old argument and has consistently been disproven, over and over and over again. And your ONE source parrots the liberal line quite well it seems from what you have quoted from it. That is clearly seen by its JEDP/Documentary Hypothesis assumptions.
Now then, I find Ronski's comments in post 6531 quite tantalizing.
But the author of that hotlinked article basically says things like this, "But it *SEEMS* that Bethlehem could have *POSSIBLY* been understood as..." or "It *SEEMS* that this or that item *MIGHT* be..." and so on. In other words, he is chucking the clear, readily understood option for other options which are only potential, or probable but not conclusive, or may seem to mean this or that. It was clear from the article that he was grasping for straws, desperately at times.
No doubt that is because he a priori believes that fulfilled prophecies do not or cannot exist. Much like liberal scholars do.
singular Yahweh), who are made to till the land as servants of the
"Lord."
Btw, there are close parallels in the second chapter of Genesis to the Sumerian creation accounts and to the creation of physical man in the Christian-Gnostic texts."
Phillipdavid, when you get a moment, please tell us if you agree with the belief found in Christian Gnosticism that there are actually TWO gods, the Creator god who is evil and the spirit god who is good. You consistently tout the Gnostic system but I can't recall if you have ever told us that you subscribe to the polytheism of Christian Gnosticism. Because you simply CANNOT subscribe to the salvation motif of Christian Gnosticism without being a polytheist. Without sounding like you don't know what you are talking about, at least.
Then of course I'll ask you if you believe Jesus believed in more than one God too.
And I feel the need to point out once again that in the Hebrew, when "elohim" is used with a singular verb it ALWAYS refers to the one, true God of the Jews, but when it is used with a plural verb, it refers to false gods. And in the creation account, a singular verb is used.
There are two because there are two sources for Genesis, interwoven by a third source. The author who wrote using Yahweh as the name of God is one source. The author using Elohim is the other.
Deuteronomy was contributed by another author, and the Pentateuch was woven together by a fourth author, called P for Priestly.
"Potomac, Maryland, is known for its multimillion-dollar estates and highly-ranked elementary school --considered one of the best in the country.
But a few days ago, Potomac became known for something else: One of the worst cheating scandals in recent memory. Only, it wasn't the students who were cheating: It was a teacher and the school's principal.
The whole sordid story exposes how in secular America we've lost the basis for ethics.
It turns out that when students took a state achievement test last month, a fifth-grade teacher and the school's principal pointed out wrong answers and urged kids to "try again." The students were given far longer to complete the tests than the rules allowed. Some were even called back later and told to change their answers.
Parents were outraged when they found out. As one parent put it, for kids "to see their principal and teachers helping them [cheat] . . sends a horrible message."
The students were getting a moral education, all right, but the wrong kind. But who's surprised? Instead of teaching kids what constitutes good character, many teachers today are encouraging kids to discover their own values. It's the dangerous idea that all values are equal. In fact, the only time the curriculum is directive is when it involves trendy causes like environmentalism or feminism.
What educators don't seem to understand is that virtue is not a matter of social causes. It's amatter of the soul, and that's where moral education has to begin.
The point was beautifully illustrated a few years ago in a story told by philosophy professor Christina Hoff Sommers. Sommers had published an article urging ethics teachers to focus as much on private virtue as they do on public ethics -- to teach things like personal honesty, decency, and responsibility. (cont)
By the end of the semester, however, Sommers' colleague was singing a different tune. To her shock, more than half the students in her ethics course had cheated on a take-home exam. Sheepishly, she told Sommers, "I'd like to borrow a copy of that article you wrote on ethics without virtue."
This professor learned the hard way that we can deal with the moral malaise in American life only when we begin to cultivate personal virtue.
That's a lesson that some of the kids in Potomac appear to have learned already. After taking their tests, they had the moral maturity to tell their parents that their teacher and principal had asked them to cheat. It seems their parents had taught them that cheating is wrong. Well, good for them!
Plato said that order in society depends on the order in the individual human soul. When even school principals can't tell right from wrong, maybe it's time to bring that ancient dictum back.
For the best way to avoid rearing a generation of moral dunces is to teach our kids -- and their teachers -- that there are absolute standards of right and wrong. And cheating is always wrong, no matter who tells you to do it." [END]
I made a duplicate post in 6542 and will delete it.
Jay, that is the Documentary Hypothesis, a rather old and disproven hypothesis about the Pentateuch. I'm surprised you speak about it as if it really holds any water.
When you get down to it, it is money driving the teacher and the principal to want the test scores to be high because the states allocate money to the schools based on test scores.
"And God said...'Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness'." My Strongs says that..."'Elohiym' means 'Gods in the ordinary sense, but specifically used (in the plural this, especially with the article)of the supreme God"...Tell me you don't believe that it was some false Gods who made this original statement,
or am I misunderstanding your 6541 ?
In fact, the only time the curriculum is directive is when it involves trendy causes like environmentalism or feminism.
I don't understand. Are you saying that the current trend is to only talk about the morality of society as it applies to giving women the vote or picking up litter?
Judith, exactly!
bloodnfire, yes, you have misunderstood my comment. The verse you cite has the word "us" as you boldfaced. It does not have the word "elohim" which is what I was talking about. PD has stated before the because the OT uses the word "elohim" they believed in a plurality of gods. I doubt very much that you believe this, which means that I doubt very much that you would actually disagree with my original post on this subject...so long as you read it properly! :-)
Just go ask a Jew what he thinks the "us" refers to in that verse, and see if he thinks it is talking about more than one God. Then think if Jesus thought there was more than one God.
In the last 10 years or so the Documentary Hypothesis has become under increasing attack, and I don't mean just by conservative scholars. They have always attacked it. No, liberal theologians are beginning to ditch it as well.
As for number counting, i.e., how many people support it and how many do not, I wouldn't have the faintest idea. My guess is, though, that in the theology/religion departments of all major universities it is still the prominent view. But that is only because there are no other prominent theories remaining if it is ultimately ditched. In other words, the only other option of any weight would be that Moses wrote it, and for liberal theology to ultimately admit that (as more and more individuals are doing) would be major egg on the faces of the liberal theology departments.
Then again, they should be used to it by now.
The matter of "us" is another issue altogether. My original comments had to do with the verb usage when using "elohim."
I take it you withdraw the objection that the JEDN story is old, in that case. And if it's widely held in academic departments, I don't think you can say it is disproven either. But continuing this discussion would be bootless.
Now I'm curious about other authorship questions. Do you believe that the Gospels were written by the people who they are attributed to? Do you accept the standard chronology of Mark, Matthew, Luke, John? (Although I seem to recall some recent evidence of passages from John showing up before that gospel was supposed to have been written.)
You certainly can't deny that canon was set in a timeframe when it was impossible to confirm authorship. How can you be certain that the canonical authorities chose correctly?
Is it?
My objection to PD is that he wants us to believe that because the authors of those portions of the OT who used "elohim" to refer to God used this plural noun, they must have believed in a plurality of gods. But such an understanding ignores the incredibly strong monotheism of the Hebrew Scriptures, as well as the Hebrew verb usage with elohim.
Having said all of this, as a Christian and then because I use the NT to understand the OT, I would agree that the "us" does indeed convey something more complex concerning the nature of God than a "simple" monotheism.
"I take it you withdraw the objection that the JEDN story is old, in that case."
Well, the JEDP hypothesis is about 100 years old. The belief that Moses wrote the Pentateuch is at least 2500 years old. So, if you want to hang your hat on the validity of JEDP because it is "old" be my guest.
As for being "widely held," any (and I do mean any) scholar worth his weight in salt will tell you that liberal theology has suffered so miserably from having its "in vogue" theories exposed as utter failures over the last 200 years that to automatically conclude that the current view is correct just because so many liberals adhere to it would be rather foolish, just from an historical point of view. It would be tantamount to ignoring all the past failings of the Jehovahs Witnesses and their Second Coming predictions, but concluding now, "Ahh, but THIS time they have it right!"
Your other questions are quite enjoyable topics for me, but off topic for this thread, at least currently. However, as I am currently teaching a course Doctrine of Scripture, so my knowledge of the canon and its development is quite "ripe" at the moment!
Let me just say this for now. I find no reason whatsoever to disregard the very strong historical and traditional views when it comes to the authorship of the NT writings. When men such as Ignatius of Antioch believed that certain books were written by the apostles, Id say that we have the onus of extreme proof to show otherwise, since he lived about 70 years after Christ and we are about 2000 years after him!
So we had the Quest for the Historical Jesus, and the New Quest, and the Third Quest, and now the Jesus Seminar. And each time, people think this stuff is something new and exciting, but it is still the same, lame arguments just sold to a new, gullible generation that doesnt do its own scholarly study. So Time magazine writes an article about every Christmas on how earth shattering the Jesus Seminar is, for example, and it is obvious that the author of the article has no clue that these lame, tired arguments have been killed in the distant past, but then resurrected by desperate anti-supernaturalist theologians.
Personally, I adhere to the traditional view of the authorship of all NT books. The books that are the most under attack, the Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) I have done extensive study on myself and the arguments used to disprove Pauline authorship are quite weak.
This is certainly true if you take a liberal date for the authorship of this Gospel. One of the basic tenets of liberal dating is that the Gospels could not possibly have been written by an Apostle because the Apostle would have known for sure that Jesus was just a man, a humble rabbi, not some supernatural God-man, Messiah type. And in order to allow for this myth to grow and flourish, late dating has to be ASSUMED. One of the classic failings of liberal theology in this vein was the very late date placed on the Gospel of John, even as late as the last decade of the 2nd century. That was disproven through various means, but one of the real fun moments came when a fragment of John was discovered, coming from about 130AD. Quotations in letters from Clement (circa 95) and Ignatius (107-108) also havent helped the liberal cause none.
OK, one more comment on your question. Dont assume that the fact that the date when the canon was finally closed (397 AD) means that it wasnt until then that they had wrestled with the issue. Canonicity is quite a fascinating study. The evidence is quite strong, though, that traditional views concerning NT authorship are indeed correct. Even opponents of early Orthodoxy like the Gnostics, Basilides and Valentinus, held to the traditional views of authorship, and they were in the mid-2nd century. The evidence forwarded, however, to attempt to discredit these traditional views is weak at best, and has consistently been disproven and reworked anyway.
It is sort of like an atheist with evolutionary theory. No matter how shoddy or weak evolutionary theory may look to him, its the only bed in which he has to sleep. The same is true when it comes to liberal Christian scholarship. [END]
My agreement with "we can deal with the moral malaise in American life only when we begin to cultivate personal virtue." inspires another question. The last one as far back as my original, having little response, would this be different?
The concern I'm proposing involves a city/state funded office which works with another office. The first being involved in civil rights issues being reported and the second involves itself in sustaining the complaints if justified.
The lead office receiving complaints is headed by a man whose 6 yr. run of service has some unethical concerns. At one point Mayor Sharon Sayles Belton verbally reprimanded him for poor judgement. The cause being nepotism, proffered to the mayor by long time workers who applied for the jobs, his son and sister inlaw obtained. There is not information at present which would allow expression of further details of that incident.
This next expression is from current information regarding the same unethical concern of that same man. He is now (in my opinion justly) accused of nepotism and conflict of interest by the office which would sustain a complaint. He allowed his sister to run for the chair of that office. It's a volunteer office paid on a per case basis (undefined). A rift has developed (some hint it's along racial lines others deny it) that the way in which the sister was "taken out" of the election wasn't in good taste. That is because she a vote was held to remove her rather than confront her with the conflict of interest implications, this woman was not given opportunity to bow out gracefully, but rather faced stern opposition with loss of face.
cont.
Well, seems to me she deserved to be voted out, if she had the gall to try for the position in the first place. The conflict that could have arisen from defendents that she sustained a complaint just because she agreed with her brother is so obvious as to be laughable. My view is this woman's greed for posturing and position within politics blinded her to the irresponsible action she had every intention to undertake. I say she should be shamed for such an irresponsible attempt and I condemn any cause for support of her attempt and disdain for the method of her removal. She was ethically wrong to make the attempt in the first place.
Now with regard to the man in charge of the civil rights office. He has two strikes against him now and many have voiced concern for the increase of his budget. The concern states the audit of the increase shows the money went largely for travel expenses which have increased in frequency under this man's tenure and since the increase of budget. The major, justifiable complaint being the increase has not provided the city with increased output or efficiency. Proved by two complaints on seperate occassions, both of which asked for a report as to the number of sustained complaints the department had achieved during the past 6 yrs. Neither time could the department provide the information, nor has it to date.
My information comes from reading and article in the Twin Cities, City Pages, June 7 publication.
You post...bloodnfire, while I certainly do not object to using the "us" of the creation account to refer to the Trinity, I would be about 99.9% sure that that understanding of it was not held by Moses or the early Jews".
My bible is packed ready for our flight back to Florida this morning, so forgive me if my memory is faulty. Who was the 'Early Jew' who "Saw my Day" according to Jesus Christ ? I remember it was Moses who is reputed to have rejected the throne of Egypt 'preferring the reproach of Christ' isn't that correct ? Of course, the cynic would say that those were merely attitudes credited by believers hundreds of years later. However, if indeed inspired by the Holy Spirit, it would show that the 'Early Jew' had a grasp of the Godhead which I personally find both intriguing and a blessing.
Thanks for a lucid presentation of your views.
I bopped over to the Jesus seminar site, and read a couple of essays.
Here's an example: Essay
The author writes with an assurance and certainty that matches yours (which is how I remember this stuff when I first read it in a class taught by Peter Gomes(whom I think you might classify as liberal)). I can see that there is a fundamental difficulty in this kind of discussion. If you start with the assumption that the Gospels (or any book of the Bible)was originally an oral tradition that only later was recorded on paper, then you've assumed your answer, and when the dates fall is just quibbling about details.
OTOH, if you start with the assumption that they were written by the putative authors, and place the burden of proof on those who would argue otherwise, you'll always win the argument. You can always just note that the current absence of contemporaneous material doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It is somewhat persuasive to say that older material keeps getting found, but your positive examples are still three or four generations distant from the traditional date.
From my perspective, faithless as I am, it seems to me the burden should be on the one making the extraordinary claim. People who say flying saucers are landing on earth bear the burden of proof. Moses writing the Pentateuch is not as extraordinary as a flying saucer landing, but it still would surprise most people who didn't start out believing it to be true. However, I can see how you could look at it differently. We assume that the people who claim authorship are usually the authors, unless there is countervailing evidence.
It is sort of like an atheist with evolutionary theory. No matter how shoddy or weak evolutionary theory may look to him, its the only bed in which he has to sleep. The same is true when it comes to liberal Christian scholarship.
Have you ever considered the possibility that the same may apply to your own scholarship?
bloodnfire, if memory serves, Jesus was talking about Abraham there, not Moses. But that only makes your points all the stronger!
PD, if I misrepresented your views, I apologize. To be honest, I don't recall them entirely, thus my recent questions.
pelle, most definitely. Any scholar, in attempting to be as objective as possible, must admit that he himself may not be! Having said that, I have weighed the evidence on this matter and believe my position to be the best, both historically sound and evidentially solid. And because I am not one to a priori assume the supernatural doesn't exist, my options are much broader than for those who do.
As for the burden of proof, I suppose you'd then have to define the "extraordinary claim!" In other words, if something has been believed and has had historically solid proofs upon which those beliefs have been based (I am talking about authorship matters now, not content per se) then the burden of proof to me would be on someone who would come around some 1800 years later and disagree with the long-held view, wouldn't you agree?
Anyway, the best way I can portray why I don't find the liberal arguments too compelling is to do it dialogue form:
Jay - "I believe that Gospel of John was written by John. This belief has been held from the earliest dates of church history."
Victor - "You foolish, foolish man. How can you possibly believe such a backward, primitive position? Why, I have definite evidence that suggests that Gospel wasn't even written until the very late 2nd century, about 180"
Jay - "That's interesting Vic, but Irenaeus quotes from it around 170."
Victor - "Oh, well, I see. But I have found other information that dates it around 170 at the very earliest, and that is still a far cry from the traditional date of ~95."
Jay - But Vic, Tatian formulates his Diatesseron around 160 and has the entire Gospel of John in it. So certainly the Gospel was written before 170!."
Victor - "Yes, yes. OK, but new evidence and the rock solid usage of textual criticism strongly suggests that it wasn't written until 150."
Jay - "But again, you fail to recognize the recent discovery of a fragment containing parts of John ch.8, and that has been dated by scholars to be around 130." (cont)
Jay - "Then there is the evidence found in the Apostolic Fathers and their writings. There is strong textual evidence - using the exact tools you are using for your theories - that strongly suggests that Ignatius quoted from John's Gospel, and he wrote his letters around 107."
Well, you see where I am going. Of course, the above is conflated. This has happened over about the last 200 years, the liberals reworking their theories until now their date for John's Gospel is only a decade or two later than the traditional date. This has happened with virtually every NT writing they have tried this with.
The real problem it poses for them now is that their MAJOR assumption when they first began was that, in order for the "Jesus myth" to have ample time to develop, they needed a large amount of time. They no longer have that large amount of time, but they seemingly have forgotten the major assumptions upon which their original theories were based!
You've weighed the evidence for evolution, and found it to be weak and shoddy? You don't find it persuasive that species share a huge amount of DNA, the amount they share corresponds to where they closely together they lie taxonomically on a cladistic diagram?
Well, this ain't Ethics, so I better shut my trap before being accused of being a poor host! :-)
But similarities to not mean same organic source. Just because a horse and an elephant have two ears and two eyes and four feet, etc. doesn't automatically mean that one came from the other, or that both came from a common ancestor.
I don't disagree with micro evolution, but macro evolution, in my humble opinion, is complete scientific nonsense.
And to be clear, I make these comments with no fears that, should I be wrong in the end, that it will affect my theism anyway. Evolutionary theory deals with material already existing, not with the origin of said material. In other words, evolutionary theory doesn't make God unnecessary, but rather it doesn't even attempt to address the issue at all. Put another way, those who hold to macro evolution and believe that it disproves the existence of God don't understand the theory all too well.
But I have been taught that it was common for people to attach names more prestigious than their own to works at the time. In fact, that's quite common today--Senators don't write op-ed pieces attributed to them. William Shatner didn't write the TekWar series and so forth.
The website is at Jesus seminar
WHAT???!!!!! You have drawn the last straw buddy! You can question the authorship of John's Gospel all day if you like, but don't you EVER mess with Shatner!!
I am familiar with anonymity and pseudopigraphy and amaneunses and so forth. I cover them in my course. And I hope I just spelled them correctly! But that doesn't mean that ALL letters written during those times were subject to such practices. Clearly, though, Paul used a secretary at times, and it is quite obvious that certain Gnostic "gospels" were attributed to apostles that didn't write them. It is interesting that of the four orthodox Gospels, only two are written by Apostles.
Certainly. And that goes equally for theist who fear that it threatens faith.
But I wasn't talking about feet or bilateral symmetry being common across species. I was talking about DNA sequences. You can change the species of a fruit fly by inserting a certain sequence. We share DNA sequences with fruit flies that are connected in both species to circadian rhythms, and in other species as well. Chimp and human genomes differ by something like 2%. This, of course, doesn't mean God could have 1) made it that way at Creation or 2) set it up so that evolution would exist to allow man and other species to adapt to changing conditions on Earth.
"The question of the historical Jesus was stimulated by the prospect of viewing Jesus through the new lens of historical reason and research rather than through the perspective of theology and traditional creedal formulations.
The search for the Jesus of history began with Hermann Samuel Reimarus (16941768), a professor of oriental languages in Hamburg, Germany. A close study of the New Testament gospels convinced Reimarus that what the authors of the gospels said about Jesus could be distinguished from what Jesus himself said. It was with this basic distinction between the man Jesus and the Christ of the creeds that the quest of the historical Jesus began.
Most late twentieth-century Americans do not know that one of our own sons of the Enlightenment, Thomas Jefferson (17431826), scrutinized the gospels with a similar intent: to separate the real teachings of Jesus, the figure of history, from the encrustations of Christian doctrine. He gathered his findings in The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, Extracted textually from the Gospels in Greek, Latin, French, and English, a little volume that was first published in 1904 and is still in print.
Meanwhile, back in Germany, the views of Reimarus and his successors were greatly furthered in the monumental Life of Jesus Critically Examined by David Friedrich Strauss (first edition, 1835). Strauss distinguished what he called the "mythical" (defined by him as anything legendary or supernatural) in the gospels from the historical. The storm that broke over the 1,400 pages of minute analysis cost him his first teaching post at the seminary at Tübingen. Critics hounded him up to the time of his death in 1874." (cont)
The choice Strauss posed in his assessment of the gospels was between the supernatural Jesusthe Christ of faithand the historical Jesus. Other scholars in the German tradition developed a safer, but no less crucial, contrast between the Jesus of the synoptic gospelsMatthew, Mark, Lukeand the Jesus of the Gospel of John. Two pillars of modern biblical criticism were now in place. The first was the distinction between the historical Jesus, to be uncovered by historical excavation, and the Christ of faith encapsulated in the first creeds. The second pillar consisted of recognizing the synoptic gospels as much closer to the historical Jesus than the Fourth Gospel, which presented a "spiritual" Jesus.
By 1900 the third and fourth pillars of modern critical scholarship were also in place. The recognition of the Gospel of Mark as prior to Matthew and Luke, and the basis for them both, is the third pillar. A fourth pillar was the identification of the hypothetical source Q as the explanation for the "double tradition" the material Matthew and Luke have in common beyond their dependence on Mark. Both of these pillars will be discussed below." [END]
And now I am really feeling guilty by digressing so much from the thread's topic, while being host of the thread.
Have a good night Jay!
Ok.
One thought occured to me today after reading "Do you expect us to believe that John lived to be over 120 years old??"
My pastor would have me believe Elijah is still alive based upon some passage in Malachi and I recall some other reference, perhaps it was Jesus. Anyway the teachings timeline during the 1260 day prophecies of the two powerful prophets. During which time they are able to eliminate their enemies with fire from their mouths every time they decide to do so. When their phrophecy is completed they are put to death and some time later God raises them up to the astonishment of those who witness it.
Elijah is said to be one of these two prophets. He is said to be alive by the will of God. Do you have any information in support of this claim as well? Brief would be best. Perhaps the Malachi passage Ch.4,v.5 is all that's needed?
I am now to believe God will have an over 2850 yr old man serve him as prophet in the end time.
Ok.
Oh, and Jesus is to have seen him during his transfiguration.
Ok.
You're right again, KtH! "Your Father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad" (John 8:56).
It was Moses who "...chose rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season:
Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompense of the reward".
Hebrews 11:25 & 26
Hallelujah!
Jay. You write in your Message # 6562.."People who say flying saucers are landing on earth bear the burden of proof.".
The only way to know the truth about this particular 'Flying Saucer' O 'Faithless' one, is to take our hand, come inside and look around! (Better take off your shoes first, because the ground on which thou walkest....you know :-)
Another thought came up when reading "This, of course, doesn't mean God could have 1) made it that way at Creation or 2) set it up so that evolution would exist to allow man and other species to adapt to changing conditions on Earth."
This one I've always believed God did set up. God in my belief system set up the Earth to evolve just as it has and that explains the it all for me. The first asteroid which hit, the first germ and microbe, the other and varied heavenly particles which made it into the primordial soup. All set up and watched over by the Holy Cook, God. And when he started switching around the genomes and manipulating the gene, he made all the beasts of the earth, great and small. What a cool job, making all these plants and animals.
Makes me stop and thank the Lord each Holy Day, for all that he gave us and put on the earth.
I'm reminded how the native cultures prayed each new day is a Holy Day, and earth's nature a Holy Creation. They treated all things of
this earth as holy and gave respect to creatures great and small. Then of course the conquestadors showed up, with sanction to subdue the heathens, given by the church. Much later, after some missionaries complained vigorously, the church ordered the ruthless devastation to cease (didn't happen). Much of Europe and Russia have murder, ruthless destruction and greed as a legacy for "their" discovery. Murder and Disease wiping out a few million over 4 centuries, all for greed and Aristotlian theory that might makes right.
Ethical issues such as these are concerns of mine.
I've always wondered why so many theists don't adopt this lucid position. It leads me to wonder whether their faith is strong as they think it is. And, of course, I agree with KtH that any atheists who use evolution to "prove" God's non-existence are equally wrong-headed.
bnf,
I appreciate the sentiment, but I'm afraid it just doesn't work for me.
Jay, I've said it here before I think. "Theistic evolution" has some problems when one attempts to reconcile the biblical picture of God - who is orderly, directive, and purposeful - with the picture of evolutionary theory which is random, rather disorderly, and lacks direction in any real sense. I read one theologian put it this way: "After 4,372,166 tries at creating a mouse, God finally got it right." His point was basically that evolutionary theory doesn't jibe with the biblical picture of a purposeful God, who need only speak for something to be made.
Of course, that doesn't by any means exclude tons of theists from embracing evolutionary theory. Just the ones that want to maintain a biblical picture of God and his nature.
"The white man came to our land with a Bible in his hand.
He asked us to pray.
When we opened our eyes, we had the Bible and he had the land."
A nifty crystallization, albeit a bit too general. One always has to keep in mind the large amount of sincere Christians who have lived through the centuries and who refused to participate in such exploitation. I have noted many examples in the past, but one ready one is in Angola. In the entire southern half of that country, there exists only three hospitals. Two of them are run by my mission. Christian doctors who could make a fortune in the States (and many did in the past) but who gave it all up to go to a very dangerous country to help people they didn't even know. Don't forget the blessing many Christians have been the world round.
As an aside, based on your comments on evolution, there of course can be various ways of looking at how God exactly used evolution. One is that he set up the system and then sat back and did nothing at all. The other, which sounds more like your position, is that he intervened frequently to "tweek" things here and there.
I agree that he did speak and with purpose, however, I see his speaking as creating a unified "creation" that we enjoy now. The systems complex interactions may be beyond our grasp, but the whole is not beyond His. He didn't "get it right" after several million tries to make a mouse, he got it right the first time to create mice( and dinosaurs, and fish and birds, etc all in their own time and manner.)
I am always inspired by works of faith.
With my miniscule exposure to the myriad experince of this earths past and current events my inspirations have lead me away from less than faithful Church originated works. The Catholic and Orthodox churches, then Islamic mosques and finally Jewish Temples all have played roles in forming my impressions of Religion. I see them as man made forms of manipulation. I don't want to start a rant so I'll stop there.
I do have a strong sense of spiritual belief. My own centered around Jesus and God's Holy Omnipotence. The Holy Spirit has seen fit to keep me in communion with spirituality and by grace I pray to serve in what capacity presents. I make my own efforts towards this end. Not the churches remarkable ability to bend my works to man made ideology. Though I respond to efforts of study, prayer groups, seminars, faithful service and works such as you've described, and so forth. My concern has shifted at times, but currently has remained in televangelistic hypocracy. Preying upon the money of innocents. It's exampled from the trials of Jim Baker and Jimmy Swaggert. These are prominent examples. Few televanglists have gained my respect since the debacles of these two holigans;).
Praise God on this Holy Day, I'm off now to get things done.
"Einstein once remarked that the most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible." This statement, quoted by William Dembski, is a way of summarizing intelligent design theory, which argues that it is possible to find evidence for design in the universe. The author of The Design Inference (a scholarly exploration of this topic published by Cambridge University Press) in this book aims to show the lay reader "how detecting design within the universe, and especially against the backdrop of biology and biochemistry, unseats naturalism"--and above all Darwin's expulsion of design in his theory of evolution.
Intelligent Design is organized into three parts: the first part gives an introduction to design and shows how modernity--science in the last two centuries--has undermined our intuition of this truth. The second and central part of the book examines "the philosophical and scientific basis for intelligent design." The final part shows how "science and theology relate coherently and how intelligent design establishes the crucial link between the two." This suggests that Dembski is not simply rejecting Darwin and naturalism on fundamentalist or biblical grounds. While grounded in faith, he wishes to show how "God's design is accessible to scientific inquiry." As such, the book should be of interest to all thinking believers."
One was about the "shoddy" state of evolutionary theory. But in fact, evolution theory is one of the best confirmed and deeply understood branches of science. There simply is no longer any doubt that Darwin was broadly correct, and that even in detail he was surprisingly insightful, given that the mechanism of heredity was not then understood.
Evolutionary theory is what makes sense of the biological world: it is the foundation and structure without which biology is just a pile of facts. Evolution has been observed in the lab and in the wild, and not just the "Creation Science" inanity '"micro-evolution.'" New species have arisen. Look here for specifics, and for much more information on current theory and the sorry state of "Creation Science."
Evolutionary theory makes no claims of any kind about divinity or purpose for the universe, but it is quite clear, despite the author of The Design Inference, that the history of life on this planet has so far provided us with no evidence of purpose or direction. I think Kuiligin has it right in Message # 6580: evolution does not disprove theism, but it's at least uncomfortable for some (not all) kinds of Biblical understanding.
Mandolin, If you might have time, read back into the last 15 or so posts. When the references of evolution come up, pay close attention to the detail keeping in mind what Paragate has just posted. If then, you still think the posts portrayed reference evolution versus theology then your post stands to reason. But, my point with asking your attention in this is I think you've missed the point. My p.o.v. is mentioned some posts back.
Do you partly or wholely see it as unreasonable?
If so, why?
Evolution is certainly compatible with faith -- even the Catholic Church has more or less officially adopted descent with modification, though they reserve from science, as they should, questions regarding salvation. I wasn't commenting on your posts, but on some remarks by Kuligin abuot evolution in Message # 6557 and Message # 6569. I think he's right (if I understood Message # 6580) that evolution is problematic for certain kinds of Bible-centered Christianity. But there is no inherent contradiction between evolution and the ideas you expressed in Message # 6578 or Message # 6583. I don't share them, but they are not unreasonable.
As I said above, there is no inherent conrtradiction between evolution and theism, though look here for a suggestive survey of religious belief among scientists and matheticians: mathematicians are the most likely and biologists the least likely to believe.
I very much appreciate the tone and clarity of your posts. And Paragate, I share that sentiment of Berryman's (although I have 12 years to go if God allows before I am 80) that it's a strange and wonderful world. A strange and wonderful universe. An endless source of wonder and delight.
I was a teenager and much more world-weary when I fell in love with this poem. Henry is one of the voices in the Dream Songs, and I sympathize more now with him, who loves people and valiant art.
Dream Song 14
Life, friends, is boring. We must not sy so.
After all the sky flashes, the great sea yearns,
We ourselves flash and yearn,
And moreover my mother told me as a boy
(repeatingly) 'Ever to confess you're bored
means you have no
Inner Resources.' I conclude now I have no
Inner resources, because I am heavy bored.
Peoples bore me,
Literature bores me, especially great literature,
Henry bores me, with his plights & gripes
As bad as achilles,
Who loves people and valiant art, which bores me.
And the tranquil hills, & gin, look like a drag
And somehow a dog
Has taken itself & its tail considerably away
Into mountains or sea or sky, leaving
Behind: me, wag.
Or as Shakespeare put it: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Evolutionary theory makes no claims of any kind about divinity or purpose for the universe, but it is quite clear, despite the author of The Design Inference, that the history of life on this planet has so far provided us with no evidence of purpose or direction.
Nonsense. The universe is now concious of itself. God was tired of having his creation bombarded by meteorites so he made a creature as clever as man to figure out how to keep the whole existence- conciousness thing going. Keep on truckin'.
have your read Kazantzakis's The Saviors of God? He presensts a theology similar to what you just expressed -- that humanity's job is to complete the divine.
the speaker of that poem is just one of the voices in the book, along with Henry and Mr. Bones and some others. When I was 18 I thought that voice immensely clever, but now, like you, I find it mostly sad. I think Berryman did, too, at least some of the time, though his eventual suicide may mean the darker voices won.
The modern notion that God suffers with us is indeed, as paragate has insinuated, associated with a Process Theology that says that God is, along with humanity, developing. Process Theology is obviously condemned by orthodox Christianity.
I'm just curious here. Dr. Kervorkian. How do people view him in the Mote? Is he an evil man? A human rights hero? Should what he stands for become more the mainstream position in America? Or has the government been too lenient and/or lax in dealing with him?
As is The Last Temptation of Christ.
For that matter, has any church formally declared process theology to be heresy?
Thanks for your responses.
One should note that a kind of "passive euthanasia" is not uncommon, at least not here. Relatives and doctors agree not to apply the full-scale treatment for, say, pneumonia if the patient is very old and sick.
pelle, at the start of this discussion, I gave certain terminology. One distinction was active vs. passive euthanasia. They definitely practice the passive type here in Namibia, with limited state funds, you just don't throw tons of money at an old person who has a disease that will result relatively soon in death.
OK, a brief quiz. Two test questions on my test for my students in the Doctrine of Scripture class.
1) What is the last book to come in the Old Testament as found in the Bible used by Jews today?
2) Name the five NT books not written by Apostles.
2) Luke, Acts, Hebrews, Mark, Jude (? assuming Paul counts as an apostle)
Anyone who tells me to my face that the doctors who refused to remove his pacemaker did any good at all will face a world of pain from me.
And there is a marked change in the Almighty that takes place in the Book of Job, or at least in how God deals with humankind.
Would you most kindly re-phrase this passage so that idiots (of which I am chief) might be able to understand it ? Thank you very much. :-)
I hope both she and you are being healed of the grief and trauma of those times ?
Would you explain what you meant by his using the 'euthenasia debate as a cover' ? I have watched (as I am sure have you) countless family members express their tearful gratitude to him for his help in their nightmare situations.
The character of Jesus Christ is EXACTLY the same character and nature as that of the God revealed in the Old Testament. To say otherwise would display at least a misunderstanding (or disagreement with) the orthodox, traditional Christian view of the Trinity.
Also, don't lose sight of the fact that in the OT God's judgment tended to be more immediate, while in the NT/last days age his judgment has been put until the end of all things. In other words, you will find one day that the OT God is very much alive and well and that he still judges with severity.
mandolin, thanks for sharing that very personal account of what happened to your father.
Of course, I disagree with all of them -- you might say I don't understand any of them-- but still, it'd be nice to know just what ground we're walking on.
While I agree that the doctors who didn't remove the pacemaker did not do good, I can't imagine that they should be allowed to remove it, either. Hard call. I certainly think that if the pacemaker was broken, malfunctioning, or required replacement that they should be able to opt against it.
I think Kevorkian gets a kick out of killing people.
have you ever watched someone die for 10 years? Watched an animated corpse desecrate 50 years of good memories?
As I said, I can't say that keeping it in is a good thing. But given (I assume) that taking it out was a death sentence, I am uncomfortable with making something like that legal.
Cladisitics is the name of a way of organizing life's bush by using last common ancestors to decide how to group descendant species. It leads to some couterintuitive groupings -- if snakes and crocodiles are both reptiles, then so are birds, since the last common ancestor of snakes and crocodiles lived long before the birds diverged from the theropod dinosaurs (many say that birds are theropod dinosaurs).
But when we check for percentage of shared DNA, or protein structures, or a number of other chemical markers, we find that those things prediected to be closely related by cladistics do indeed share more DNA (and the rest) than do those things predicted to be more distantly related.
One result particularly relevant to us is that we and the two chimpanzees are more closely related to each other than any of us (chimps or humans) are related to gorillas, and again all the African apes (including us) are more closely related to each other than any are related to the orangutan or gibbon, and this matches what we can see of the fossil record. Outward appearances are not a particularly good measure of relatedness.
And I ask again -- have you watched something like this, and what it does to those who are still alive (my father was gone two years before he stopped breathing)?
If you haven't, then you don't know what you're talking about.
Demanding experience as a basis for one's opinions is generally not a good idea in a debate, do you think? If I were declaring that those who wanted to remove the pacemakers were murderers and in general ignoring the emotional toll, I think you could point out that a lack of experience might make me insensitive. But I've said no such thing.
It is simply untrue that not having the experience you speak of means that one has no basis for an opinion--and that this equates to "don't know what you're talking about".
As far as pacemakers being analogous to assisted breathing or feeding tubes--I disagree. I don't think they are generally considered to be analogous, and as it is, it takes a lot for one to justify removing air or food as it is.
pelle, at the start of this discussion, I gave certain terminology.
Sorry, I missed that. Because of constraints I cannot participate, nor follow, as much as I want to.
That will change as of Wednesday next when I'll be home and able to tap into an unlimited power supply.
I think Kevorkian gets a kick out of killing people.
I think that's true. It's unfortunate. I applaud him for starting the debate on the right to die, but he doesn't stand aside and allow others to take up the debate.
mandolin -
How is removing the pacemaker different from removing life-support such as assisted breathing or intravenous feeding from those in an irreversible coma? They have the same effect much more quickly.
How would your family have made this decision? Would your Dad have wanted the pacemaker removed? Did he ask to have it removed, or to be put to death some other way?
most Western digerati, and you and I are among that group, no longer have any connection to death or suffering I am a pretty empathetic person, and I had no idea , no clue, of the immense suffering my father's illness would cause my family, and especially my mother. She prayed for him to die, and doing that nearly killed her.
In the general case, I would agree with you that direct experience is not necessary to understand the issues in most ethical debates. But this is not the general case. If you haven't witnessed and felt this kind of agony, uselessly prolonged for years, then you have no clue as to the issues involved.
Obviously, you could find some liberal Christian denomination that considers itself "Protestant" let's say, but they don't adhere to what traditionally defines a group as Protestant. Therefore, because I am a stickler for proper terminology, I'd say they really aren't "Protestants" in the real sense of the word.
On the specific issue at hand, because Jesus is "God of very God" one would have to conclude that his nature and character is exactly the same as that of God as revealed in the OT. Otherwise, one would not be able to conclude that Jesus is God incarnate. And then you'd be disagreeing with the "orthodox" belief concerning the Trinity.
And as a result, you think that only those who have suffered as you have can make determinations about this?
Unless you're willing to tolerate that for every other deeply personal issue, I fear you're out of luck.
Personally, I think that those who have suffered are in danger of losing their objectivity about policy issues--and that this is just as bad, in its way, as those people who are insensitive to the problems involved. Myself, I don't think I'm insensitive to them. It's just that I don't think they are enough to cause me to change my mind.
I would like to begin a discussion concerning euthanasia. Some preliminary items are worth noting:
Euthanasia - Taken from the Greek meaning "good death," euthanasia is the topic which covers the matter of either taking a life or allowing a person to die in order to avoid further suffering of that person. A clarification of terminology is needed so we can talk intelligently about this.
1. voluntary vs. involuntary - voluntary euthanasia occurs when the patient or person requests it, involuntary occurs when the person is put to death without requesting or granting it
2. active vs. passive - active euthanasia involves purposefully or actively taking a life, while passive euthanasia refers to the withholding or refusing of treatment necessary to sustain life
3. direct vs. indirect - when the individual himself carries out the act it is direct euthanasia, whereas if someone else does it, it is indirect euthanasia
4. death with dignity, mercy killing, and death selection - death with dignity refers to allowing a person to die naturally, normally, with dignity, not hooked up to machines which do not make this a truly "human" death. Mercy killing refers to killing a person because that person is suffering from extreme pain and has no other way of escaping that pain save for death. Death selection is the removal of people whose lives are no longer deemed socially useful or necessary.
5. ordinary vs. extraordinary means - this refers to how one is kept alive. Ordinary means are air or food or water, while extraordinary means may involve being hooked up to a machine that does the breathing for you, and so on. Some allow for euthanasia when it involves refusal of extraordinary means but not ordinary. In other words, the person is allowed to die an "ordinary" death.
6498. KuligintheHooligan - 6/8/00 2:41:46 PM
Some interesting questions pertaining to euthanasia are:
ˇ Is mercy killing ever morally permissible or justifiable?
ˇ If euthanasia is morally justifiable, are there cases where it would be morally obligatory to remove a patients suffering?
ˇ Is requesting a lethal dose of a drug equivalent to asking for help in committing suicide?
ˇ If voluntary euthanasia is suicide, is suicide ever morally justifiable?
ˇ Is there any moral difference between killing and letting someone die?
My father didn't even know he had a pacemaker for the last 3 years or so. The destruction of his brain by hundreds, perhaps thousands, of tiny strokes (at the end it had atrophied to less than 1/3 its original size) was so gradual at first that none of us understood what was coming, It could even be sort of amusing at first, when dad would hang shirt after shirt in a tree as he cut the same patch of grass over again and again, got hot, took off a shirt, sat down, got cold, when inside to get a shirt, cut the grass again, got hot, and so on -- even he would laugh when we pointed to his hanging collection -- or when he'd take the dog leash for a walk with no dog.
But the nature of vascular dementia is that there will be relatively long periods where there will be no change, and everyone including the patient will adjust to a new situation, and then one morning something else is gone -- a name, a physical skill, bladder control -- sometimes many things at once. And for the last 5 years everyone but my mother, including him for as long as he basically knew what was happening, would hope that the next loss would be his life. At last she prayed for his death.
A poem I wrote after his first heart attack:
Medical Advice
My father was the strongest man I knew.
One day I found him lying on his back
And stood, grinning, on his right hand -- he threw
Me, at 17, like an empty sack.
Almost 60, he carried railroad ties
All weekend for the garden, and next day
His arm felt strange -- perhaps no surprise --
But he told mom, and mom decided they
Should see a doctor. At the hospital,
Signing forms, he fell. Nine times they shocked
His heart. When I got there, he'd shrunk -- a little
Man, still tough. I couldn't, so he talked.
He said, "I wouldn't recommend this, son,"
Eyeing tubes and wires, "for just anyone."
I stated that I thought all medicine was "playing God" to one degree or another and that it was perfectly fine, given this definition of the phrase, for us to play God. Many of the students did not like this at all.
mandolin -
If you had to be the one to choose your father's moment of death, at which point in his descent into non-existence would you have ended his life?
By any standard I am outside the pale of Christian orthodoxy. But it doesn't seem to me that "because Jesus is "God of very God" one would have to conclude that his nature and character is exactly the same as that of God as revealed in the OT. Otherwise, one would not be able to conclude that Jesus is God incarnate" A different logically possible conclusion is that the character of the one God had changed in the time between the Jewish and Roman conquests of Palestine. This is, of course, unorthodox for other reasons.
I bet you could have prophesied that my own explanation for the difference is that the ploitical reality faced by the Jews affected what they thought God was saying to them.
It is still possible that he would have lived as long or nearly as long without the new pacemaker. But when he refused to eat, as he did from time to time, I hope I would not have kept the food beside him until he'd forgotten his refusal. I have a wife and children of my own -- I may have wished to be more active than that, but for their sake I could not have.
For myself I have begun taking a weekend every other month and going camping alone.
This, I agree, should have been his choice and I certainly think that refusing to fix or replace a pacemaker is different from removing an existing one (in fact, I said so earlier). But I am surprised at your hostility to the doctors. Had they replaced it without any authorization, that would be understandable. But your mother was the one, in the end, who took the choice away from your father.
Sometimes medical invention is legally required, even against the individual and family wishes, and sometimes the only way to end someone's suffering is to take active steps to kill them. I wonder often what is best in these cases.
Kevorkian gives me the willies, too, but if I could have found a way to end my father's life with the assurance that my own family (including my mother) would not suffer legal consequences and that my mother would not have known I did it, I would have killed him during those last two years.
Yes, that sounds believable. THey had to make sure they were convincing in order to ensure they weren't sued. But so long as your mother had to give permission, it was her call. I say that not to blame her, but because I believe more older spouses should be informed of their right to say no.
As for your willingness to end your father's life, I can certainly understand it--like I said much earlier, I would be more likely to support certain acts on a moral basis without supporting their legalization. But Kevorkian is an entirely different matter, to me--he is someone who enjoys killing and just took this cause on as a way to feed his own yen.
The last years of your father sound horrifying. I'm sorry you and your family had to suffer through them.
I've learned pretty well how to ignore a broken body and/or mind and speak gently to the 'Hidden Man' or 'Hidden Woman' of the heart. I still have a long way to go in learning how to minister to those whose hearts are being torn by the condition of their loved ones.
"Only tears and a shoulder to cry on."
Bloodnfire,
As for me, when I consider the situation of grief, your quote above sounds like a wonderful remedy.
Thanks for reposting.
Care to expound on the reasons for and the results of that isolation ?
I am planning to try and walkthrough the Appalachian Trail next year, the Lord willing and enabling. I probably already understand your reasons.
"But it doesn't seem to me that "because Jesus is "God of very God" one would have to conclude that his nature and character is exactly the same as that of God as revealed in the OT."
You are correct, if you take the notion that God has changed. Then Jesus wouldn't necessarily reflect the same character as the "old" God.
But the notion that God's nature and/or character changes over time would also be an "unorthodox" POV.
BTW, that God became incarnate does not necessitate any change in his nature or character. He just took on flesh. Becoming incarnate does not affect his very essence.
"First, a request to execute a natural-death cirective may be based more on fear or misinformation than anything else. The patient may think his situation far worse than it actually is and ask to die. Once the patient dies, the mistake cannot be undone.
Second, a cure for a supposedly incurable disease may be found. Medical history is filled with examples of people thought to have an incurable disease who were later healed when medicine progressed.
Third, those who think patients must choose between terrible suffering and relief through death have overlooked a third option. Even in terminal cases, modern medicine can provide measures sufficient to reduce pain to a bearable level or even remove it altogether. In most cases one need not choose death as the sole release from pain."
They then make a final note about the Hippocratic Oath and doctors using medicine to help the sick and to never harm them or injure them.
Thank you for asking about my mother. She's 69 -- she was 14 when she met my father and never dated anyone else. My sister and her husband have moved in to her house, with their 2-year-old, while my sister tries to get ready for medical school, so she's busy and has someone to talk to, which helps. Right now, just 5 months after my father's official death, she's torn between relief that the ordeal is finished, guilt over that relief, and tremendous loneliness, She's strong, and I think she'll be OK. She's doing things for her health she'd put off while Dad was alive -- teeth that needed extraction, a damaged knee, other things that would, even for a day, or two have interfered with caring for Dad.
Thanks again for asking. And I suspect you do know why I'm establishing the habit of solo camping.
BTW, this is one reason I don't get too exercised over the notion of human cloning. You can't grow rthe same person twice -- even identical twins raised together are easily distinguished by their intimates.
I am learning, as I grow and mature and age, that my deepest, most perfect happiness is found within....and that once I find it, nothing exterior to my Self can match it, nor can anything destroy it.
I have recently come to believe that most of us seek to expereince the grandest part of ourselves outside of our Selfs. We seek to experience who we are through others. We change our behaviors, alter who we are, in order to change what others are saying about us, and change what they are telling us about our Selfs. We literally, for the most part, experience our ourselves through others. We rely on something outside our Selfs to be happy. At least I have for much of my life.
But I have learned the importance of just going within. To be with myself, to be my Self. And when I am there, I know that I don't need anything, and that I have nothing to lose. For God loves me unconditionally and without limitation.
And my belief that I truly have nothing to lose, which I gain by going within, by just being my Self, takes away all my inhibitions that prevent me from loving others. I think that nothing prevents us from loving each other more than thought that we have something to lose.
So being with my Self, going within, paradoxically allows me to be with others in a better way. I can find the assurance and freedom within to love more freely, always, in all ways. I am actually a more social person, and a better social person, by making the conscious effort to just be by myself, to take the time to be with my Self.
Mandolin. I often work with people whose lives have been terribly 'damaged' by circumstance. Very often those circumstances have been caused by their own carelessness or self-centeredness. Sometimes, as in the case of you and your family, especially your Mother, it has been no fault of anyone's.
At the risk of irritating you, but with the most tender of intentions, let me quote you from an old prophet, speaking the words purported to come from God the Father...."And I will restore to you the years that the locust hath eater, the cankerworm, and the caterpillar, and the palmerworm, my great army which I sent among you". (Joel 2:25).
I'm not sure exactly what those words mean, but I read them in the light of that 'unconditional love' that PhilipDavid mentioned in his post. It would be very easy, assuming that whatever 'Great Armies' come into our lives to challenge us, are indeed sent by God for His purposes, to become bitter and cynical. In the case of your dear Mother, I'm praying that the 'restoration' is complete. That the treasure of the laughter, joy and love she shared with your Dad before his illness overcomes the pain of his dying.
And with that, I won't mention it again. Bless you.
You dog. And I have been considering inferring that you are a dog since your post in Tower and Tunnel. A woman who can distinguish the scents of ten men at a business conference. What manner of woman are you???? Arf, arf. Ofcourse, you are also a dog because of your skill at the number snagging business.
There are non-prescription means of ending one's own life, which can be researched through groups like the Hemlock Society, but none is available to someone dying in a hospital bed.
Thank you for Message # 6663. Not only do I agree and identify with it, having more or less developed the same point of view, but I find that the sense of acceptance you describe is necessary to meditating on all that is holy, that which is beyond the senses and the intellect (though never hostile to the intellect).
On a more mundane note, it also seems evident that people like you better when you like yourself.
As for camping, I hate it. I love being outdoors all day, hiking in awful weather, or skiing in subzero temperatures and gale winds with hardly anyone around on some mountainpeak. But I really want to come back at night to someplace that's warm and has indoor plumbing.
I do love camping, though, or I'd find some other way.
Re:Message # 6617
My grandmother lived the last 18 years of her life with terrible illnesses. First she suffered a stroke which left her paralyzed on her right side. Then her diabetes and high blood pressure got out of control making her succeptible to mini-strokes and comas. She broke her hip and her shoulder. Eventually she couldn't live on her own and she was moved into a nursing home where she received the constant medical care she needed. She quit walking though and as a result became bedridden. Bedsores kicked in and her legs had to be amputated. There were many, many times that she was hospitalized, and many, many times that she was near death. Both my mom and me hated (absolutely hated) seeing her suffer. She suffered for so long, too. But, neither of us felt it was right to deny her medical care that could prolong her life and address the disease that ravaged her body. After intensive hospital stays that left her bruised and bloody, we changed her medical focus to hospice care instead of "curing" her. We felt that changing the shift to making her comfortable rather than assuming full recovery was the most loving thing we could do. She died in her sleep about 18 months later. Ultimately we believe that she died when God called her home, not from anything we did or did not do. We have clear consciences as a result.
P.s. We did sell all of her earthly goods to pay for her long-term care. That was the best use of her resources.
I just wanted to share a little bit of the suffering I've seen. It is very difficult to watch someone you love morph into someone else. My grandmother didn't have vascular dementia, but she did have severe diabetes and all of the diseases associated with it. She wasn't herself for the last three years of her life, either.
What I ask myself when I read your own experience is why didn't you have your father institutionalized?
I think that had you taken an opportunity to kill him yourself, it would have been the biggest regret of your life.
My mother said that he had taken care of her for more than 50 years, and she would never leave him with strangers.
Then it was your choice to abide his wishes, even though by your description, he was out of his mind. Besides, even though it was difficult, it has to be rewarding to know that she did take care of him til he died when it was his time to die.
For some reason, what Mandolin said, caused a stirring in my soul. My pov is that we all suffer and witness suffering. However, I don't think that terminating the life of a loved one is justified even when the suffering is severe. His (Mandolin) belief that killing his father if he could have gotten away with it, and his belief that keeping his pacemaker in was a bad thing are extreme opposites of my beliefs. I am against euthanasia.
There was no person there anymore, nothing but an engine of pain for my mother. If I have anything to do with it, I will never be the cause of that for my family.
Thanks to all who've tried to understand. And that's the last I'll say about it.
not talking about the execution in Texas?
....oh, you are eating sin. Excuse me.
When it comes to state-sanctioned, state-governed euthanasia then clearly I am against it. "Death selection" is clearly off-limits for me. But when it comes down to one's personal choice as to whether or not to end one's life, I start to hem and haw. Don't get me wrong. On the matter of suicide of a young person, for example, who just doesn't like life any more but has no health reasons or isn't on the verge of death, I wouldn't support such things. But some old person in his 80s who is doing nothing but suffering, or whose mind is wasting away because of Alzheimers and is becoming increasingly out of touch with reality, I actually find myself tending towards supporting such types of euthanasia.
Again, to be clear (hopefully). If there is some potential for a medical cure, or if pain killers can sufficiently relieve the pain, then I am not for euthanasia. But if the person is hooked up to some machines that keep him alive, or if the person has gotten to a point where he no longer interacts at all with his environment, and he has made it clear himself that at such a point he would no longer like to live, then I don't see why we should prolong his life. But this decision must be his and his alone, not the state's.
For example, if I am dying of cancer and chemo will have no more effect on it or the negative side effects of taking chemo outweigh the little benefit of it, then why take chemo? So I am clearly for the "passive" type of euthanasia that involves taking away medication and letting the person die. As to actively killing the person, let's say via some medication, then I am against it.
Of course, if I were there would *I* actually pull the trigger and shoot such a person dead? I tend to doubt it. I would worry that immediately after doing it, something would happen whereby the person could in fact be saved from the burning car! I would also probably rationalize, "Well, the guy is going to be dead in about 5 minutes anyway, so what's 5 minutes more of agony in the whole scope of things? In 5 more minutes he won't remember any of this anyway!"
Personally, if I were in some sort of accident that would leave me permanently a vegetable, I wouldn't want to live in such a state. Personally, euthanasia is quite an attractive option in certain dire circumstances. But it is when we move from the issue involving someone else that it becomes more difficult for me.
OK, enough of my rambling.
A mob of about 15 Kenyan Muslims was going around destroying property and "roughing up" Christians from churches, specifically ones working with the missionaries in that area. They went to several houses and destroyed property, beat up the inhabitants, and so on. They did not, however, kill anybody.
When they came around to one missionary home, they couldn't get past a large steel gate. So they went and got a Kenyan pastor and took him to the house. They then told the missionary inside that if he did not open up the gate, they would kill this Kenyan pastor.
The missionary had his wife and children in the house.
Would you open the gate? What would you do if in the missionary's predicament?
Seeing as you could not be certain that those making the threat against the hostage would not kill the family members once they were inside (yes, they didn't at other houses, but they are demonstrating that they are capable of doing so simply by threatening the pastor), I think most people would opt for protecting their own family members, and not let the creeps in.
After all, the people inside the house are not the ones saying they are going to kill, so it is hard to see how they could be held morally responsible should the pastor die.
This was exactly my second reaction when I read it, too. My initial reaction was in the context of missionaries and the fact that Kuligin specified the hostage was a Kenyan pastor. I wondered if the situation might not be a good opportunity to establish an opening with the locals by showing concern and empathy with one of their own.
Morally, I would have no problem with refusing to open the gate, especially with a wife and children inside. Within the specifics of this situation, however, I can see a reason as a Christian for taking the risk (i.e., it's more important that a Kenyan's soul not be lost by witnessing your lack of faith than your own physical suffering and/or death occur).
I'm actually driving with my wife...I think I'll frisk her before we take off, just to make sure she is unarmed! :-)
That's actually a tough one. I find myself making it a case of the knowledge that they will kill the Kenyan pastor vs. the fear (thus unfounded) that they would kill me and my family. In other words, I would figure that they were only threatening to kill the Kenyan to beat me up and that my family would probably live.
Also, suppose I said, "go ahead and kill the pastor". They blow him away and go get another one. Blow him away too, if I don't open the gate.
After a while there is a whole pile of bodies piled up in front of my gate. At what point do I say that my fear for the safety of me and even my family are worth more than what--20 pastors? 50? 100? 200?
So were I actually faced with that situation, I think I would have already hollered to my family to get out the back door or to have hidden them extremely well. Then I would let them in.
Now, that's based on what you are saying and my belief that they weren't killing. If on the other hand they were slaughtering everyone in sight, I would figure that the pastor was dead either way and they could, indeed, put a pile of 1000 people in front of my house and I wouldn't open the gate--those people would be dead in either case; the only issue is whether I and my family would be among them.
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
You raise a good point Cal in ref to knowledge versus fear. But in a takeoff of your perception of fear as unfounded, I will contest that fear, sometimes controlled, most often not, is not unfounded in most situations;(I do not wish to infer to negligence of irrationality here such as what is found in bigotry etc.). I wish to take case in point to instinctual/evolutionary fear. Would one not, in the defense of offspring, rely on fears as a precursor to imminent danger whether particular focus on logically deduced/induced knowledge of origination of the fear was applied or not? In other words, knowing that I would 'probably' only be beaten would in all cases fail to be justification that would prevent me from opening the door and 'probably' sparing the life of the pastor, or perhaps anyone. "Probably", in this case represents a manageable risk, with inherent fear assuredly, but fear with assessable value to gain and loss based on recognizable if not previously assessed moral ethics.
But when that probability is confronted with the responsibility to others, particularly the moral ethics of protecting and insuring the survival of offspring/family, the formula for assessment of probability becomes increasingly unmanageable. Thus the ability to calculate an equation from assessment,(of fear and knowledge), becomes proportionately more difficult with the level of unmanageability.
In summary, when probability is involved and outcomes are not predictable, the strongest fear born of knowledge and/or instinct is assessed to be correct, and therefore ultimately dictates course of action.
And on the category of type, or whatever, I suppose I'd have to call myself a theist as you have it laid out, but really I'm closer to an animist, and I suspect I'm not alone.
Well what can one expect from an animist?
Is that ethical?
Trick is not to tangle speculation with the moral analysis. To figure out the ethical thing, I submit you have to make an assumption about reality.
Think about the recent killings in the fast-food place in NY. If I remember, there were seven employees, and two bad guys, and it seems like only one bad guy had a gun. Now if someone's willing to go first, seven on two with one gun probably means most of the seven will survive. But no one will make a move, unless they are truly convinced that they will die. By not taking a risk of dying, they guarantee their death, because they misread the viciousness and slyness of the bad guys.
This is purely a practical problem, a problem of reading peoples intentions, a problem of creating solidarity among the victims. It isn't an ethical problem. That arises when, having defanged the one guy, there is the question as to whether to shoot the other before the gun gets taken back again.
Actually, there is an ethical problem, but it has to do with how you justify taking the risk to be the first guy to counterattack: you take the highest risks, and the gains go to other people.
I think in that scenario... my first action would be to get my wife and children well hidden or possibly escape if the opportunity arises (say they're just at the front gate).
Second, would be to plea for the pastor's life... a method of feeling out how serious this gang is...
As far as knowing that they'd been going aournd only beating and razing christian homes... I'm not sure how I'd be privy to the information that no one had been hurt yet.... so I don't think I could make an informed decision...
Thus we arrive at a point where I would be relying completly on instincts, and as I postulated a long time back, when one is relying on instincts no moral code can apply. This same concept works when facing a gunman 7 on 2. Things will be happening too fast to make a rational decision... you wait for your best opportunity to "fight or flight"
When my granmother had her first stroke, she lost all ability to talk and move, but you could still see the glimmer in her eye that she knew what was going on. As the years went by she suffered mini-strokes which eroded her mental capacities over the course of the next 10 years. Near the end, she didn't know who I was, she didn't know who she was. She sat wherever the nurses put her. She lived like this for about the last 2 years of her life.
When she finally died... it was kind of strange, but we really did celebrate. Her suffering was over with... it was strange about the funeral and the memorials...different than other funerals I've been around... but it was amazing that we spent so much time talking about the great times we had when her before all the suffering started than we did on the decade of deterioration.
I don't think my dad ever really gave euthinasia a second thought, but I never really talked to him about it. A subject I think about, but I would never have considered bringing it up to him even in this case.
I'm like Kuligin. I'm very wishy-washy about this topic. Too many factors. Too many belief systems people out there have.
The only thing I do know is that the government wouldn't do a good job regulating it.
Well, I think it is also that people goes for what feels like the surer thing. For example, if a lone gunman walks in and starts killing people, they know that they will die if he gets to them, but most people will try to hide and wait, rather than attack.
I was just talking about that sort of thing in regards to the death penalty in another thread. If you knew you were innocent of the crime, I was saying there was a decent argument to be made that you should take the death penalty option, and the greater exposure, better legal advice, and extreme scrutiny that goes with it. After all, life imprisonment means that no one will give a damn about you, you will only get a lawyer if you can manage to get someone to care (or can afford it), and you might get killed in prison anyway. I think one's odds might be shown to be better on death row (given that we have never killed anyone innocent).
But most people, given that scenario, would take the life sentence, feeling it is "surer", even if the odds demonstrated they had a much better shot of resolving the situation favorably from death row (I'm not saying they do, although it wouldn't surprise me).
-----------------
That's an interesting legal tactic Cal...
Kinda like when a submarine charges an oncoming torpedo so they reach it before the warhead can arm...
I hope I'm never in the position to have to try it.
You said it well with this:
"I'm very wishy-washy about this topic. Too many factors. Too many belief systems people out there have.
The only thing I do know is that the government wouldn't do a good job regulating it."
That's basically where I am on the topic. And no need to apologize for going back to euthanasia. I brought up the new scenario only because it seemed like there wasn't much more discussion on euthanasia. But I am happy to see any ethics topic here.
bloodnfire, I laughed out loud with your story of us driving. I must say, though, that I would try FIRST to get you outta of the car! Then and only upon failing, I'd start shooting. :-)
As for the "Kenyan Pastor" scenario, CalGal brought up some good points. I am not entirely sure from the actual incident if the family in the house knew that the mob was "only" roughing people up, or if the threat upon the pastor's life was a very real possibility. I put this scenario before my class and they were almost unanimously in favor of letting the guy in the house. I, on the other hand, said I wouldn't let them in, even if they had my mother outside. I felt that my responsibility to protect my immediate family (wife and kids) came over all other responsibilities to protect the lives of others. They were shocked. They felt that the "Christian" thing to do was to let the mob in the house, to preserve the life of the Kenyan pastor.
CalGal's "if they are really killing people the Kenyan pastor is dead anyway" states it nicely for me. If they really are a murderous mob, he's dead. And if they aren't, then he gets roughed up, and I don't see much difference between him getting roughed up and my kids getting roughed up, other than better him than my family. I know it is blunt, but that's what I think.
Another situation like this: the cops in many places will actually get angry with you if you take on a mugger or refuse to give him what he wants and were hurt (or killed) as a result. "Don't you know that the best thing to do is just give them the money?" Well, excuse me, officer, but I wasn't aware that the little shit had signed a contract with me. No, I don't know that the best thing to do is to just give him the money. The fact that he wants my wallet is irrelevant. The thing is, see, he's shoving a gun in my face. At that point, he has stated his intent to kill me, and I don't want any fucking cop lecture about how I should have known he would trot off nicely after taking me my wallet. Should I believe him because he promised nicely? Asshole. Cops piss me off when they get like that. Unless they can make the streets safe, they can keep their righteous aggravation to themselves on the rare instance when a citizen opts to protect themselves.
Ahem. Rant over.
I agree that Vic's latest scenario is actually more of a problem-solver than a moral situation, but I believe that if you break out the cases, it will demonstrate the moral response you would make.
In any event, my actions would be based on the chances of the pastor, which are determined by the mood of the mob.
Yes, that pretty much is how I see it--I mulled it over last night, too. I could only see opening the gate if I had a way to secure my family's safety, and I thought that the pastor had a better chance of living if I opened the gate.
If it was a matter of my life only vs. the pastor's, and I really thought the pastor might live if the mob got what they wanted (which would be me, in that case), then I would open the gate. But I can construct no believable scenario where that would be the case. If they really intend to kill the pastor, he's dead no matter what.
As for the gunmen in the McDonalds scenario (or Wendy's, I can't recall) there is what is termed a "supererogatory deed." It is in essence going above and beyond the call of duty. Suppose you see someone drowning. If you jump in to save them, you have done a deed which is "obligatory" in some sense. But suppose you can't swim either, yet you still jump in. Then you have done a supererogatory deed.
With the gunmen, some people would actually kill for such an opportunity. Maybe they watch too much TV! But they would love to have the chance to be such a hero as to stop those two thugs, even when placing their own life in jeopardy. But I don't think anybody there was *obligated* to jeopardize their own life to potentially save the lives of the others.
Personally, I like to think that *I* would attempt to do something other than just sit there. But here's a twist on the scenario. Suppose that given certain circumstances you have the opportunity to actually sneak out, but leaving the others there with the gunmen. There is a "window of opportunity" to get out without harm, but you can't take any of the other people with you. Would you do it? Or would you feel "obliged" to stay there with the others?
Or suppose you stay and are one of the 7 who jump the attackers.
I hate to say it, but unless I was immediately presented with an opportunity to intervene... I'd probaly try to get away in a situation like that...
...but oddly enough... say there was a fire, equally dangerous... I probably would go help.
Thinking about it just now... I think the only time I hesitate helping is when I have to confront an actual person... but when confronted with some force of nature I seem perfectly willing to throw myself at it.
Hmmm.
In the situation where I'm in an enclosed place and the wacko gunman comes in, I've actually thought about that pretty carefully. While no one knows for sure what they'd do, I at least have the baseline in my head. I would escape if the exit were there, and I'd attack the gunman if not--doing my best to catch the gunman by surprise.
I think that it's been shown these gunmen are often completely unglued by resistance. The reason they do it, generally, is so that they can feel the thrill of the absolute power--everyone cowering in front of them. So resistance has decent odds of freaking them out.
A few caveats: if I really thought I had a good chance at taking out the gunman (he hadn't seen me, I was behind him, whatever) then I think there's a possibility I'd go for that rather than the exit. And if anyone was in the place with me and couldn't get out, I don't think I'd leave.
Interesting about the missionaries actions--so my first instinct, on reading your description, was the right one. They weren't serious.
For me, the fact that my family is there really doesn't have too much to do with it. It is the number of lives.
If it was just me vs. the pastor and I knew the pastor was going to die anyway, I wouldn't open the gate.
The thing that makes it difficult is knowing what the mob will do. Generally, I operate on the worst case scenario. However, it's interesting that in reading your post the first time, I definitely got the impression that they were not serious and answered accordingly. It was only after mulling it over that I realized how relatively unlikely it was that the mob was only kidding all the way around. But then, that turned out to be the case.
If it was just me vs. the pastor and I knew the pastor was going to die anyway, I wouldn't open the gate."
For me, my reaction would be entirely different. Preserving my family would be of the utmost importance. But if it were only me there, then I would let them in. I couldn't live with the doubt that exists concerning "if": "If only I had let them in, maybe they wouldn't have killed the pastor" and so on. Nor could I live with the shame of the mob actually not killing the pastor but just roughing him up and then leaving. In other words, I couldn't look that pastor in the face again.
And besides, if it were only my life to consider, I'm not that worried about dying.
With the gunmen scenario, whenever I see movies or TV shows like this one, with hostages and such, I am constantly looking for some opportunity for them to jump the gunmen. Always. I like to believe that I'd be the same way if placed in the situation myself, IRL. Sneaking out would again leave me with much shame. I could also possibly reason that I might be the only one in there that could actually do something to improve the situation.
On the other hand, one could always rationalize, "Hey, I have a wife and four kids at home. They need me much more than these Wendy's employees!"
With "any" element of doubt, I preserve my family over anybody else, but if alone I open the gate. If no doubt exists whatsoever, I don't open the gate.
I would sneak out in a heartbeat if there was nothing to be done (again, unless someone else I knew was in there). Other caveats--if I saw a group getting ready to assault him, I'd join it rather than leave. And so on. But if it was a case of a wild melee, people running and hiding and screaming, the killer having a clear line of vision and no way to approach him, then the only way I'd charge him is if my son were in the room on the other side from me.
But so many times there is no way out, and while I can't be sure, I am pretty sure that I would realize that my odds are more determinable and more under my control if I act, rather than huddle on the floor and hope he won't see me.
I am reminded of the movie Titanic and the chief "villian" taking the small girl and acting like he was her daddy just to get on the life boat. I wonder how many people actually thought that a good thing for him to do? Obviously from the POV of the movie writers, they meant it to make him appear in a very bad light. Getting on the lifeboat almost certainly meant someone else would have to die.
And yet, in this whole discussion, even though I personally felt the guy was a slimeball for doing it, how many of us here might have done the same thing??
But because you really don't know for certain if the mob is serious about killing the guy or not, that makes the scenario much more difficult.
Yes, and that is what interests me about my initial response, because it seemed so clear to me based on your writeup that they were goofing around. Hence my initial response was to say I'd hide my family and let them in to trash the house--figuring that the odds were this would make them happy and the pastor was much safer. Although I did make it clear that this was based on my assessment of the intent.
But given that I am very much of the mindset that mobs are unpredictable, I would have to be very sure that they weren't dangerous. I just reread your description again, and I believe that in that particular scenario (based only on your description), I would ensure that my family was hidden and do the same thing. They really didn't seem all that dangerous. This might be a mistake, and I will have to chew on it.
As far as it being my family, in that particular situation, it is irrelevant that they are my family. It is only that I don't make decisions about risking other people's lives, period.
OK, I have to post something in the movies thread and then leave.
As for hiding my family, my kids can't keep their mouths shut for 30 seconds, let alone hiding quietly even if a mob is in the house!
In my scenario, I did say lone gunman. More than one makes a difference--I would then assess their intent.
My true dilemma would be a situation where I honestly could see no better option than huddling and waiting and play the odds that I won't be the one shot. I can not play out a scenario where that would be the best bet, but if it were, I'd probably still get up and try for it, because I hate situations that are that indeterminable. But then, I'm a nut job.
"The trick here Karl, is to state what you would do and why based on the conditions presented. You have done nothing more than provide ifs and why(s)with adapted and altered conditions to facilitate your opinions.... Infinite are the possibilities and conditions one might create in imagination..."
Precisely, and that's why I made my comment that "To figure out the ethical thing, I submit you have to make an assumption about reality. ".
In other words, ethical analysis has to be based on a single set of assumptions. It's pointless to argue the case otherwise. You see them, and notice that they speak French, from which you assume they may be Christians, and thus bluffing. I see them, and notice the guys in the back kind of wiggling and jumping up and down, and assume that whoever's in charge, some of the guys with AK's are hopped up on something or another, and may not be controllable.
So I say I kept the gates locked because of the risk, and you say open them because there wasn't that much risk, but neither of those decisions have anything to do with ethics - that's just the risk analysis.
I'm not saying it's not an interesting question (e.g., what aspects of the people would you look for in trying to assess the risk), but it has nothing to do with ethics.
they may be Christians"
...I don't get the connection...
Ok. But originally the takeoff was subjective to observed statement by CalGal in reference to fear as "unfounded" vs action based on its absense involved in the moral/ethical decision making process(es).
Risk analysis is applied in every case where ethics and danger are simultaneously involved. The 'fear' of what may happen is always directly attributed to an analysis of the conditions and inherent fear levels born of both knowledgeable-(memory/historical), and instinctual-(flight or fight response mechanisms) and one's consciousness to, and value placed during the risk analysis.
Therefore my contention is that risk analysis has "everything" to do with ethics and applications thereof. Consciousness to and development of ethics may vary however.
I'm not so sure about that. In my view ethics are about absolute values and risk analysis about relative ones. I don't deny that there is a grey area where the two may overlap but in general ethics is not about risk assesment.
Yes, I truly believe you are correct. Ethics, in it's most definitively pure form, should/must be absolute. Right...Justice...Good, etc. as well. The quest to achieve absolute definition applicable to all possible conditions is, or should always be, what we should strive to achieve. However, it is in the definition process that we become muddled in the grey.
Therefore, I think that until the absolute has been achieved,(if not impossible), the analysis process, (risk analysis where danger and ethics collide), will continue to exist. In other words, why could your ethics and mine differ if tested in identical conditions? Or our ethics be exactly identical but not in all conditions?
In order to test strength, you first have to get a statement of ethical values in their pure form.
For example, if someone asked, "Is there nothing that would outweigh your commitment to your religion?" and the answer was "No,", then a situation like Vic's last example would test whether or not such a person really meant it. Because a commitment to religion might dictate that the pastor always be saved.
(con) Analysis that is invoked during assessment of the condition automatically produces a "weighted" value, (so to speak), based on that assessment. Value weights are derived from "both knowledgeable(memory/historical), and inherently-instinctual(flight or fight response mechanisms) and one's consciousness to them". These values are subjective in thought process, and therefore, lean toward statistical variability and not in absolution.
Id
Instinct
Ego
Values
Superego
Weights
"who would say, "Whoa, this is enough." after minimal shocks--are those who don't mind being rude or contrary, and don't have any real objection to pissing people off. These are attributes acquired with practice. I don't think that most of the people who pride themselves on questioning authority necessarily fall into this category.
As Calgal says, and I completely agree, "These are attributes acquired with practice."
As an old draft resister, I can tell you that it's one thing to be a "rebel", and it's one very different thing to say to the full panoply and power of the government that "I'm not doing it". Realistically, this is like a mouse telling an SUV that it won't be moved out of it's place in the street.
This is maybe only partly on topic, or maybe it is on topic, you just have to be subtle about the topic, but since 1969, I've almost never been harassed by a REAL Vietnam veteran about being a resister. It usually goes, "Did you go to Canada?" No. "Did you join the Nat'l Guard?" No. Did you get a Dr. to write you a fake thing to get a 4F?" No. "So how'd you get out?" I didn't. I was convicted of two counts of draft evasion, and sentenced to a year and a day in federal prison. "Oh, that's cool".
1) I read the the state of Vermont will begin to recognize same-sex marriages come next week. What a ridiculous idea.
2) The Supreme Court struck down the Nebraska law prohibiting partial birth abortions.
I have always been a very patriotic sort when it comes to my country, thinking we have the greatest country on the planet. But today I am ashamed to be called an American. Our moral depravity will be the end of us.
It is morally depraved to treat gay people differently from straight people. Gay relationships should be afforded the same treatment as married heterosexuals. See Politics and Current Events for more discussion.
Our moral depravity will be the end of us.
Let the slaughter of puritans continue.
Too many laws, to define the governing of laws...the orgies have already begun, let us revel in the fleet moments of protected depravity.
It is a hard-fought right...
Hogwash.
But I know I will still think it is hogwash.
I only post this now as a "taster" to the topic, because I hope that some people come in here and say it is utter hogwash!
Your irrational prejudice against gay people is enormously distasteful, but you are welcome to it.
And of course I am welcome to the opinion, but in time, mark my word, my opinion will no longer be tolerated by the "tolerance lovers" and they will in turn attempt to stamp it out, as they are already doing.
And besides, there is nothing "discriminatory" about the issue of gay marriages. I mean, I am not allowed to marry another man, so it isn't discriminatory to not allow any men to do so.
But even given that, I find no problem with "discriminating" against certain behaviours in our society that we determine to be unwanted. We do it ALL THE TIME. The charge of "discrimination" and "prejudice" and "racism" is really a tired, overused one, but I welcome it when it comes to intolerance concerning deviancy.
If it is of any comfort to you, I will continue to defend your right to express whatever beliefs you wish.
You fail to make your case about irrationality and gay relationships, however. Same sex coupling does not produce offspring, but the Catholic priesthood (as a rule) does not either, and I fail to see any reason to call celibacy irrational. Furthermore, there are other reasonable goals to two people coming together, the first of which is the sharing of love.
Your argument that marriage does not discriminate is also spurious, because marriage -- whatever else it does -- protects the right of one adult to enter into a relationship with another adult of his choice. Aside from Vermont and a few European countries (arguably), the current restrictions do not permit gay people to do the very same thing. In addition, since gays in some cases have children or adopt them, the marriage laws discriminate against those children, who are not afforded the same protections children of married couples receive, one the main arguments which influenced the Vermont Court's decision that led to the new policy.
And of course your use of the term deviancy is insulting, but I suppose you know that.
Good thing he didn't have a plan 'B'.
Actually, he did have a plan B. He just decided not to use it. This was definitely a case of "suicide by cop". He had tried suicide a few months before and was under psychiatric care. His psychiatrist had no idea he was planning this, btw. This whole experience taught me some things about the human mind. I knew this guy. He was a quiet, nice, over-achiever type - NCO of the month and NCO of the Quarter many many times. He was the kind of guy who would pick up a bug and set it outside instead of stomping it. I have no idea what brought him to the point of planning and committing this act. I do know that at the time, my mind absolutely refused to connect the person I knew with the person who did this. I knew who it was - by name and sight. However, until the next day, my mind absolutely refused to connect the guy I saw with the gun with the guy I had been having a converstation with two weeks before.
Also, I was the shift supervisor in my shop (one of 4 in the building) and I solely focussed on keeping my people safe and didn't panic or fall apart until about 2 hours after the SPs had determined he had left the base and let us all go home. Then it hit me and I fell apart for awhile, still trying to figure out who it had been.
Anyway, according to the psychiatrist and investigators, once he actually pulled the trigger and saw the blood, Joe couldn't go through with it. It took them a couple of days to find his body, but he committed suicide within hours of the shooting - probably while we were still all hunkered down behind closed doors with SPs on the roof carrying M16s.
As you no doubt know, I believe homosexual sex to be a deviant behaviour, but if you prefer, I won't say that again. However, I see little difference between a man saying, "I have sex with animals, or my sister, or with little boys, and am proud of it" and "I have sex with other men." I would say that a deviant view would also be, "I cheat on my wife and am proud of it. Let me into your church."
ALL sex outside of a monogamous marriage I would label the same way, if that makes you feel any better. I know it doesn't though.
I assume you would also recognize two heterosexuals that want to "cohabitate" but not marry as yielding the same sort of "civil union" with all the monetary rights and privileges too? How about a man and his dog?
YOu have made your definition very mundane because it suits you. "One adult wanting to marry another" is not the tradition definition. It is one man and one woman, as the biblical God intended.
Of course, you may say we need to change the traditional view, and that is fine. Just say it. Don't play little word games though.
When ethical idealogies collide.
Didn't kill the bug because it was life, sought to be as good as he could in his work, perhaps even had optimism for the best in mankind...Plan A
seen the world as overwhelmingly contradictory...and killing it off was actually Plan B.
Failed at both.
It would have been much better if the psychaitrist had been able to help the shooter. Then maybe no one would have ended up dead or disabled. However, life doesn't always turn out the way we'd like.
In my present opinion, from having been exposed to a similar event, it appears in hind sight, that the psychiatrist may have been a large part of the problem.
In their advertency to eliminate wrong options in order to direct to (the) right one, psychiatrists may present a great risk to the type of person who sees the options(steering)as just another control and compromise to a foundation of ethics that provided guiding principle throughout a lifetime.
It might just produce an effect that the moral/ethical struggle is indeed futile. Perhaps the final reaction to it is determined by specifically unique combinations of anger, sadness, resignation, frustration, or hopelessness experienced by the individual in capitulatory response.
Tough call nevertheless.
sorry, densa here. translation please?
Thus, advertency to eliminate wrong options in order to direct to (the) right one, psychiatrists may present a great risk to the type of person who sees the options(steering)as just another control...
The ability to tell how a person's final response, as you inquired, is only guesswork at best. So my statement Perhaps the final reaction to it is determined by specifically unique combinations of anger, sadness, resignation, frustration, or hopelessness experienced by the individual in capitulatory response is in retort to your inquiry. Perhaps I should add...in the person's defining moment of madness to that.
Ten farmers are accused of wilful destruction of the building site of a McDonald's hamburger restaurant, a year ago in this town of 20 OOO inhabitants.
What is food? Does it have any ethical or sacred significance?
Unless of course, your need was more immediate than mine. Then I'd be very inclined to share. However, if the dinner was from a drive through at McD, you can have it all. What a guy huh?
The town of Millau will be full of people supporting the people on trial - about 30 000 are expected.
What I never could have imagined is the way the whole question has gone mainstream in France.
Isn't "malbouffe" aside as a slogan meant to say "hurt or sick beef?
We had a discussion a while ago concerning child rearing. Thought you might find this heading for a column by Donald Kaul interesting--
Self-esteem in kids overrated, even sinister
Right on, Don!!
What I mean is, the idea that kids should be worshipped and everything sacrificed to their every whim or need, strikes me as just plain unnatural.
You, I and Uzmak know that hetero-marital sex is best. (Well, I'll take your word for it... personally I don't have many outside reference points to compare).
The difference between us is that I know hetero-marital sex is best for me, based on a combination of my own moral values, love for my wife, sexual orientation, budget, charisma, and so on. You, on the other hand, appear to know something I don't, i.e. that hetero-marital sex is best for everyone in the world (and presumably for the inhabitants of all the other planets in the universe too, I can't see why not).
The corollary here is that non-utilitarian hetero-marital sex is deviancy too. For example, sodomy is out, right? Fellatio too? Cunnilingus?
Rather than write up a shopping list of stuff that you would like to forbid, how about telling us what it's OK to do? I could print it out and stick it on the wall in our bedroom. I've got a feeling it will be a short list, so it should be easy to memorise.
Was going through Igor's library and found, amongst all of the sex manuals, Process Theology:an Introductory Exposition by John B. Cobb,Jr. and David Ray Griffin. This is derived from the philosophies of ANWhitehead and Charles Hartshorne. Have begun it. Also The Saviors of God arrived at the library today. I have that in my possession. It turns out that Kazantzakis also wrote The Odyssey: A Modern Sequel as I guessed. Pretty cool that i would recall that from browsing it in a bookstore 20 years ago.
I don't believe that God becoming man in the form of Jesus Christ would necessarily impinge upon civilizations on other planets, but since we don't know if any others exist, it is now at least a moot point.
From my Christian, biblical POV, yes, you are correct. Humans were created in a certain way and doing things against that created order will yield dire consequences, IMO.
As for your other question, the rectum is clearly designed for some things and not for others. Now I suppose if some people want to stuff gerbils or long, hard objects up their rectums, they can do so. But if you want me to conclude that just because *they* decide to do so makes it normal and natural, well, I am sorry, but you will have to wait a long time for that.
To take our minds off cunnilingus. A sort of weaning away from sin.
Practice.
Am I in the right thread ?
I mentioned the icy fingers of Christianity in a post and you responded. My comment was tounge in cheek though it wasn't obvious.
Oh my goodness, you are just too funny! I mean, I died laughing with this one:
"The Scriptures teach that within marriage..."He that provideth not for his own, especially those of his own house, hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel". This would appear to me, at least, to include the most intimate caresses, especially those which are so deeply and exquisitely needed (although perhaps you shouldn't tell Kuligin I said so)."
So you include yourself with the other ignoramuses that assume too much about my views on the matter. So far I have clearly said that anal sex is wrong; you jump to the conclusion that I must think caressing my wife is also wrong. How quaint.
Of course, you have done AGAIN what you consistently do, rip a biblical text out of context so as to make it refer to whatever the heck you want it to refer to. But that aside, I really wish you'd just stop jumping to false conclusions about the views of others.
Besides, don't you think that God believes homosexuality to be wrong, or are you going to do a song and dance around that issue again? For the life of me I don't know why you consistently decide to ignore biblical passages and commands that you don't like. You virtually NEVER defend the faith. Sometimes it sickens me.
Just as a side question concerning your last post, was the spiritual life of Jesus "helped enormously" by any "massive orgasms," in your opinion? Just curious what you think about pre-marital sex, a hot ethical topic.
i'll have to make it a point to ask him ... hmm, seen him around?
Geez, you know, I really miss seasailor. Anybody know where he disappeared to?
He just bugged me to death with his neo-Catholic mumbo-jumbo, with little to no understanding of church history or Catholic dogma.
I had hoped that Diva would jump in and take the "catholic mantle" but she has consistently refused to do so!
Our full time curriculum is in the mornings, but every term we offer one class in the evenings for working people. This term I am teaching that class and it is the Ethics class. Next term I'll teach it again, that time covering Cults. We tend to offer the more "popular" courses in the evenings. For this Ethics class I have 22 full time students and about 16 other people coming for the course, which is quite a good number for Namibian standards.
Last night we covered the issues of artificial insemination, the use of aborted fetal tissue for research, and surrogate mothering. Quite good discussions.
We are an interdenominational school. Of our current full time student body, 14 separate denominations are represented.
As you are probably aware, Namibia is over 50% Lutheran. They have their own seminary dedicated to just their denomination, although we have had a handful of Lutherans come to us instead. Their full time student body is about 45 students.
We also have about 300 part time students that go through our TEE program (Theological Education by Extension) which basically takes the classes out to them in the rural areas of Namibia. I am not involved in that aspect, although I have been asked to teach some sessions rarely.
The more I think about it the more I understand the Church's arguments and the more I am impressed by the Church.
Oh. I grew up in a Baptist church but since adult life have attended an interdenominational, evangelical church. In fact, the mission with which I work is also interdenominational and evangelical as well. I think we have something like over 100 denominations represented in our mission organization, although come to think of it, that number is probably low.
Theologically, I would be best characterized as a "Reformed Baptist."
The Rhenish Church is an off-shoot of the Lutheran Church. However, I am not that familiar with its start. Rhenish missionaries came to Namibia so obviously they started somewhere else, I believe in a Scandinavian country. For some reason I think Finland but I am not at all sure. They are theologically very similar to the Lutherans.
There aren't any scriptures I don't "Like" for heaven's sake. I am convinced that God inspired the complete cannon, Old and New Testaments. I may interpret some differently than you. I reserve that right. I am also far more interested in 'winning' a practicing homosexual to God, than I am in rebuking him because he (or she) expresses his (or her) sexual attraction to a member of the same sex in the only way he or she knows how.
I'm guessing that both you and I have been blessed with having only heterosexual feelings and attractions in our lives. My leading, as I have shared with you before, and which you challenge, is to treat all those with whom I converse as though they are among the 'Lost Sheep' of John 10:16, and allow the Love of Christ, in the person of the Holy Spirit in me to do the convicting. I must say, with humble gratitude, that He has worked remarkably well, at least on those occasions when I don't get in His way.
And if you think I make you sick on occasion, you should visit with some of my brother and sister officers ! :-)
I believe He never experienced the crippling sadness and emptiness which sexual frustration and neglect can cause in so many human hearts
because He was 'sinless in all things'. Sexuality without orgasmic experience appears to abound in our society. Orgasmic sex is very much like 'Experiential Christianity' in my humble opinion. Involving both the head and the heart. Anyway, I don't mean to upset you, although if a month goes by that I don't, there's something wrong with my posts.
I apologize for my outburst. I had actually considered going in in the last day or two and deleting my post to you, but since no one else has the ability to do so, I figured it wasn't right. I shouldn't have used the word "sickening." My reaction came more from the fact that as I am attempting to defend the biblical POV concerning homosexuality, instead of helping me in that, you took it upon yourself to caricature my position. But it isn't really a big deal.
Personally, I don't think the use of Onan's experience can actually be used as a biblical passage against masturbation. However, I find it difficult to envision masturbation apart from some lustful intent or thoughts which would be sin. So I doubt Jesus masturbated. I would also think that Jesus, being sinless, had complete control over bodily desires and "lusts." My goodness, he fasted for 40 days in one stretch! So I doubt he had sexual desires that he MUST release. However, I do believe he probably - as I think all men do - had some involuntary nocturnal emissions, and I don't have a problem with Jesus getting an erection on certain occasions.
I agree with you that I don't believe he had any "sexual frustrations." Did he have any natural desires to be with a woman, to marry and so forth? I don't know, but I don't doubt it as well. He was a man in all things like us yet did not sin.
I also agree in principle with you, in regard to sharing the Gospel. I assume that all are lost however, not that they may be secretly saved and just don't know it yet. But I see your point. However, I do believe there is a time for sharing the Good News, and also condemning sin. Jesus did both at the appropriate times. I doubt I am as consistent as him in picking the "appropriate" times.
Thank you for your posts.
I have been impressed with many posts of our homosexual friends in this forum, and wish them well, as I'm sure you do.
I 'fall back' on the promise that..."Them I must also bring, and they shall hear my voice" (John 10:16). It's both fun and an unspeakable privilege to try to 'win' those 'other sheep' isn't it?
I'm sure He uses your voice to help them hear His, far more often than He does mine. Truly.
my goodness what you "christians" won't talk about.
but, just out of curiosity, would it have been ethical for said christ to masturbate?
Actually, an interesting question. I would go back to my comment that I would find it difficult to separate masturbation and lust of some sort. Thus, I would find it difficult to picture Jesus Christ masturbating.
The other issue which I noted was that masturbation is used generally to relieve sexual tension. Considering that Jesus was the essence of spiritual self-control, I doubt he needed to masturbate for said reason.
All of this is just speculation of course.
bloodnfire, thank you for your post. And I agree in principle with you on the topic of homosexuality. My online persona isn't the same as my real life one unfortunately, although in discussions I have had with homosexuals IRL I still tell them what Scripture states about the matter. Peace to you.
"The other issue which I noted was that masturbation is used generally to relieve sexual tension. Considering that Jesus was the essence of spiritual self-control, I doubt he needed to masturbate for said reason."
yeah, but if was also 100% man, then he had needs, right? you're telling me a man can be on the earth for, what?, 33 years and not have an orgasm? now that, my friend, is faith.
I also think that the more one has sex, the more one wants sex. And if one feeds himself with pornography, or has had several sexual partners, or masturbates often, or whatever the case, this only heightens one's desire and NEED for more sexual release.
But for a person that hasn't fed himself with such things, then controlling that sexual side of his nature may be much, much easier.
Again, this is all speculation.
orgasm, or the release of the reproductive juices and processes are a fundamental part of existence, for every living thing, not just people.
i've never known any one who has lived his/her life without sex, but the fact that there are those that have and don't wail about the, er, build up, doesn't prove your point, i don't think, that there isn't the desire or the drive to do it. that just will not go away.
certainly, doing the things you describe in Message # 6801 feeds the innate desire for more, but that desire is there and, indeed, is a driving force of life itself. that being said, i don't think sex equates to chocolate, but i'm sure someone here will disagree with me, heh.
Further, I think we have to understand the "context" of this discussion. You and I live in a society that glorifies sex to such a degree that virtually everywhere we turn there is something sexual in front of us. I doubt this was the same for a Palestinian Jew living in the first century.
That the body may need some involuntary release I am not questioning, although that certainly changes from person to person I would suppose. And that may also be directly tied in to how much sexual content one absorbs during his conscious hours.
And if you understood me to say that Jesus never had any desire for a woman, or any attraction of the sort, I said the exact opposite the other day. But having a desire and acting out that desire, ie, masturbation or whatever, are two different things. No doubt Jesus was very hungry those 40 days in the desert too but he refused to eat anything, even when tempted to do so.
but, my original question, asked with tongue in cheek but a question nonetheless, is would it be ethical for christ to masturbate.
he had his mission and everything so i'm assuming that those things that don't help it only hinder it and therefore not ethical in your view.
is this accurate?
You are basically asking, "Is masturbation ethical wrong in the eyes of God?" My *gut* reaction is to say yes, because I can't picture it as being done apart from lusting of some sort. Having said that, though, because the Bible doesn't have anything directly addressing masturbation (there is the instance of Onan in Genesis, but I don't believe his condemnation there has anything to do with masturbation, but rather with not holding to the covenant stipulations), I have to remain "agnostic" on it unless I can work from clear principles to address the issue "indirectly." And on this one I am not entirely sure.
So the difficulty for me is that masturbation is related to lusting of some sort. And again, for Jesus, the natural "need" to masturbate may not have come into play, given his spiritual discipline and physical self-control.
Let me put it this way, at least with Jesus:
eating food is natural
having sex is natural
eating food is desired
having sex is desired
eating food is necessary for survival
having sex is not necessary for survival
I just work from the greater to the lesser principle I suppose. If he could forego eating to such an extreme point - with some REQUIRED for survival - he could certainly do it with something not required for survival.
How do you all feel about apologizing to someone who actually owes you an apology ? I've seen it work wonders. How many of you are still wounded over something someone said or did some months or years ago, which might be healed if you were to go and apologize to them ?
Most 'normal' human beings would naturally react with.."Are you kidding !? Give me a break! I wouldn't give (him or her) the satisfaction". But then, many 'normal' human beings are 'walking wounded', and unsure how to find healing. What do you think ?
I know it's difficult Kuli, but how about a 'Non Religious' definition of grace ?
What exactly would you like to discuss? I suppose that the issue of forgiveness is generally viewed positively, although there are no doubt some people that think that, if wronged, they should never have to approach the offending party and actually offer a hand of peace. Even secular psychology will tout the positive need for forgiving those who have wronged you, so I wonder how much "controversy" we would have on such a topic.
But fire away.
.."Last night we covered the issues of artificial insemination, the use of aborted fetal tissue for research, and surrogate mothering. Quite good discussions." There are three excellent subjects which I don't believe we have covered in this thread so far.
How do you feel about them ?
bloednvuur, regarding the issue of artificial insemination, there were basically two "angles" on that one: 1) the woman uses her husband's sperm, or 2) the woman uses the sperm of another male donor. For some people, the latter option constitutes some form of "adultery" believe it or not.
The issue of in-vitro fertilization also came into play in the discussions. The main issue for Christians at least on the matter is what is called "embryo wastage." For IVF you usually waste several embryos before getting it right.
Any comments from anybody on these matters? The issue of surrogate motherhood is another matter which could be discussed if there is interest.
The phrase goes something like this: "God opens the womb; God closes the womb." So for many Christians, this is the answer. If you can't have kids, then too bad, God didn't want you to have kids. This could even then apply to adoption.
Personally, I do not subscribe to such an idea. I take the other angle, that God has given us certain medical capabilities which we are able to exercise in helping couples that cannot have children. However, we should not use any medical means that somehow violate some clear principle of Scripture, such as the wanton, wreckless treatment of life. Therefore, I'd be against something like IVF, but I am not opposed to artificial insemination.
why is that "repellent"?
seems logical to me - if she wants that many kids ... maybe these 4 women need the money?
is it that she's rich enough to be able to afford to do this? or, is it there are 4? would 2 (or 1 for that matter) babies be less "repellent"? i don't see the difference.
"That's pretty incredible, and it actually touches upon one of the major issues when it comes to genetics and reproductive technologies, namely, that the rich will be able to do things that the poor cannot do at all."
name one aspect of society in which there are poor and rich people where this is not true. "the rich" always do things "the poor" can't do. that's the reason to be rich!
But when it comes to expressly designing your offspring, the issue becomes that much more debatable, it seems at least to me.
"But when it comes to actually "designing" your children, this is seen as immoral in light of the "discrimination" against the poor."
well, again, i don't see it as discrimination against "the poor". as with anything in life there are those who can and those who can't afford certain things. not making everything affordable to everyone isn't discriminating against anyone.
"What you say it true, but let's face it, in virtually every area where the rich benefit and the poor do not, there are constantly people whining about how wrong and racist and discriminatory such things are."
yes, people whine. that alone doesn't add legitimacy to it.
"But when it comes to expressly designing your offspring, the issue becomes that much more debatable, it seems at least to me."
why? what does "offspring" have to do with certain things being unattainable by some? this is true, again, of basically everything. feeding, housing, or clothing your "offspring", i could see that being more "debatable". bitching about not being able to pick their eye color? please. what a waste of "debate".
But 1) if you don't believe there are large amounts of people that ascribe to such thinking, or 2) if you believe there is NO MERIT whatsoever in such arguments and concerns, then perhaps you just aren't well informed about the issue.
I saw a Nightline program on the matter and have read a couple of articles in Newsweek and Time. The matter of unfairly discriminating in this regard is a "hot" issue on this topic, regardless of what you may think about the matter.
And isn't it generally true now anyway that reproductive technologies are expensive and can only be afforded by those with the necessary means? So that even now, a poor family cannot do many things in this regard that a rich person can do. Therefore, it isn't a stretch of the imagination at all to look into the future and see much more advanced, detailed procedures whereby the rich are gaining superior advantage over the poor, is there?
Well, at least Nightline, et al, thought the topic worthy of deep thinking.
But Deev, isn't surrogate mothering, when you *pay* the woman to carry the baby, "purchasing" human beings too?
Yes. Isn't that what we're talking about?
well, pardon me if i assume you use arguments to which you subscribe without a contrary disclaimer.
do i think it has some "merit"? sure. it could be an issue. i just scoff at your "Given a couple of decades or generations, the poor will be that much more at the mercy of the rich, who has consistently been able to improve the genetic pool of their progeny, while the poor muddle around in their poverty" riff.
as with anything, you can take the argument to extremes. i haven't seen anything that suggests a major upheaval in reproduction in the next few decades so that's why i think this is over blown. worrying about what might happen isn't a productive way to spend one's time.
I don't view you as an ignorant person rubberducky, but the above may be one of the single most ignorant statements I have ever seen in the Mote. If you do not look to the potential ramifications in the future, then you are bound to make idiotic decisions in the present.
I mean, think about it. The pro-abortion camp said a decade ago that we'd never be selling baby parts from aborted fetuses. They used much the same argument you are using now, a rather naive approach I might add. And just in the past 6 months the roof has been blown off the industry doing exactly what pro-life people feared, selling baby body parts.
You can live in the dark all you want to rubberducky, but fortunately other people prefer to seek the light in these matters.
"If you do not look to the potential ramifications in the future, then you are bound to make idiotic decisions in the present."
the point, however, is lost with endless "what if" questions and slippery slope arguments. that's why i had "might" in bold letters. there's no way to predict these things and, frankly, i haven't seen any indicators that get me particularly concerned. all i see here is a lot of hyperbole.
"You can live in the dark all you want to rubberducky, but fortunately other people prefer to seek the light in these matters."
and what "light" are you seeking koolio? baying at the moon of "debate" about how "the poor" are left out of a market for "technologies" that haven't even been invented yet. so, you'll excuse me if i prefer to wait until reality has a chance to catch up to your doomsday predictions - which, btw, they never will.
It is a fact of life that the rich have access to many things that the poor do not, for example when it comes to various medical treatments, or education.
This is the ethics thread, so a question on ethics:
Is it, in your opinion right that this is so?
while not politically correct, yes, i think it perfectly ethical from a capitalist standpoint that one must expect to "Pay to Play".
those that can't afford things that are necessary to their existence should be helped, of course. but that's not your question, i don't think. the question as i see it is - there are things that "the poor" would like access to given infinite resources, so is it ethical to divvy those resources according to ability to pay for it rather than sheer subjective need?
i think history has shown, and will continue to show, that the current system is proper although not perfect, certainly. the world is relatively calm and there is a lot of prosperity, so someone is doing something right in my American centric brain.
I shouldn't have brought this up. I we pursue it we will quickly end up in a political discussion, to the grief of our host.
Actually, it's an excellent way to spend time if you don't mind being frustrated--because 99 times out of a hundred, no one will listen to you.
As far as ethics go, I think the question is this: is there any other situation that provides people with all the health care access that rich people have that will a) not fail due to a lack of funding and b) be ethically acceptable to everyone?
In Europe, the access to health care is generally not related to income. A situation like yours when you had to find out whether Spawn was "covered" couldn't happen here.
Well, actually, the coverage situation was my fault because I had turned over insurance to my ex.
But your response is still political. I was trying to keep it on ethical grounds. Is it possible to give everyone unlimited access to medical resources? Answer: no. I think that goes without saying.
Any European country that provides health care to all is almost certainly limiting it in some other way. For example, if I make $80,000/year in England I might not have enough money to go to America to get plastic surgery--but I certainly have enough money that I might feel cheated of the ability to choose my own surgeon, have it whenever I want, and so on.
So Europe is just limiting access in a different way. It may seem preferable to limit access by quality, rather than by income, but it's still a limit.
My point is only that you will have to limit access to health care. So is limiting it by definition unethical? If so, then everyone is equally unethical. Is limiting it by one means more ethical than by another?
"well, pardon me if i assume you use arguments to which you subscribe without a contrary disclaimer."
rubber, I have been consistently doing this since I have been hosting this thread. That should have been obvious.
The reason why I do this should be obvious as well. You see, once you think, "Ahh, this is just Kuligin's view," then you start making crazy conclusions like, "The reason Kuligin believes this is because he watches too many movies" and such.
So, rather have people deal with the issue itself then with the people stating the issue. And for this particular issue, I have merely voiced what has already been voiced by people far more savvy than either you or me. The only difference being, I take their concerns seriously and you do not.
fwiw I see the human body as being a miracle of creation and design, but when all is said and done, it remains the 'Clay Pot' in which the 'Hidden man or woman of the heart', that 'eternal being' walks around this schoolroom we call 'Planet Earth'. Anything which we have learned to do to improve the quality of the 'clay pot', including genetic design and the substitution of parts from other 'clay pots' is a God-given skill, imnsho.
um, sure. whatever. if you insist on spouting views not your own, then it'd be nice for you to at least site that. i hardly think that's an outrageous claim.
btw, in case you missed it, Pelle / CalGal / I were hinting around a ethical discussion about health care and such. do you, as thread host, have an issue with this being discussed here?
"i think whomever's ideas you're spouting here has seen Gattaca too many times, KtH."
The general discussion is turning to how something may be used in the future. For example, the developers of the internet probably had no idea that at some point about 90% of the internet would be used for the distribution of pornography. As a rule of thumb, a designer or inventer has no idea how his product or invention will be used and abused. Thus a new phrase sprung up in the engineering community called the "the law of unintended product uses." The law states that every idea, product or technology will be abused in ways inconceivable. Every idea, product or technology has the ability to destroy in direct proportion to the stupidity of the idiot in whose hands the product lies.
In the field of genetics, the law of unintended uses becomes a powerful tool in the hands of an idiot. When the human genome was mapped, geneticists claimed that we could now grow hands, ears, kidneys, etc, based on the genetic composition of a certain individual for transplant purpuses, thereby eliminating the body's rejection of foreign tissue. The perceived purpose of this one research person might be noble, but there will be people with less noble purposes getting their hands on this technology and the consequences may be catastrophic.
While the perversion of the internet has little bearing on my day-to-day activities, the perversion of genetic reproduction may will definately have a bearing on my life. But we should not make a decision not to develope a product because of possible misuses otherwise nothing would be produced and no progress would be made.
On the other hand, it is a bit worrysome that we rely on the conscience of the person using something to use it properly (and some governmental regulation).
The US has attempted to pass laws against discrimination on the basis of genetics and cloning of humans. But just the creation of a law will not prevent the activity, drugs being a good example.
The general discussion is turning to how something may be used in the future. For example, the developers of the internet probably had no idea that at some point about 90% of the internet would be used for the distribution of pornography. As a rule of thumb, a designer or inventer has no idea how his product or invention will be used and abused. Thus a new phrase sprung up in the engineering community called the "the law of unintended product uses." The law states that every idea, product or technology will be abused in ways inconceivable. Every idea, product or technology has the ability to destroy in direct proportion to the stupidity of the idiot in whose hands the product lies.
In the field of genetics, the law of unintended uses becomes a powerful tool in the hands of an idiot. When the human genome was mapped, geneticists claimed that we could now grow hands, ears, kidneys, etc, based on the genetic composition of a certain individual for transplant purpuses, thereby eliminating the body's rejection of foreign tissue. The perceived purpose of this one research person might be noble, but there will be people with less noble purposes getting their hands on this technology and the consequences may be catastrophic.
While the perversion of the internet has little bearing on my day-to-day activities, the perversion of genetic reproduction may will definately have a bearing on my life. But we should not make a decision not to develope a product because of possible misuses otherwise nothing would be produced and no progress would be made.
On the other hand, it is a bit worrysome that we rely on the conscience of the person using something to use it properly (and some governmental regulation).
The US has attempted to pass laws against discrimination on the basis of genetics and cloning of humans. But just the creation of a law will not prevent the activity, drugs being a good example.
I am sorry for the double posting
1. Technology is one of the few things we can point to in human history that seems to clearly change.
2. It has done so with increasing speed in the last century
3. There are often consequences of advancing technology that are unanticipated.
4. The pace of ethical "progress" has not matched the progress of technology.
With all of these in mind, what restraint can or should ethics have on scientific inquiry/ technological advances? IOW, should we attempt to have ethics "catch up" with technology before allowing further advancement, or are we forced to play catch up behind the technical advance?
2. It has done so with increasing speed in the last century
Ummmmmmmmm... I sort of question this. Computers, of course, have increased in power at a furious rate. Communications to a lesser extent (and chiefly because communications are so intimately related to computer technology).
But... I'm not sure most of our other technology is *substantially* superior than the crap we had in the 1950's.
I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. I haven't, to be honest, really thought about it all that much.
But it seems to me in medicine, in transportation, in machinery, in power production, etc., we're not hugely more advanced than we were in the 1950's. There are, yes, plenty of important *incremental* changes.
If it were true that technology *were* increasing at an ever-increasing rate, shit, we'd have fucking flying cars by now. But we don't. And we'd have cured cancer. But we haven't.
It seems to me that there was an enormous burst of technological advancement from 1900-1950, and then slower advancement since then (with certain exceptions).
Actually, I guess, there was a huge burst of technological advancement from 1800-1950.
But let's take 1900-1950. The technologies developed then actually changed the world. Won wars, lost wars. Changed the way people lived their day to day lives.
Now, I like computers and all. And they're capable of making small improvements in so many things (a car's braking system, etc.) And they make big improvements in a fewer number of things.
But--
If it were true that "technology is advancing at an ever-quickening pace," we'd expect to see ever-quickening transformations in how people live their day to day lives.
But really, we haven't. Explain to a time-traveler from 1950 what a computer is and how to use one and I don't think he'd have too much difficulty adapting to the many *small* changes in the present time.
He'd be blown away by the special effects in Juraissic Park, yes.
But he'd almost certainly be incredibly *disappointed* at the progress we'd made in fifty years. "Where are the flying cars? Where's the colony on the moon? Where are the domes over the cities?"
That's all sci-fi stuff, of course, but it was regarded as possible that we'd have all that by, say, the 1970's or the 1990's at latest. Because sci-fi writers looked at the 1900-1950 rate of technological progress, imagined that it would continue or quicken, and guessed we'd be taking private chartered spacecraft to Mars by 1992.
With that exception, my gut feel is that our technological advances have stayed at a similar rate. We might not have cured cancer yet, but there are any number of cancers that used to have a mortality rate of 100% that now are nothing more than a major illness. That would probably count as a major advancement to someone whose baselines was the 50s.
I'm not dismissing your question; I think you raise a valid point. But then, much of technology is driven by ambition and competition. It's possible that all the technological advancements have given us such a wide breadth for achievement and competition that we don't need to advance any more for the time being.
Isaac Asimov (I think) wrote a short story called "Speed Trap". It didn't even seem like a science fiction story, just a bunch of men talking about their work, and the exciting possibilities that are there, but damn if they don't have all these meetings! And a guy lightly suggests that maybe an alien species was among them, making damn sure that no one got anything done--keeping them busy with meetings and committees, tantalizing people with new ideas that distract them off their current work and get them involved long enough to set up new committees and start new meetings and then distracting them again.....
The guy who lightly suggested it later committed suicide. Or so everyone thought.
No, we don't have flying cars, moon colonies, or domed cities. The time traveler from 1950 probably wouldn't be all that impressed with personal computers, fax machines, microwave ovens, VCRs, cell phones, compact disc players, laser pointers, and weed eaters.
Internet pornography, that he would find impressive.
However, you aren't acknowleging the medical advances of the last 50 years. No, we don't have a magic bullet to cure cancer. But cancers of nearly all types are far more treatable today than 50 years ago. I think the time traveler would indeed be impressed by the number of people today who are actually cured of cancer, and the devices we have for early detection.
MRIs, CAT scans, PET scans, sonograms, kidney dialysis machines, and that probe they stick up your ass would all make the time traveler's jaw drop. Especially when he gets the bill.
Microsurgery for re-attachement of body parts, arthriscopic surgery for joint repair, prosthetic joints, and penile implants were all unheard of 50 years ago. Breakthroughs in drug technology has been outstanding, particularly in the area of antibiotics and immunization.
And how about the analysis of ambiotic fluids to determine the health of the fetus? Or in-vitro fertilization and the implantation of fertilized eggs?
These medical technologies are all life changing for the people who are helped by them.
Food production is another area where technology has changed our lives, at least in the developed world. The cost of food is a much smaller percentage of the average person's budget today than it was in 1950. This has increased everyone's standard of living and allowed us to spend more money on recreation and leisure time activities and consumer goods.
I think that once the guy from 1950 had a taste of our lifestyle, he would refuse to go back to his just-out-of-the-cave existence.
I hadn't seen your post yet when I was composing mine. Otherwise I wouldn't have repeated the part about curing/treating cancer.
Good point.
"I think the limitations of fuel halted us--for whatever reason, we never really got beyond oil."
Cal--
I think this is pretty much true. We've just never discovered anything that can give us more energy-per-gram than good old oil. And until we do, we've got a huge limitation on all machinery, transport, and technology in general.
"We might not have cured cancer yet, but there are any number of cancers that used to have a mortality rate of 100% that now are nothing more than a major illness. That would probably count as a major advancement to someone whose baselines was the 50s."
Incrementalism. No breakthroughs here. Chemotherapy was around in the fifties, or shortly thereafter, correct?
Chemotherapy. Surgery. We might have gotten a bit better at both, but we're still using fifty year old technology, and still (usually) with the same low chances of outright success.
that can give us more energy-per-gram than good old oil.
Natural gas has a higher BTU content but the real issue is $/btu
A more philosophical question is posed by Ernest Gellner. He concludes that modern culture demands the "modular man" ie human capital equipped with core skills, education & temperament can move quickly from place to place, occupation to occupation in response to rapid change.
I wonder whether the supply can possibly keep pace with the demand...
Jexster:
Well, *gasoline* has more punch per gram than crude oil too, but I was speaking generally, dude.
"By either default or design, the oligopolist producers have done a good job of keeping price at the proper margin to prevent the development of alternatives."
Riiiiiiiiight. I'm sure that's it. I'm sure scientists have discovered the clean, cheap, powerful renewable energy source "Impossibilium" but are keeping a lid on it for their oligopolist masters.
I don't want to do any big changes, but, if there's no serious objection, I'm going to change the name back to "Religion and Philosophy" tonight after band practice.
I hope my tenure works out well for everyone. I intend to be pretty hands off about this -- I don't really have the time to do more -- but I''ll suggest and/pr encourage topics that seem interesting and relevant, and I will enforce the Rules of Engagement. Not that I expect that to be much of an issue, since this is about as civil a bunch of folks as I've met online.
I'm off to squeak on my violin for a while. Back tonight.
"The NYT and WP go inside with word that in his Sunday public message delivered from a balcony overlooking St. Peter's Square, the Pope expressed "bitterness" about a gay pride festival currently being held in Rome, and said it was an affront to the church and to Christian values. The pontiff did add that gays should be treated with "respect, compassion and sensitivity."
(from Today's Papers - Slate)
i mean, really. be honest with your bigotry. i'd rather deal with Fred "godhatesfags" Phelps than a mealy mouth politician like the pope.
1. mealymouth(ed) is one word.
2. The Pope is just the opposite. He spoke his mind clearly.
"mealymouth(ed) is one word."
ah. yes. well.
"The Pope is just the opposite. He spoke his mind clearly."
bullshit.
i assume you're familiar with the context of the quote? the organization that set up Pride 2000 in Rome did so a couple years ago and no one said a thing. now, earlier in the year "the church" had an issue with some made up bullshit "holiday" for the 2000 and wanted the pride stuff cancelled because of the "conflict". well, it didn't get cancelled, but did get moved. that wasn't good enough.
well, fuck the pope then. like he owns Italy.
but, more to the point, how can all this not be the work of a hate filled bigot who claims to want to treat gays/lesbians with "respect, compassion and sensitivity"? yeah, sure, "respect" is when gays stay away from him and shut their sinning mouths. no thanks. what a hypocrite.
yes, the pope is ever so clear to me.
Maybe not.
But they certainly deserve each other.
Ducky, you don't have to like it, but it's absurd to say that he was mealymouthed about it. "Bitterness" is fighting words. You're annoyed that the pope doesn't want the gay pride parade. I mean, there's a shocker for you.
"Ducky, you don't have to like it, but it's absurd to say that he was mealymouthed about it."
i'm saying he's been mealymouthed wrt the entire gay issue in past year or two. the pride stuff is just the latest and most obvious example to me at this point.
it is offensive in the extreme to see this person pay lip service to the politically correct verbage while acting like a common bigot. that, to me, is being mealymouthed. rather you "like it" or not.
"Bitterness" is fighting words."
pardon? perhaps you can point out which post i used that word in this thread?
"You're annoyed that the pope doesn't want the gay pride parade. I mean, there's a shocker for you."
well, lots of things about this annoy me more than that. that he silenced members of his own church ... that he tried to get the thing cancelled, etc. not just that he is "against it". i could care what he is personally against.
Will be working hard and setting up Steppelord. Will have product line. For instance, a must for every library--
sub "want" for "against" and the meaning is the same.
He used the word. You quoted it, and then bitched about him being mealymouthed. I was saying that the use of the word belied the possibility.
i'm saying he's been mealymouthed wrt the entire gay issue in past year or two.
You're joking? This is about as long as you've paid attention to it, I suppose. But he's been about the same tone on the subject for a good number of years.
As for his trying to cancel it--why not? That's his job.
"You quoted it, and then bitched about him being mealymouthed. I was saying that the use of the word belied the possibility."
ah, i see. is he bitter? i dunno. probably not. he acts that way, but i wouldn't assume to know if he actually is.
"But he's been about the same tone on the subject for a good number of years."
i don't think so. you're saying he's been telling the world to treat gays/lesbians with "respect, compassion and sensitivity" for "a good number of years"? i doubt it. matter of fact, his rhetoric has been toned down, as has a lot of "respectable" religious people" over the past few years wrt gay/lesbians. but, whatever it's not a huge point.
"As for his trying to cancel it--why not? That's his job."
funny. i woulda thought his job is telling the cattle what the bible says this week - not getting involved in the politics of running Rome. my mistake.
No, actually, I'm not sure you do. All I'm saying is that a person's announcement that he has a great deal of bitterness about something is not being mealymouthed. He is being very straightforward.
you're saying he's been telling the world to treat gays/lesbians with "respect, compassion and sensitivity" for "a good number of years"? i doubt it.
You would be wrong. This particular Pope has never been strident about it that I recall.
i woulda thought his job is telling the cattle what the bible says this week - not getting involved in the politics of running Rome. my mistake.
Yes, it was your mistake. But you're young.
The most that can be said is that today's softer tone is welcome in comparison.
"All I'm saying is that a person's announcement that he has a great deal of bitterness about something is not being mealymouthed. He is being very straightforward."
i'll try this again.
when i said "i mean, really. be honest with your bigotry. i'd rather deal with Fred "godhatesfags" Phelps than a mealy mouth politician like the pope." i was expressing disgust with this pope about his actions wrt pride 2000 in Rome and at the same time paying lip service to "respect, compassion and sensitivity" towards gays when he is being an obvious hypocrite. it's laughable to me that the two things are even covered in the same paragraph. so, to me, he's mealymouthed.
"Yes, it was your mistake. But you're young."
well, i try to learn.
Been here since the beginning? No matter. Stick around; you'll learn a lot.
"He is being very straightforward."
True. The Spanish Inquisition was straightforward. And so was the RC's collaboration with the Nazi's.
"The most that can be said is that today's softer tone is welcome in comparison."
You mean he's saying we're "Evil" and "intrinsically disordered" in a cheerier way? My, but that's reassuring!
Good luck to you mandolin!
At least my moniker in those ridiculous cap letters is no longer present!
Re: Message # 6878
to give a taste of just how fucked up "religion" is these days:
"The NYT and WP go inside with word that in his Sunday public message delivered from a balcony overlooking St. Peter's Square, the Pope expressed "bitterness" about a gay pride festival currently being held in Rome, and said it was an affront to the church and to Christian values. The pontiff did add that gays should be treated with "respect, compassion and sensitivity."
(from Today's Papers - Slate)
i mean, really. be honest with your bigotry. i'd rather deal with Fred "godhatesfags" Phelps than a mealy mouth politician like the pope.
You confuse religion with the Pope, and if anyone is speaking with inflammatory, hate-filled language it's you. The Pope isn't a politician, and if anything, I'd say that the Gay and Lesbian Alliance is definitely politically oriented.
And this whole nonsense in Message # 6680 that the Pope is a hate-filled, bigoted, hypocrite. You must not know that much about the Pope. He's an extremely knowledgable and compassionate man. He has commissioned us repeatedly to take on the burdens of our fellow man and to help anyone in need.
What is it with you? Ever since you "came out" you've been literally obsessed with your gayness. ALL you talk about is homosexuality. Do you do anything that's not part of some gay pride parade? I don't know one thing about you anymore except that you're gay.
I can see why the Pope would be bitter -- a bunch of militant gays, some of which parading around either dressed in drag or dressed sexually provocative, disrupting streets to "spread the message" of their own religious intolerance. Politically bent, obsessively gay men marching. That says it all.
I assumed you and wabit had been in contact. I'll gladly give it back, if you want.
"You confuse religion with the Pope ..."
no, i was posting an example of just where i see "religion" today. the pope is an icon in american culture. a religious icon. when i see a flaw in said icon that interests me, then i will post about it.
"...and if anyone is speaking with inflammatory, hate-filled language it's you."
in this example, sure, ok. i don't have a problem with that analysis. i was trying to spark a conversation. i succeeded.
"The Pope isn't a politician, and if anything, I'd say that the Gay and Lesbian Alliance is definitely politically oriented."
one has nothing to do with the other. but, the pope is as much a politician as anyone else in a public office. always trying to subdue the masses - there just weren't any votes cast publicly.
"You must not know that much about the Pope. He's an extremely knowledgable and compassionate man."
i know little about the man and care even less. and it is an irrelevant point in that i am commenting on one issue right now and that's Rome's 2000 pride festival. i mean, i hardly said anything personal. he's a politician. he's mealymouthed. well, i think he is. oh, right ... and fuck him. that one's probably personal.
cont'd
"He has commissioned us repeatedly to take on the burdens of our fellow man and to help anyone in need."
riiiiiiight. well, he's also "commissioned" people to keep me from attaining civil rights in my own country. so, i care little about his "commissions", you'll have to forgive me.
"What is it with you? Ever since you "came out" you've been literally obsessed with your gayness."
fair assessment. i post about what interests me. right now that's pop culture and pop politics. gay politics is (and has been for the past 3-4 months) the only interesting political thing going on. thus, that is what i post about. i'm not adverse to discussing other things, just can't think of anything else that i would find interesting enough to discuss in more than 2 posts.
"I don't know one thing about you anymore except that you're gay."
if you recall, i've never really talked much about my off-line life. i'm not that interesting to be honest. so, i don't post about it. again, i go to what i think is interesting to me and to others.
"I can see why the Pope would be bitter -- a bunch of militant gays, some of which parading around either dressed in drag or dressed sexually provocative, disrupting streets to "spread the message" of their own religious intolerance."
i can see why he'd be bitter too. it must be horrible for him to realize the world's passing him by and leaving him in the dust bin of public thought. couldn't happen to a better public figure that side of dr laura. too bad that there are still people who insist on whoring their respect and integrity for this fossil.
secondly, everyone involved in the pride festivities, it might interest you to know, are hardly "militant". lots and lots of folks just go to have a good time with like minded people. i don't think it's much different in that respect from country music's FanFest.
lastly, it's just so easy to pick out the rare people "parading around either dressed in drag or dressed sexually provocative" and comment on them rather than the thousands of "normal" acting people. people with families. people like me who just want to get along in the world. yes, much easier to overlook that and concentrate on the "freaks" isn't it?
"Politically bent, obsessively gay men marching. That says it all."
i hope that wasn't an attempt at being clever.
However, RubD, your stridency in attacking the Pope and/or the church is a bit easy, isn't it? Church bashing is almost as fashionable as gay bashing. Churches do an enormous amount of good(relief of suffering) day in and day out for which they never get credit.
"However, RubD, your stridency in attacking the Pope and/or the church is a bit easy, isn't it?"
it's always easier to attack public figures that double as icons, sure.
"Church bashing is almost as fashionable as gay bashing. Churches do an enormous amount of good(relief of suffering) day in and day out for which they never get credit."
fashionable? i dunno. i don't think i was "bashing" the church in so much as the pope ... and "religion", which is a different thing to me all together.
i don't, however "bash" The Church at all until it does something like try to get otherwise common festivals cancelled for some made up reasons. i don't mention them at all until The Church or "Christians" want to get involved in the political process, at which time they open the door to receive the same bile they spew.
do they do good work? sure, some do. we could get by without them, imho.
You've put your finger right on it, paragate. Hypocrisy makes the world go round, you know. Ask a politician. Any politician.
"I just heard Edmund White and his nephew,(White is apparently a well known gay author),"
So well-known that he provided a cover blurb for the new edition of my book.
" refer to the 70's as the heyday of gay culture. i.e., lots of indiscriminate sex with strangers, i.e.,the refreshment conception of sex."
True, but that's an oversimplification. A lot more was going on. A reconceptualization of the social order in fact. But the status quo does have its appeal (ask Andrew Sullivan) and AIDS beat back a lot of progress on some fronts -- while, ironically, engineering progress on others.
"Once again, I don't like the distinctions, gay and straight."
Hey -- I don't make the rules around here, you know. You people set them up at the close of the 19th-century. It was part and parcel of the invention of the middle-class -- the guardians of "propriety" in lieu of property.
I've seen you make this point before that homosexuality as a social phenomenon was "invented" in the late 19th century. Please expand on that.
Here's the pocket version:
The close of the 19th century saw the creation of the "Middle Class" -- a new group functioning as a buffer between the rich and the poor. While no one cared about the poor, and the rich were well-protected as to maintain their "privacy" and power, the middle class was put on a very public stage.
"But what will the neighbors say?" became the key. And so proscriptive societal realtions of all sorts emerged.Marriage wasn't a priavte matter, but a public declaration of one's moral worth -- as opposed to the poor who we were informed bred like rats.
Meanwhile "Science Marched On" --thanks in no small part to the state, recognizing its imporetance as a method of social control. Research into human sexuality became a hot topic what with Kraftt-Ebbing, not to mention freud (and the less said about the "Viennese quack"-- Nabokov's desription -- the better.) The necesity had arisen to categorize everything, an decide what was "normal" for purposes of state regulation.
"Homosexual" was coined by one Karoly Benkert aka. Karl Maria Kerbeny to label those attracted to their own sex. While this had existed since the dawn of time, in all cultures,with varying degrees of approval, indifference or active prohibition (and sometimes all three at once), it wasn't until the late 19th century that it became pathologized in way conductive to state medical and psychiatric intervention, control, and (most important of all), profit.
And because there were "homosexuals," a name was coined to describe "normal" people.
And thus, while straight gives birth to gay biologically -- gay gives birth to straight linguistically.
Btw, you're not suggesting that people like Dr. Socarides have had anything but the best interests of their patients in mind, are you?
Didn't you participate (or lead?) a rather short-lived thread on post-modernism in the old place? If so, you are familiar with Foucault and his work on madness. He maintained that although the phenomenon had been known since the dawn of man, it was not until late medieval times that it became "recognised".
Do you mean that a similar process was at work in the late 19th century?
I think your hypocrisy may be my maturity.
It's hard to figure out what Dr. Socarides has in mind, Ronski. According to his theories, he's the one responsible for his son's being gay.
Nearly as bad as a Christian fundamentalist tract. A real yawner.
You mean to say, Uz, that, that the fact that the RC has specifically designed itself to be staffed by closeted gay men in thrall to their own homophobia who rage against uncloseted gays while the church provides cover for them even unto the grave, (thanks to AIDS, which could be prevented if the church wasn't opposed to condoms)is a sign of "maturity"?
Then thank goodness I'm an infant!
"Once again, I don't like the distinctions, gay and straight."
This is not to say that these are not legitimate distinctions, Cellar, it is to bring into question whether they alone are adequate for a productive discussion.
Re: Message # 6927 -
Of course it is a yawner, as you put it. That is the point, the silliness of arguing from a fundamentalist point of view.
Ronski, that is total crap! It is beyond a "stretch" to call it a fundamentalist point of view. Rather, it is the viewpoint of someone with an agenda and a point to prove, who reads into the bible what he wants to in order to come to the conclusion he has already reached. Too bad your author forgot God's big plan, namely salvation through Jesus Christ. But then, he would have had to get into the matter of sin and all that other stuff that is so superfluous in his world view.
The behavior is certainly not unnatural: sexual activiity between members of the same sex happens everywhere in nature -- there's an overwhelming survey of the subject in Bilological Exuberance, which was reviewed here in Salon. Like people, animals exhibit sexual preferences ranging from chastity to exclusive attachment to the same sex to symmetrical bisexuality to exclusive attachment to the other sex. Among our closest relatives, the bonobo are about as pansexual as it is possible to be.
I tried tempting him with a bonobo once, without much success.
Isn't there a new book called "Bonobos in Paradise"?
from your post: (Message # 6906)
Me: "You confuse religion with the Pope ..."
You: no, i was posting an example of just where i see "religion" today. the pope is an icon in american culture. a religious icon. when i see a flaw in said icon that interests me, then i will post about it.
"Religion" was too broad of a term, you should have said it's where you see the Roman Catholic Church today. Secondly, the Pope is an icon in American culture for some, not for all. Again, you're hyoberbolizing and/or making sweeping generalizations.
Me: "The Pope isn't a politician, and if anything, I'd say that the Gay and Lesbian Alliance is definitely politically oriented."
You: one has nothing to do with the other. but, the pope is as much a politician as anyone else in a public office. always trying to subdue the masses - there just weren't any votes cast publicly.
Sure they do, the gay alliance and other gay organizations helping out with gay rallies (remember, we were talking about Pride 2000) are nothing BUT political. Also, do some research on the current Pope and find out why he was selected. He's never been in office to "silence the masses", what total nonsense.
I've always loved a woman (and a man too) for that matter, who is not afraid to 'call it as she sees it'. I guess that's what I love about The Mote. I need to confess that it may be probable that 'reading into the Bible what he wants to' is one of my spiritual gifts ! :-)
(I hear Vic shouting "AMEN" from the back pew).
I'm here in Ohio teaching evangelism to a Pentacostal church for the month of July. My main 'suggestion' is that 'winning the lost' is more a question of what one is in Christ, than what one says or does. This Sunday I am asking them whether or not they are persuaded that God's words in Hosea 2:14 to 20 apply to them, or just to the dear man married to a prostitute all those years ago. Continuing...
"Holding onto Father's arm,
Walking down the aisle,
We can see our Bridegroom's face,
And His lovely smile,
His 'Best Man' standing at His side,
Holds our wedding ring,
Our loving Comforter and Guide,
Who taught our hearts to sing...
Glorious Wedding Day !
How these truths beguile !
Holding onto Father's arm,
Walking down the aisle."
Thank God that 'In Christ, there is no male or female, bond or free'.
I feel just as blessed to be a part of the "Bride of Christ" as I expect Rubberducky and Cellardoor will, if they ever 'Hear His voice'.
:-)
That's ALL he's there for. To suggest otherwise is total nonsense.
I love the poignant story of Hosea, a good man married to a prostitute, who God used to illustrate His own relationship with his beloved Israel. Yes indeed, it is a wonderful think to know God personally, and to experience His lovingkindness an mercy and providence and grace. So many people don't know God, as you said, just seeing Him at best as some far-off cosmic and impersonal force, or at worst as some bogeyman who threatens people with Hell for misbehaving.
Did you write that poem?
Bad, but someone had to do it.
you must be catholic
"Sure they do, the gay alliance and other gay organizations helping out with gay rallies (remember, we were talking about Pride 2000) are nothing BUT political."
i didn't deny they are. i don't see the relevance then and now.
"Also, do some research on the current Pope ..."
Pass.
"I feel just as blessed to be a part of the "Bride of Christ" as I expect Rubberducky and Cellardoor will, if they ever 'Hear His voice'."
i heard it already. grew up with it blaring in my ear. don't care to hear it again anytime soon, thanks just the same.
cllrdr:
"That's ALL he's there for. To suggest otherwise is total nonsense."
heh. true. what're ya gonna do but just shake your head?
hahaha, that actually didn't even occur to me ...
We have a local lad on our local radio talk show who likes to return to the bonobos to recieve his moral judgements. I would suggest that we already tried the bonobo route before Christ.
If there's one thing that I have been convinced of since my 3+ years of posting on the Fray and now the Mote, it is that God calls those who are His, and there are many, many, many who cannot hear or who readily reject Him because they want to do what is right in their own eyes (which is whatever they damned well please whenever they damned well please.) So be it. I understand the point of evangelism ("how will they know unless they hear, and how will they hear unless we send them?") but I have come to be of the school that says to shake the dust off your shoes and move on if they don't want to hear it.
By "reformulate things for the intellectually prideful mind," do you mean "tell them what they want to hear"?
... there are many, many, many who cannot hear or who readily reject Him because they want to do what is right in their own eyes (which is whatever they damned well please whenever they damned well please.)
This is the typical, snotty Christian attitude. Anyone who is not a Christian will abondon himself (herself) to his (her) hedonistic pleasures.
No Christian faith = no ethics = no morals.
I reject that notion.
With Christian charity, I will overlook your insinuation that I am a snotty Christian, and I will furthermore point out that I did not say that doing whatever you want whenever you want is the same as no ethics, no morals. That is your apparent conclusion. But I do conclude that if we are left only to our own inner urgings, most people will act selfishly.
I will not pursue this argument, First, because I know your faith has helped you out of a difficult situation. Second, because we have already covered this ground.
Can't say the ame about most of his followers.
We are not like animals; we are animals, descended from an ancestor common to all life on earth. And that fact (it is a fact) has profound consequences in almost every branch of philosophy, even in such supposedly pure areas as logic. It certainly has ethical implications --for one thing, it reifies the metaphor of the family of humanity, and extends it.
There are religious consequences as well, since every creation myth, including the Christian, must be interpreted metaphorically or simply be considered wrong (the current Pope, by the way, accepts and teaches that the Genesis stroy cannot be the literal truth of human creation).
Surely you don't mean to suggest, in Message # 6955, that, before Chrisianity, people behaved like bonobos. We can't, anymore than they can behave like us. That was certainly not my claim in Message # 6943, which merely pointed out that same-sex sexualtiy is common throughout nature, even among our close relatives, and therefore cannot be considered "unnatural" except through social construction.
Whether a natural behavior is necessarily a moral behavior is an altogether different question, though you know I've argued before that a morality which isn't based on a clear understanding of our inherited nature is just so much gum-flapping.
in your Message # 6963 you wrote "But I do conclude that if we are left only to our own inner urgings, most people will act selfishly."
One of the implications of evolutionary theory applied to long-lived social creatures such as ourselves is that people will feel good about helping each other and bad about mistreating each other --in other words, that acting to please oneself will more often than not also please others.
Very debateable.
But as a matter of reasoned debate on the evidence, the issue is long closed. There are debates about the relative importance of the physical constraints on the shape of proteins and nucleic acids vs selective pressure, about the role of homeobox genes, about the importance of genetic drift, and so on, but there is no disagreement that evolution has occurred in roughly the way described by Darwin, that the earth is about 5 billion years old, that the universe is somewhere more than 10 but but probably less that 15 billion years old, that the earth and sun are born out of material created in supernovae, that we are more closely related to the chimpanzees than they are to gorillas.
Lets take a look at the evolution-creation-debate-phenomena-question. Do we evolve automobiles or do we create them? We do both within time. It is said that evolution is going to accelerate in the future. Couldn't one also say that creation has begun?
Also, take the history of man. When he awoke he had the "feeling" that he had been created. Creation myths abound. And in fact over the period where man was transformed from animal to man it seems just as accurate to say that he was created. It seems to me that Evolution explains far less and answers fewer questions than people think it does. It doesn't answer the question,"What are we going to do with our power?" How will we bring outselves under control? Are we just another life form or are we something else?. I think there is plenty of evidence to indicate that we are something else. We are something else that seeks to exist, just as all the other forms seek to exist, but we are something else. We have characteristics of the animals, but we also have something else. Something mysterious, something we can't quite put our finger on, and religious people call that something the Divine.
"But as a matter of reasoned debate on the evidence, the issue is long closed."
So how do you explain that the fact that something like 90% of the population believes in God? And then we could go down an extremely long list of contemporary scientists, leaders, etc. who not only believe in God but consider their faith to be very important. What, are they all simpletons, and you, the lofty and illustrious Mandolin have superior intellect and reasoning powers to them? How have all these people simply missed the obvious? Were they sleeping when this reasoned debate took place? Or are you so cynical as to try and say that they simply wear their faith as a cloak of political correctness so that the ignorant masses will vote for them/listen to them/respect them?
I became a Christian at the age of 36, six years after completing my masters' degree. This followed years of reading, study and searching. I unequivocably reject your simplistic explanation.
marshame -- I don't know where your 90% figure comes from -- it certainly isn't true that 90% of humans believe in the Christian God, and, in the the developed world, only the US has a sizable majority of believers -- but it's irrelevant, anyway. Acceptance of the fact of evolution, or of Darwin's well-confirmed theory of how evolution happens, does not mean that one cannot, therefore, believe in a god or gods, and, in any case, science is not done with opinion polls. That so many Americans do not understand the exceptionally well-supported status of evolution among biologists means only that American schools are failing to adequately teach science, and biology in particular.
There is no conflict between evolution and theism -- only between evolution and literalist interpretations of some stories in some sacred books. The Catholic Church has officially accepted the fact of evolution, though it reserves for itself statements pertaining to the spiritual attributes of human beings.
"The most beautiful and profound emotion that we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms--this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness...a human being is part of the whole....He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separtated from the rest--a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness....Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures, and the whole of nature in its beauty." Albert Einstein