God is an Iraqi by dreamtrove

RTQL sounds too complicated, it would end up supporting RTD. I like it simple. That way I know my right. Anything else is a separate issue.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 10, 2005 7:56 AM

CITIZEN

I have a question then.
Isn't free choice one of the most basic things to being Human?

If so how can the 'right to life' supersede the 'right to choose'?

If the 'right to choose' is greater than the 'right to life', then surely euthanasia et al is not intrinsically against the 'right to life'?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 10, 2005 8:08 AM

I'm with ya there, Citizen.

Choosey Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 10, 2005 10:27 AM

I am so not with you

Right to life definitely supercedes right ot choose. This is why murder is illegal, because life is more important than freedom. If this were not so, Charles Manson would be are new founding father. What a nightmare world could be constructed where freedom was more important than life.

Freedom is very important. It's more important to be alive than free. Unless you're Darla or something. Even Spike thinks life comes first.

Freedom of choice is way down there on prioties, belong private ownership of property.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 10, 2005 10:33 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
There are few better founding political ideas than I can think of. There is no more basic right than right to life. I think after that, maybe we can does with liberty and pursuit of happiness.

DT: I'm with you on this one. RTL is a terrific unifying concept. On a hierarchy of rights and privileges, RTL prolly supersedes other rights and privileges in MOST cases. But like a lot of broad-scope ideas, implementing it in specific instances will require lawyerly attention to detail. That is why I get a little perturbed when I hear sweeping statements like

Quote:
"Regardless of whether the feotus is a human, it will be"
"A human will come to pass if no intervention is made, so just as the failure to intervene to stop a murder is accessory to the crime..."
"The reason adoption is a nightmare is that most the unwanted children are aborted"
" 'Someone should've killed me before they put me through this.' " Ironically those are things said by troubled teens who've never really had these sorts of life threatening problems.
"All of the conditions you describe are ultimately curable."

Each one of these statements is demonstrably false a significant percentage of the time and ignores the complexity of life.

But just as there are many ways to lose a life, there are different levels of individual and institutional culpability for that loss: murder, accident, neglect, suicide, self-defense, self-neglect, capital punishment, war, pollution, institutionalized poverty, lack of health care etc etc. Does RTL trump a corporation's right to profit by selling an addictive, deadly drug? Or the consumer's right to purchase and use it? Does RTL mean that life must be actively sustained at ANY cost?

Quote:
People's right to life simply can't be tied to the probably quality of that life, or you get dangerously close to giving justification to fascism again.

And given that you can't save everyone... in fact, you can't "save" ANYONE because we all eventually die anyway... we are left trading lives for other things.

I think the best way to look at RTL is to look at the main causes of death, and to work to reduce those causes. Right now, the main cause of death (worldwide) is dirty water, lack of food, war, and lack of medical care.
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 10, 2005 10:37 AM

CITIZEN

Your misunderstanding me, freedom of choice over YOUR own life.
Not other’s lives.
Murdering someone is putting your right to choose over someone else’s life.
In a very real way RTL (in respect to euthanasia) could be construed as others saying they have more right to choose what you do with your life than you do.

This is where I’m coming from.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 10, 2005 10:43 AM

Okay, I'll ignore those aspersions since those statements were all prefaced by most, usually and other similar qualifiers, they don't need further defense.

Quote:

Does RTL trump a corporation's right to profit by selling an addictive, deadly drug?

An interesting point, but I'm going to nix this one. No one's right to life means that other people can't create things which may be life threatening, roller coasters, fast cars, rocket ships. RTL just means they can't force you to surrender your life, so you could not make a potentially fatal drug mandatory. Though I'm aware that this situationm might approach right to die, let me give you a more appropriate example of what I think you're trying to say:

A mandatory Small Pox vaccine which is sometimes fatal. Do you have to take it? I suppose ultimately RTL should say no, because that might become a mandatory death sentence.

Generally I would say yes, at any cost, since the cost is never prohibitive for the state, only for the individual, and the most expensive attempts are bound to be good for scientific research. But only for $ costs. If the cost turns out to be in other human costs then I would say no. You can't forcably sustain the life of someone who needs a new liver once a month if it means other possible recipients are going to die, which it probably does. But sure, within reason. If the individual needs a life support machine which simply costs $1000/day to run, then I don't see why not.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 10, 2005 10:54 AM

Quote:

I think the best way to look at RTL is to look at the main causes of death, and to work to reduce those causes.

Politically, the problems of the world are not our responsibility. If solved, among the uneducated unskilled masses of the earth, such a solution would destroy the planet within our lifetimes, since random uneducated peasants are still the greatest destructive force in the world. I think it far more essential that in world affairs that we educate these people first, more than anything else, otherwise they hardly become worth having in the species. I know this may violate RTL, but I have to at some point be practical. It would be very easy to spend the entirety of the earths resources sustaining an infinite number of humans until we as a species starve.

I'm not trying to be insenstitive to 3rd world problems here, but it's a major problem. I think it's worse than I just described it. A lot worse. It's going to be a major project to get societies like India and Africa into line as places of stable human habitation, which needs to be done before we can even try to pressure them on RTL issues.

That's just realism speaking. But for the most part, I'd like to start smaller. Address the problem in your own country, and when other societies come into their own, then it can become something we can address.

For instance, and I'm just going to cite one example here, so everyone knows where I'm coming from:

In China, the consuption of environmental resources by humans is so extreme that the vast majority species of animal life in the country became extinct in the 20th century. The concept of RTL in China can only be addressed if the population reaches a sustainable level, and proves to be stable without any artificial constraints over at least a couple of decades. I don't want the entire earth to be clearcut so it can serve to grow rice for 40 billion humans, which is the ultimate nightmare scenario. Human RTL is not so great that it trumps the survival of Earth, or of other species of higher life.

When this is established in China, then you cna persue RTL, but it's not that powerful.

Now if you had specific examples you wanted to deal with, fire away.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 11, 2005 6:03 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Politically, the problems of the world are not our responsibility.

Well, politically the problems of the world ARE our responsibility. As the world's leading economy and the premier superpower since 1945, with over 800 military installations around the world and numerous coups and invasions to our credit, we've had a considerable hand in promoting and shaping the corporatist world as it is today. So I'll probably get back to that point later.

Quote:
I think it far more essential that in world affairs that we educate these people first, more than anything else, otherwise they hardly become worth having in the species. I know this may violate RTL, but I have to at some point be practical.

Having spent paras explaining the difference between a right and a privilege and how rights cannot be given up or taken away, you appear to turn towards "practicality" when non-USA citizens are being considered. In a previous post, where I said

Quote:
What is "human"? There are a lot of variations on that sperm+ egg stuff.... People who have the misfortune of being born very very poor in far-away countries.

I didn't include that example out of random liberalism. I find that people in general tend to place others who are "not like us" into a "not quite human" category. Factors as trivial as skin color, sex, language, age, wealth, religion, or politics are enough to suddenly cause "universal" rules to be junked and bring "new" rules into play. So, with those caveats mentioned, I'll take the discussion in the direction you want to go: RTL w/in the context of the USA political system.

In your view, the first step to promoting RTL would be to strictly eliminate insitutionally and individually-implemented death. So you would eliminate abortion (except to save the life of the mother), the death penalty, and individual killing (except in the case of self defense). You would eliminate war, except where engaging in war would results in lower overall mortality. Part of your reasoning seems to involve choice. In other words, it's OKAY to create potential deadly risks, as long as people have the choice to avoid them. So slow suicide (by cigarette for example) is OKAY, By extension, even fast suicide is OKAY. taking medication with a fatal risk attached is OKAY as long as it's an informed decision.

Putting these concepts together, what about people who can't make decisions? Do they need to be positively protected- ie, Do decisions need to be made for them that will protect them? The very young and very old need constant care and a certain number of young/elderly die every year from nelgect. (Which is not a taking of life from action but from inaction). So, is neglect prohibited by RTL? What about risks that can't be avoided (like second-hand smoke, or pollution) where a certain number of deaths are inevitable, but statistical?

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 11, 2005 8:11 AM

Signym,

Okay, I was afraid of this. This isn't what I'm saying. Let me try to explain:

1. America has a special right to life implied by the declaration of independence. This doesn't apply to anyone else, not to the rest of the world.
2. America is a country of many races, and anyone can join it, providing they abide by a set of rules.
3. It is this set of rules that sets Amerca apart. Ergo, for the purpose of this discussion America is really a set of rules.
4. That set of rules is sufficient, it is not perfect, but sufficient to grant the survival of America.
5. Other societies also fit this criterium, such as Japan. Japanese RTL however, is not for us to decide. It is for the Japanese. I don't know fi their founding documents grant them any such right.
6. Societies without a controlled set of rules preventing humanity as a disaster, cannot be autoprotected. Disasters are disasters.
7. Humans are a disaster becuase unless we can live on this planet without damaging it, we have no right to be here at all.
8. Sure societies like America are flawed in this regard, but they're a hell of a lot better than Nigeria. In a few decades at the current rate of destruction, Nigeria will be completely lifeless.
9. This is no racism here. Black people in America have more right to life than white nomads in Nigeria.
10. The solution here is Nigeria must first and foremost establish a set of rules that will not destroy the land on which it sits, and not grow its population out of the bounds that it can support with minimal environmental impact.

And so this logical thread goes. The "feed the poor" program you're vouching for is a recipe for disaster. I know that it's well intentioned, but the problem in these societies is not that they don't have enough to eat, it's that they are an immense destructive force

which is annihilating the Earth. If a society were stable and controlled, and suffered a famine, then I would say sure, feed them. The problem is most controlled societies are going to be European or east Asian, and if I continue citing examples, someone's bound ot

say racist. The Irish famine, for example, was a fluke, but not a society bound to wreak havoc. The Bushmen of the Kalihari aren't damaging to their enviroment. But most of the people of the earth are a disaster, and the right to life of the Earth definitely pre-empts the

right to life of humans. Right to Life granted to us by our declaration of independence is not a diving writ from God, whom I don't believe in, it is granted to us by our founding fathers as a reward for biding by an assembled set of rules called America.

That said, it still has many flaws.

But if someone can first and foremost solve the problems that make countries such as Nigeria a danger to themself and to others, Nigerian right to life can be addressed. But these issues definitely include a) environmental protection, and b) population control. If

these problems are solved I will support them in their quest, should they so choose, to support their own right to life.

But please, this has nothing to do with a "they're not human" argument. There's nothing unique about Americans or even particularly different, except that they follow a set of rules I called America, and if they don't adhere to those, they get kicked out.

One last example, and again, the non-racist disclaimer, this has nothing to do with their being black. Hatians in Haiti abide by a set of rules that in recent decades has transformed their nation into a desert. The arial photos are stunning, or how the rainforest stops

dead at the Hatian Border. This liveless sand and slag called Haiti is the effect of Hatians living their under the rules of Haiti, clearly a hazard to the Earth, whose survival, in anyone's philosophy, should have the right to survive over us, or future generations will not

be possible. To me, animals are generally already abiding by such a set of rules naturally imposed, and so also should have some right to life.

Now take those same individual Hatians and brind them to America. Now their RTL is protected, becuase now they must live according to a set of rules I called America. Now, as I said, this set of rules needs some improvement, and especially lately, but it is better

than the set of rules in Haiti, and an ariel photo will show that.

But as long as America exists, everyone's individual right to life is protected, they just need to become an America :)

I actually think the best way to deal with world problems is to set up same states around the world, and hope that the idea catches on. Make an "America of Africa" etc. But not to conquer Africa, just to set up as a sample state, as in 'hey look, here's how you can do

it with what you have' after all, America was started on no more than what Africans have to work with today. Possibly a great deal less.

Now back to RTL in America

1. I see RTL as no one else can take your right to live away from you. This doesn't touch on what you can do.
2. The issue of assisted suicide is an RTL one because it involves another person.
3. I would hope people wouldn't commit suicide, and they could be better educated about the causes of suicide and how to prevent it (95% of all suicides are the result of a critical serotonin deficiency, the remainer are probably situational, ie. you got cornered by

the cops and are about to be arrested for a triple murder or whatever)
4. I don't support the nanny state. I think this is where RTL for me ends. As far as I'm concerned, it simply prevents someone else from deliberately ending your life, but doesn't force others to take action to prevent you from ending your life. Sure, not poisoning the

food would be good, and that could be seens as a way to preserve RTL, but not letting people drive cars goes to far. I guess the line I'm drawing is that the maker of cars did not set out with the ambition of ending lives, and didn't include the ending of any

collatteral damage lives in it's plan. I would be happier if cars killed fewer people. But nanny state, no, people can't be protected from themselves. You should grant them the freedom to surf over niagra falls or whatever.

Drug use should be curtailed because I see it as a danger to others, it spreads, infecting and disabling society, I'm not sure that this is consistant, but I know that druggie society is not worth saving. I'd rather have Nigeria.

I guess individual drugs would need to be shown to destroy large numbers of lives, or render large numbers of people non-productive members of society. Smoking should probably be banned. I think that air polusion also is a problem as is toxic waste dumping.

I know someone whose son was killed and whose wife is terminally ill from the result of exposure to toxic waste which was dumped in their neighborhood unbeknownst to them probably by a corporation. Yes. I'd grant that this is a violation of RTL. If the same

exposure had been because they consumed a product which contained accurate risk assessment labels on the side of the bottle, then no, it wouldn't be an RTL violation.

I generally wouldn't acceptt acceptable casualties, because, though I think such a situation is possible, it would be exceedingly rare, and the existance of a law to accomodate such a situation would be serially abused. Better to not have a ban, and accept individual

cases as they came along. If for instance, someone used bug spray over a city to kill an out of control mutant flesh eating fly that escaped from a bioweapons lab, and the number of humans killed by toxic exposure was 35, but the estimate number that would have

been killed by the fly was 100,000, but they might have been different people, then sure, that would be an exception that you would address individually.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 11, 2005 10:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I have a question then.
Isn't free choice one of the most basic things to being Human?

If so how can the 'right to life' supersede the 'right to choose'?

If the 'right to choose' is greater than the 'right to life', then surely euthanasia et al is not intrinsically against the 'right to life'?

Thank you, CITZ finally, finally. This idea, not showing up till this far down the thread really stuns me to my core.

I do applaud everyone for remaining civil. I should let it sink under the waves, but part of life for me is standing up to have my three-headedness counted.

1) If Jesus were re-born in Iraq now, yup there would be a bomb. Haliburton would arrange for burial, and Rove/Cheney would couver it up. Unless they decided to take the participants to Abu Garib for fun.

2) Besides starving them, Clinton bombed Iraq every week he was in office.

The Loophole to bear arms keeps our government in line? Nope, Can't agree with that. Rupert Murdock and cronies helping the regime to distract the public by pointing to the trees and saying 'Look! Flu epidemic!" while convincing the masses that the only life worth living is one that includes 2 SUV, no more than 6 months old keeps the populace deaf to the attrocities the government commits on every front, every day. Gun ownership by private citizens is bad on every level, and just like the Federal government arming other countries we are sure to decide are the enemy soon, the logical contusion in all of this is that if you're sportin' a gun, the police can shoot you right away instead of waiting. Not lighting the flamethrower, I'm not I'm not.

Your RTL sounds more to me like a RT be forced to continue breathing no matter what. Besides agreeing with what the CITZ says above, I believe RTD is the other side of the RTL coin.

Our prison system. Wait a minute, I'm going to tag Chris for this one...

Thanks to viral marketing...SERENITY: reopening soon in a theater near you.
Shiny Trees! Yavanna made Shiny Trees!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 11, 2005 11:06 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

DT- So basically what you are looking to do is make USA laws/ ethics conistent with RTL. Okay, I got you that far. I think there is a unadressed situation in your reply, but I will have to read it carefully and get back later. Alas, real life calls.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 11, 2005 11:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by liminalosity:

Our prison system. Wait a minute, I'm going to tag Chris for this one...

Me? All I know is that the prison system makes somebody a lot of money, therefore is worthwhile, I guess.
Plus: it teaches one how to progress from being simple and harmless, to a more hardened and dangerously effective criminal (at no extra cost!).

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 11, 2005 11:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Much of it depends on the humanity of the particular staff- some are saints, and some are sinners. The law says they have to take you, but the reality is they'll take you if they're so inclined, which thankfully, most are, but there's NO guarantee. BTW, those laws are old, look for new ones to alter them in subtle ways that will get corporations off the hook for letting the uninsured and poor die from lack of proper attention (No medical records= limited treatment?). Medical insurance is like car insurance now. Deny the first claim, 8 or 9% go away defeated-maybe even die- pure profit! Most really sick and poor people haven't the knowledge or stamina to stand up to the beaurocratic crap they'd have to deal with to remain healthy, much less alive. These corporate types push through laws we will never hear of until they're used to increase profits

by and large, money gives you the RTL in this country.

Now am I too cynical?

Chrisisall, Conservative Liberal Conspiracy Theorist

You staked yourself out of this thread for being cynical?
Crying now, and not in a good way.

I agree with everything you said about our medical system. There is also the factor of compassion burnout, short staffing and outrageous hours pushing against the best intentions of healthcare staff as well.

...our prison system. Only creates more sadistic criminals, with more finely honed skills and a greater disregard for life tortured into them.
I think anyone who believes our prison system works on any level is far far more cynical that Chris (and I'm not even going near the idea of how many innocent Reavers end up there, or the Patriot Act). Beyond that, IMO, the whole idea of a life for a life is wrong, just wrong. Whether you're talking about prison, or about me killing you because you're trying to kill me. I believe killing another human for transgression of the social compact is wrong. Killing heals nothing.

Blaming the Chinese peasantry for benighted social policy and the greed of the wealthy? Dreamy, you know people -from- China and you're taking that stance? I'm surprised you're pointing at the underclass to explain the evils of a system that's always run it's own people over with tanks, even before there were tanks, even before there were Communists.

Alright, then. Not a single flame has left my lips. Nor any outright mention of the one thing you don't want in here that keeps creeping in anyway.

Chris, no need to respond, but please please de-stake yourself.

Thanks to viral marketing...SERENITY: reopening soon in a theater near you.
Shiny Trees! Yavanna made Shiny Trees!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 11, 2005 12:34 PM

Okay, having stated my extreme position, I'm backing off now.

I basically agree with what liminalosity posted, but I think that this leads to some dangerous conclusions.

1. If we had no right to bear arms, the govt. would kill us all. Don't trust me, look at the history books. This happened in germany, it happened in russia. Sure there are places it hasn't happened, but a lot more i didn;'t mention where it has, and just because it hasn't happened somewhere yet, doesn't mean it won't. If govt. or authjority doesn't fear a backlash, it will not hesitate to act.

2. But I think it's silly to still be using guns. This is outdated tech. and everyone can move to non lethal weapons, asap. This would make me happier.

3. I'm with everyone on the help the hopeless, but not to the end of creating humans. Maybe to the end of creating stable societies that neither create and export excess humans nor destroy the environment.

4. Right to be forced to breathe forever? What religious dribble is this? If you believe death is some beautiful release that's infinitely better than pain, and not that it is the abyss of non-existance that is infinitely worse, then we will never be in the same page.

Insurance is kinda like socialism, except run by corrupt corporations, but it is the same kind of system, I hope I get no argument here. If an insurance agency were a govt. agency, it would BE socialism.

So, from my perspect, insurance is bad. World with no insurance, definitely better. I would deal with the extreme cases by having the govt. pick up the tab, possibly. Which would be kind of like social safety net, but way out there.

I can never afford insurance, and always get turned down for SSI, so it's never an issue to me, but it isn't sour grapes. I don't think y'all with insurance are really better off, and the whole system is made much worse for it. Prices are jacked up about 1000% of what they are in the corresponding Korean system, which delivers statistically better care.

Picture if everything were reduced 90% here.

Surgery $200
Doctor's visit $20
Walk in clinic $8

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 11, 2005 12:46 PM

Lim,

You're stuff is a little thick to comprehend.

Prison system bad. Sure, better than endless cycle of retribution. But prison is meant to be preventative, not vengeance. I believe a much better system can be developed. It's believers are gullible, not cynical. Cynicism is the opposite of gullibility.

The problem with cynics is that they're right 90% of the time.

Quote:

Blaming the Chinese peasantry for benighted social policy and the greed of the wealthy? Dreamy, you know people -from- China and you're taking that stance? I'm surprised you're pointing at the underclass to explain the evils of a system that's always run it's own people over with tanks, even before there were tanks, even before there were Communists.

Huh? This isn't what I meant. I don't like to pull the "you misread me" card, but this isn't what I meant.

Ultimately, sure, the peasantry are to blame for everything, because they are the agents of action. Random Chinese peasants destroyed the environment, specifically, I think I said. This is the effect of a poorly ordered society.

There's nothing anti-chinese here.

1. The peasantry of everywhere are a sample of humans that act according to the social rules set forth locally.

2. There is no difference between the peasantry of China, Nigeria and the United States. It is only the overlying social order that changes, so ultimately only that social order which is to blame.

3. Any attack I make on communist china is not a defense of imperial china. I don't believe "human rights abuses" are a chinese characteristic, even if they've never had another govt. that didn't have such abuses natiowide, because:

4. They have. Hong Kong, Taiwan and Macao have had other forms of govt. in which the citizens faired better. These societies unquestionably had their flaews, particularly environmentally speaking, but they did not have these human rights violations, so:

5. These are the result of the govtl. systems.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 11, 2005 12:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
If you believe death is some beautiful release that's infinitely better than pain, and not that it is the abyss of non-existance that is infinitely worse, then we will never be in the same page.

One question, DT, How can non-existance be worse than anything? I mean, if you don't exist, you don't know you don't exist, right? I mean, non-existance necessarily forces one to have a rather non-judgemental attitude on one's state of being, nes pas?

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 11, 2005 12:55 PM

Chris,

Because non-existances don't have unproblematic objective existences. You can't be objective as a non-existant since the state of non-existance is subjective, so I have to qualify it.

Hope that works.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 11, 2005 1:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
1. If we had no right to bear arms, the govt. would kill us all. Don't trust me, look at the history books. This happened in germany, it happened in russia. Sure there are places it hasn't happened, but a lot more i didn;'t mention where it has, and just because it hasn't happened somewhere yet, doesn't mean it won't. If govt. or authjority doesn't fear a backlash, it will not hesitate to act.

4. Right to be forced to breathe forever? What religious dribble is this? If you believe death is some beautiful release that's infinitely better than pain, and not that it is the abyss of non-existance that is infinitely worse, then we will never be in the same page.

Insurance is kinda like socialism, except run by corrupt corporations, but it is the same kind of system, I hope I get no argument here. If an insurance agency were a govt. agency, it would BE socialism.

Picture if everything were reduced 90% here.

Surgery $200
Doctor's visit $20
Walk in clinic $8

The government already has the ability, and the will, to kill us all. Just hasn't felt like picking up the tab yet. It's much easier to keep us drugged with purchasing power and anti-depressants, but that song's soon to run out.

Right to a morphine od, yup, the other side of right to life. But I don't believe in the black hole of non-existance, I believe in reincarnation, so -that- kind of religious crap we'll never be on the same page about. I believe death is for you what you believe it is (that life is fractal and recursive on every level) so everybody gets to choose their own after death party. Tell you what, I invite you to mine, and I hope you do show up because it would so suck daily to believe that this is the one and only kahoona, and nothing outside this tiny little box of rain. Even if I did believe this is all there is, I don't think that I would want to hold onto a life that has moved into a realm of constant agony with no retreat.

I picture that 90% reduction in medical costs daily, and I'm also wishing for a reduction in our levels of the consumption of goods and resources at the same time.

Thanks to viral marketing...SERENITY: reopening soon in a theater near you.
Shiny Trees! Yavanna made Shiny Trees!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 11, 2005 2:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Lim,

You're stuff is a little thick to comprehend.

Prison system bad. Sure, better than endless cycle of retribution. But prison is meant to be preventative, not vengeance. I believe a much better system can be developed. It's believers are gullible, not cynical. Cynicism is the opposite of gullibility.

Huh? This isn't what I meant. I don't like to pull the "you misread me" card, but this isn't what I meant.

Ultimately, sure, the peasantry are to blame for everything, because they are the agents of action. Random Chinese peasants destroyed the environment, specifically, I think I said. This is the effect of a poorly ordered society.

There's nothing anti-chinese here.

1. The peasantry of everywhere are a sample of humans that act according to the social rules set forth locally.

2. There is no difference between the peasantry of China, Nigeria and the United States. It is only the overlying social order that changes, so ultimately only that social order which is to blame.

Yeah, I think we are crosstalking somewhat.

Prison systems should rehabilitate prisoners. Ours does not. I say it's cynical to think that stuffing trespassers into our prison system does anyone any good. As in a belief that 'criminals are lost cause humans who only deserve to be punished'. Our kind of prison system only results in recidivism, and I'm saying it's cynical to not see that is the case. Choosing to call it cynicsm rather than gullibility means that I believe the people who choose to keep this system working have an understanding of the problem, gullible implies they do not understand the implications of their choice. Better understanding now?

You say the peasantry are to blame because they are the agents of action. I say the extremely poor will choose the easiest and cheapest way out of a dilemma that involves longer hours spent in physical effort or money, and shouldn't be blamed for that. Chinese governmental systems for a very very long time have offered nothing to the masses but a big fat stick. It's the social system at fault, not the random Chinese peasant. Plenty of other governments are not necessarily much better, particularly in the 3rd world where the pressures are greatest because the financial wiggle-room is the smallest. China stands out because it is so big, so densely populated and so breathtakingly uncaring in it's abuse of the citizenry. I wasn't accusing you of being anti-Chinese, I was accusing you of blaming the victim when you personally know a number of Chinese citizens, who might have given you other perspectives.

Of course there are other examples where it's first world governments and corporations more visibly on top of the heap of those who should bear the blame, and not (for another example) Brazillian peasants to be blamed for chopping down the rainforest.

Is that more clear?

Thanks to viral marketing...SERENITY: reopening soon in a theater near you.
Shiny Trees! Yavanna made Shiny Trees!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 11, 2005 4:50 PM

But the bulk of rainforest destruction did, at least until quite recently, come from brazilian peasants. Big evil govts. and corporations are also to blame.

I think we see eye to eye for the most part on the problems. It would be interesting to try to hammer out some solutions.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 11, 2005 4:57 PM

PS I'm not blaming the victim. Sure, the peasants who destroyed the rainforest are irredemable and evil, but that's irrelevant. Peasants are the same everywhere, and evil people are always in a small minority. Furthermore, the evil among us are generally the least motivated, if someone doesn't harrison bergeron them into office.

The problem in brazil is not that it has peasants, but that it doesn't have land reform.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 11, 2005 7:22 PM

I still say it ain't the peasants, they're just responding to economic pressures. Noblesse oblige.

As I wrote above, you're invited to my afterdeath party. I suppose you will think this is just featherheaded bull, but I'll leave the light on.

Good job keeping a thread of such mass from complete disintigration into pointy capitals and pointy fingers. I'm beginning to think the site is starting to settle down. *Shhhh, don't tell the trolls in the BSR*

Gaaak! An emoticon has found its way into my post!

*edit* to remove the emoticon and set it free in the back yard, cause it was bugging me.

Thanks to viral marketing...SERENITY: reopening soon in a theater near you.
Shiny Trees! Yavanna made Shiny Trees!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 12, 2005 10:11 AM

Well, I hope you're right. As long as I get to come back as something not a cockroach.

We call always stir it up a bit by attacking someone :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 12, 2005 5:24 PM

There will be no coming back as a roach! An upward spiral of development, not a chaos of punishment via de-evolution.

I thought about your thread today and the idea of existence ending at physical death.
I was explaining my take on halos to a Jewish friend who was considering buying an angel for her Christian daughter-in-law. My take: a halo is just a visible manifestation of the aura. It becomes visible when someone is just a little farther along the path of spiritual evolution than the average human. Everybody has one, some people's halos are just more visible than others because of their level of personal development. Then after I left her, I thought, yup, even atheists have halos whether they know it or not.
Here's the part where I wander back to the thread topic.
I believe RTL is not just something for one lifetime, or one plane of existence. RTL is infinite. And, here's the really good part; it just keeps getting better.

Thanks to viral marketing...SERENITY: reopening soon in a theater near you.
Shiny Trees! Yavanna made Shiny Trees!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 12, 2005 5:31 PM

Is this something wicca this way comes? Personally, I'm from the Willow school. I like to see spellfire.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 12, 2005 6:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Is this something wicca this way comes? Personally, I'm from the Willow school. I like to see spellfire.

Dang, my turn to say I don't understand the thick.

Wicca, I don't know that much about. Naw, this is just plain old Buddhism spiced with a little new age, and a little hindu. I don't think any of the major doctrines have gotten all the pieces right. I was raised Catholic, so that's in there too in an 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny' way.
Mmmmm, palak paneer for dinner in a minute too, speaking of Indian.

If you are asking if I am spellcasting (from something -wicked- this way comes), which, really I don't think you are, there's not one chance in the world that I would do anything on purpose to mess with someone else in that way (or even in the regular old mindf* way), and I will yell it from the top of any mountain you choose. On the other hand, you may have noticed I have kind of a bratty sense of humor, but I usually try not to draw blood.

I hope I have avoided the thick.

Thanks to viral marketing...SERENITY: reopening soon in a theater near you.
Shiny Trees! Yavanna made Shiny Trees!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 13, 2005 4:58 AM

I agree.

I think western religions are all essentiall judaism with a new set of shoes. Which is nothing against the jews, but it's kind of ironic that anyone who prides themselves in the cultural tradition of their people would base their belief on something that was pretty much a copy of someone else's.

It's also one of the oldest tricks in the book: Creating the non-choice by creating variations of you and offering them up as choice. Like this:

Are you a Mets fan or a Yankees fan?

That question has the statement built in "You're a New York baseball fan." But almost no one ever catches the subtle ploy.

You're a Pepsi person or a Coke person. (You are an American Cola person)

Etc.

So "You're a Christian or a Muslim" is essentially a plug for "You follow the cult of Yhwh." In religion this game is played many times: "You're a Catholic or you're a Protestent." ie. I "You're a Christian." You're a Baptist or Episcopalian" ie. You're a Protestant. You're pro-gay bishop or you're anti-gay bishop. ie. You're Episcopalian.

But if you step back and take a serious look at the situation, all this "fan of God" thing doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Yhwh, God of War, worshiped by a handful Iraqi cultists about 3500 years ago or so. Moses broke from the pantheon and told people, only Yhwh, only war.

But who is this Yhwh guy? A lot of people say "Oh yeah, God is good. I worship Him" etc. But you look through the book. God is Bush. He tortures the children, bombs the cities. He hates knowledge, he loves suffering and death. He pushes for genocide many times. He hates the environment. This is a pretty evil religion. From a human prospective, an earth prospective, or just a prospective of progress.

Jesus. I don't really have a gripe with. Jesus had some good ideas, but he was putting reform on top of a really bad religion. The saving grace of jews is that they don't take their religion very seriously, for the most part. Christians very often take it very seriously, and in an old testament sort of way. They are, essentially, still the cult of Yhwh.

I'm a Taoist because I've read a lot of stuff on various religions, and this was the only one I've picked up where I said "Hey, this guy (Lao Tse) really has a grasp on the nature of the universe." Not a feeling I get from the major western religions at all.

I don't know much about Buddhism though. It's the only one I really never got into.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 13, 2005 6:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I don't know much about Buddhism though. It's the only one I really never got into.

Buddah was cool. I discovered Buddism by way of Shaolin.

Chrisisall, would-be-monk

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 13, 2005 7:57 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I believe in the immortality of time. From how I change the earth to my most private decisions, none will ever be undone in all time. Time's arrow and all.

This is real immortality.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 13, 2005 8:01 AM

Simply and beautifully put.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 13, 2005 9:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I think western religions are all essentiall judaism with a new set of shoes.

But who is this Yhwh guy? A lot of people say "Oh yeah, God is good. I worship Him" etc. But you look through the book. God is Bush. He tortures the children, bombs the cities. He hates knowledge, he loves suffering and death. He pushes for genocide many times. He hates the environment. This is a pretty evil religion.

Jesus. I don't really have a gripe with. Jesus had some good ideas, but he was putting reform on top of a really bad religion.

I'm a Taoist because I've read a lot of stuff on various religions, and this was the only one I've picked up where I said "Hey, this guy (Lao Tse) really has a grasp on the nature of the universe." Not a feeling I get from the major western religions at all.

I don't know much about Buddhism though. It's the only one I really never got into.

Oh, then maybe you'll like this. Or else you're going to write me off as a complete freak, which I hope doesn't happen. I believe that Yhwh was an impersonator. Someone naughty impersonating a deity. I don't believe the big G -ever- tells people to do anything in that 'or else I won't love you' way. Of course, I don't believe the big G is a person type manifestation either, which Yhwh clearly was. I think there's lots of G in other parts of Christianity, but none at all in the bossy bits. (Sacrifice your son to me to prove your love? I don't think so!)

Jesus, yeah, had superpowers, and he told a darn good story. And sometimes a darn confusing story. Have you read any Lawrence Gardner? I've read a fair bit of grail lit over the years, and I like his better than anything else I've come across. He has keys to the basement libraries of the Vatican too, so he can do real research, not just guerilla research. Very interesting watching him peel the onion. He knows a fair bit about ancient languages and he makes some very interesting revelations about mistranslations. Also, he goes into the symbolism of the Essene branch of Judaism, which was very much a factor in the stories...'angel' is a title (as in personal designation) to the essenes...as are loaves and fishes...water into wine has a specific translation relating to doctrine rather than miracle as well. 'Mary', 'Martha', 'Joseph', 'James' and many other names are designations of position or relationship in the Essene hierarchy. I highly recommend Gardener. Even after all the other grail reading I've done, there was much revelation for me in Gardner's writings, and a rejoicing in the simple and obvious truths behind door number 2.

Lao T I know only through the Tao writings. I also like Rumi very much. The inspiration and bliss you can experience by reading ecstatic poets is a wonderful thing. Though Lao Tse's voice in the Tao is very subdued (compared to Rumi), I find both of them irrestible in their enthusiasm for the world, and in their simple brushstrokes of heartpiercing beauty and joy.

Buddhism, yeah. I like that one most of all, but still with the problems, dang it. I'm just picky, like my religion to be without sin, ha ha. I think Buddhism errs in the extremity of the striving for non-attachment (which too easily becomes apathy). I think what Buddhism might be saying is strive for a neutral compassion: rather than trying to exorcise the ego, I think it might work better to try and tame the ego with love. The other thing I don't care for in Buddhism is the 'life is pain' part of the doctrine. See, I believe we create our own reality, and if you go around believing pain, yup, you can have plenty of that. Otherwise, I really like the way Buddhism explains the nature of being.

I add yoga for the practice of breathing (which I believe can be used to grow oneself into a calmer, more aware and compassionate personna), balance (physical, mental and emotional balance), and the strength to sit in meditation without going insane or cramping up.

I also add a few ayurvedic techniques which seem to help with yoga and meditation, and with not catching cold etc.

Then there's the bit that pushed me onto this path: I could feel something that I took to be the presence of G in the church at Sunday mass when I was a tiny kid, but I very quickly decided the Catholic Church was an awful institution. I dissed the church at 8, but the influence is still there (they don't say recovering Catholic for nothing). And I like the music, specially Mozart.

So, I have this very good friend who calls her version of what happens after this party's over 'the black velvet bag'. She's a research scientist, and goes straight into 'what cannot be proven' mode whenever we talk about it. The thing I say that always makes her uncomfortable though, and now I'll use it on you (not trying to draw blood, remember, just tickling you with a mental feather) while she tells me that any belief requires a leap of faith, as I see it, a decision that there's nothing beyond here, is also a leap of something, also decision and belief. So put that in your pieplate, Bingo, and tell me what you think. Please.

Thread topic moment!
The other side of the RTL coin (for me) is
Infinite Responsibility to Life.
Forever, life of some kind. From this perspective, always moving toward the Tao. Then after reunion with the Tao, and that bliss, a decision to take one's spark back out into the void. To go as far away from the oneness as you can get, and work your way slowly back to the Tao, one lifetime after another, one experience after another, one 'level' after another, adding your experiences, your voice to the richness of the whole. In and out, like breathing, on an infinite scale. I believe there are lots of places along the way where you get to remember all of it, and see how it all weaves together.

Ok, I'll shut up now.

Thanks to viral marketing...SERENITY: reopening soon in a theater near you.
Shiny Trees! Yavanna made Shiny Trees!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 13, 2005 10:36 AM

Well, here's the logical fallacy christians miss:

here's my bogus conv. between Mr. Jesus Freak, and Mr. Commie Atheist

JF: God is the creator.
CA: How do you know?
JF: God tells me so?
CA: How do you know God isn't lying?
JF: Because God never lies.
CA: How do you know that God never lies?
JF: Because the Bible tells me so.
CA: Who wrote the Bible?
JF: God.
CA: So essentially you're taking God at his own word that he never lies and then believing everything he says?
JF: But the bible is never wrong.
CA: How can you be sure?
JF: Because the Bible says so.

etc.

Of course Yhwh isn't the creator, but saying that means you're saying God is a liar, which he is, almost as much as Bush. Actually, God is a genocidal lunatic. How do I know? The Bible tells me so.

Lao Tse is really very pragmatic. Like a romantic pragmatist. Some people follow a jewish carpenter, I follow a chinese librarian.

I'm not familiar with Lawrence Gardner. I see Jesus as a spellcaster, a trickster. Spells are real, they're just someone doing something that the audience doesn't understand. It can be simple magic tricks, or very advanced science. The ancient celtic Druids and Witches had access to some very advanced sciences, far more than the people around them. This was because they had studied and kept secrets for thousands of years, whereas the surrounding people were ignorant, illiterate and heavily superstitious.

Jesus or his counterparts through history, sure could do miracles, but miracles are just spells. He can say he's the son of God, but so can I. Who's to say that I'm not?

Eastern religions have many practical applications, like martial arts and meditation. So-called western religions really lack merit. They believe in favors from a fictional deity, and a code of conduct that leads to racial genocide.

I have a lot more respect for the European Pagan traditions, and those of native americans.

What it all comes down to is what you create, and what you destroy. If you destroy, you're the bane of the creator, and so essentially you condemn not just yourself, but the world, to hell. If you create, create responsibly, that what you create lives on and does not destroy.

Any faith placed in a bogus afterlife become the justification for efforts which might be very destructive. The Bibles whole "go forth, take the earth, it's your. Rape it" in the words of Ann Coulter, but pretty much that exactly what the Bible does say, is just incredibly destructive. God is evil. Yhwh is evil. He's at least as bad as socialism.

We have to be wary to not fall into that trap. In any effort to replace the great carrot, the dangling reward fo eternal life and glorious salvation from the hogwash fantasy faith of the whole Judeo-Christian set, we must be careful not to do the same thing. Effort towards something other than creation is quite possible effort towards destruction, or at least apathy. If your quest for immortality creates medical treatments that will ultimately be used by people, than great, you are a creator, but if your efforts for immortality draw people out of science, and into the pursuit of some fiction, like Falun Gong, then you are the destroyer.

I think all viewpoints on faith are valid. Relatively you have to believe that most of the western world's belief structure is based on the basic premise that as the result of the imagined love of a random jew for people who were not yet born, a man who may or may not have been been nailed to a cross - Now you must all without exception live lives without fun so that you can die and give some church your money. Now after you die, you'll get lifted up into white cloud land, which will be like being drugged out in a psych ward. Otherwise, a big bearded guy who lives in space will stomp everyone into dust, and one fo his disgruntled former employees will torture everyone for ever. So fall in line damn it.

That idea, as a reflection of the way things really are, is profoundly flawed, and just about anything else is bound to do a better job of it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 13, 2005 10:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

a big bearded guy who lives in space will stomp everyone into dust, and one fo his disgruntled former employees will torture everyone for ever. So fall in line damn it.

So....you liked the movie Constantine, huh?

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 13, 2005 11:41 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I thought Constantine was tedious but the archangel was well cast and acted. As an aside, I also thought Cate Blanchett as Galadriel was a well acted non-human being.

I've found something of value in several different religions. Tao and the Gospel of Thomas are the two favorites of what I've read. (And I have certainly NOT made a study of this, just casual random reading decades ago.)

What the Tao does for me is to frame the universe in its proper non-human terms.

And I thought Jesus was originally going for something akin to Buddhism - put away petty wants and fears (and also that OT god of war and vengeance) or else "... you are that poverty". But the religion ABOUT Jesus swallowed up the religion OF Jesus. And also it never really ditched the OT, which is why supposed followers of Christ are still arguing about which OT 10 commandments are the real ones, instead of the two that Christ preached in the NT.

I think religion is the story we tell ourselves to help us deal with the world. When people started farming our human world got significantly different and many new religions were born.

My personal philosophy is 'just enough', reflective of current human technology. Assuming humans reduce their numbers, day-today survival is not in doubt for anyone. There is enough - more than enough - to go around. In contrast, running society on greed and fear is madness and ultimately suicidal. I find parallels in this with both Buddhism and the Gospel of Thomas. Put away fear and greed, or the society you form will be one of poverty and death.

Just my musings on the topic.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 13, 2005 11:54 AM

Chris,

I didn't see Constantine, so I don't really get it. I was clearly being facetious of course.

Rue,

I really agree. I think Jesus whether or not he had ideas of his own was clearly trying to bring some outside religious ideas from his travels and studies to the Israelites. I'd say given what we know he said, Zoroastrianism was the strongest influence, but there were likely others.

But the problem with christianity was that it was only an attempt at reform, and carried the whole sacred text of zionism along for the ride. And I really don't mean this in an anti-semitic way. But that book has some bad ideas in it. Some good ideas too, but a lot of evil can be justified from that book.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 13, 2005 12:13 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Thanks for the reply.

I do wonder what hole Christianity filled/fills in society, for it to have survived this long. Otherwise we would be making offerings to Zeus.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 13, 2005 12:35 PM

I see that for some, Christianity contains the purest message, that of us all being one under our creator. I have no idea what hole it fills for the ones infected with greed or hatred, other than it's being a possible salvation at the end.

Constantine was interesting, but not that good.

Good to see you around, Rue.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 13, 2005 2:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Of course Yhwh isn't the creator, but saying that means you're saying God is a liar, which he is, almost as much as Bush. Actually, God is a genocidal lunatic. How do I know? The Bible tells me so.

Lao Tse is really very pragmatic. Like a romantic pragmatist. Some people follow a jewish carpenter, I follow a chinese librarian.

I'm not familiar with Lawrence Gardner. I see Jesus as a spellcaster, a trickster. Spells are real, they're just someone doing something that the audience doesn't understand. It can be simple magic tricks, or very advanced science. The ancient celtic Druids and Witches had access to some very advanced sciences, far more than the people around them. This was because they had studied and kept secrets for thousands of years, whereas the surrounding people were ignorant, illiterate and heavily superstitious.

Jesus or his counterparts through history, sure could do miracles, but miracles are just spells.

Eastern religions have many practical applications, like martial arts and meditation. So-called western religions really lack merit. They believe in favors from a fictional deity, and a code of conduct that leads to racial genocide.

I have a lot more respect for the European Pagan traditions, and those of native americans.

If you create, create responsibly, that what you create lives on and does not destroy.

Any faith placed in a bogus afterlife become the justification for efforts which might be very destructive. The Bibles whole "go forth, take the earth, it's your. Rape it" in the words of Ann Coulter, but pretty much that exactly what the Bible does say, is just incredibly destructive. God is evil. Yhwh is evil. He's at least as bad as socialism.

Falun Gong

I think all viewpoints on faith are valid.

Now you must all without exception live lives without fun so that you can die and give some church your money.

Otherwise, a big bearded guy who lives in space will stomp everyone into dust, and one fo his disgruntled former employees will torture everyone for ever. So fall in line damn it.

and from RUE:

thought Constantine was tedious but the archangel was well cast and acted.

Tao and the Gospel of Thomas are the two favorites of what I've read.

What the Tao does for me is to frame the universe in its proper non-human terms.

But the religion ABOUT Jesus swallowed up the religion OF Jesus. And also it never really ditched the OT

I think religion is the story we tell ourselves to help us deal with the world.
I find parallels in this with both Buddhism and the Gospel of Thomas. Put away fear and greed, or the society you form will be one of poverty and death.

DreamyT

I was also saying that I believe Yhwh isn't god, at all. Imposter through and through. The old testament is largely the voice of this destroyer, and I always find it interesting that the NT pasted on top is much more of an attempt at finding a more compassionate method, though it was crushed into a fairly unintelligable mush by the RC Church.

The concept I have of G is the sum of all that is, not a personality, and certainly not a manipulator. Allowing, letting the elements of creation make their own choices (and I'm not just talking about people here, but rocks and green things as well).

I really like Lao, in case that didn't come through. Pragmatic is a good word for it, I also like his quiet bliss through observation of the 10,000 things.

Gardner has plenty to say about JC and friends manipulating the whole situation to put him in power, and there was chemical assistance in the form of 'daily bread'. Spellcasting, most assuredly. Miracles that turn out to be misaprehension of Essene titular designations. Later there were other aberations foisted on the public by the Roman Church, which was all about taking the power away from the people and putting it in the hands of a Roman priestly heirarchy. You might enjoy even standing in a bookstore to read some of it. It's fairly well available right now, what with the DaVinci Code being popular.

Careful creation with compassion, treading gently are very important to me. Never forcing anything, not stealing anyone's choice to go their own way. All this I find very important.

And at the end of it, if I'm wrong about what happens afterward, and I wink out into the black velvet bag, that's ok with me, I am having too good a time walking my path for any regret or disappointment to enter into my equation. I don't care if I'm wrong, and I hope you didn't think I was saying I'm right for everyone, though inviting you to my party may have sounded that way. As many paths as there are people is how I see it. An infinite choir of paths.

I really like much of what I have seen in the ancient religions, and yes, I incorporate plenty of that into the mix. You wrote 'wicca' back a while, and my very limited experience of that is that it's pretty derivative, but misses a great deal of the point, and doesn't walk far enough down the path of study you mention here in relation to ancient druids et al. Playtime without the serious work is how I see most of the wicca I've come across, not to offend any who are really working on the very real aspects of that path of investigation. On the third hand, I believe that keeping secrets where wisdom is concerned only keeps the majority benighted, which in a larger scheme benefits nobody. But people do like their power.

Rue, I haven't heard your voice before, hey there!

Constantine's angel was wonderful, a weary betrayer.

I like the Thomas heresy as well.

Anytime someone uses a frame of non-human elements it allows us to take a step outside ourselves and see a larger picture, which is a very good thing. I love that about the Tao, that's it's so much about wind and water, time and stone.

Thanks again you guys! Good discussion!

Thanks to viral marketing...SERENITY: reopening soon in a theater near you.
Shiny Trees! Yavanna made Shiny Trees!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 13, 2005 4:53 PM

Chris,

You're right. Clearly, Christianity has some evolutionary advantage when entering into competitions with other religions. It might be slight or obscure, like a lower rate of infectious disease, since it has taken thousands of years to reach such dominance. It may have others, it's worth studying.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 13, 2005 5:17 PM

Lim,

Why have a God at all? The creator is the living creation itself.

Most human philosophy start out with a fundemental erroneous assumption that creation is an event.

Creation is an ongoing process.

Furthermore, in most multiplicity cases, the creator of the creation is the creation itself. The universe therefore is its own creation. It continues to thrive through eternity as it constantly lives on and creates more of itself.

Each cell in your body is alive, more or less independent of you, and the human race lives on, as a species, and perhaps as a jungian collective unconscious also more or less independent of you. Both interact with you, but could be made to survive without you, if need be. So...

There's really no end to it. The molecules of the cell continue to survive with or without the cell in the same manner; as for that matter does the Earth, with ot without the human race.

Therefore there's no reason to assume, as any amount of study would show, that it wouldn't go on indefinitely in either direction.

Ergo, the universe itself is alive.

But concepts of God automatically brings a parallel loaded with false assumptions, such as:

1. Such an entity is sentient in a way we would understand

2. Such an entity is like a person in some way.

3. Such an entity knows, cares, and has power to alter things on a smaller scale than its own.

We have no reason to assume any of this.

Sorry for the existentialist rant.

Anyway, the DaVinci code was dreadful. I couldn't make it through.

Wicca will find its way eventually. Actually most modern renditions don't recognize the way in which wicca relates to druidism, that they are in fact two complementary traditions within the same faith, like the church and the monestary were to medieval catholicism. Failure to understand this leads them to conclude erroneous that they are competing faiths, and to try to draw dividing line. This simply was not the case, originally.

This fascinates me because of it's prominant place in my chosen field of study, ancient western history. But current Wiccan and Druidic sects are actually recreations.

They're not "phony new agisms" as if often averred. They ARE consistant continuous faiths passed down through the ages as they claim. But the way in which they DID survive was poluted.

Both traditions were outlawed under sentence of death for a thousand years in Europe. As a result of this, they had to go underground, through cults and under cover of Christianity. Groups like the Masons, and Wiccan covens, Druidic circles, continued to practice, but always had to put on a face of Christianity, which left them open to infection by true believers in Christ, and also the inevitable raids and mass execusions meant much knowledge was lost or destroyed before it could be passed on.

So the reconstruction is generally correct, but missing many key parts. I think in time it will be easier to try to rebuild the faith in its true original form, or something close to it, but there is and may remain a scattered imperfection of pollution with older christian crossovers or newer new-age infections.

I have a cousin who has been dutifully digging up and reassembling the true original faith and culture of the ancient maya, and has become quite an expert in the subject. I might like to do the same with the ancient pagan traditions of Europe, though like her from a perspective of historical curiosity more than a religious bent.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 13, 2005 5:27 PM

STAKETHELURK

Quote:
Originally posted by DreamTrove:
Clearly, Christianity has some evolutionary advantage when entering into competitions with other religions. It might be slight or obscure, like a lower rate of infectious disease, since it has taken thousands of years to reach such dominance. It may have others, it's worth studying.

I can think of two basic advantages Christianity had over the pagan religions of the ancient world that are rooted in its doctrine.

--It was a missionary religion. Unlike Judaism (and most of the pagan religions), the Christians were actively and vigorously recruiting new members. They didn’t just wanna be left alone or to respect other beliefs, they wanted everyone to be one of them and they were going to make it happen.

--It has a monopoly on truth. Most pagan religions were very easygoing; you could worship whatever gods you wanted, there was nothing forbidding you from doing so. And if foreigners wanted to worship other gods, that was fine too (as long as they paid tribute to your local patron god, to keep the city safe). The Christians, of course, had only the one God and the one Truth. Everything else was lies and falsehoods and had to be stamped out. Thus, if they recruit new members they’re prying worshippers from other faiths, a zero-sum game in their favor. And their belief in one God keeps people from slipping back to other faiths; it even shields them from subversion by other upstarts with one Truth.

Those are two very simple advantages Christianity had over the pagan religions of the region. Why it won out over other competing “One God, One Truth” systems I’m not sure--maybe the Christians were better at converting? Anyway, that’s my two cents on this very interesting sub-topic.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 13, 2005 5:46 PM

Ah, score two points for the lurker.

Good calls both. I mena I agree. Wish I had thought of those myself.

It's true, traditional paganism, much more than modern neo-paganism, was a very exclusive faith. Entering into a Druidic circle or Wiccan coven was not only not advertised, it was a right which had to be earned, often a difficult quarry to win.

Re: openmindedness. Esp. since the Pagans were not well aware of other belief systems, their initial reaction to Christianity was that it was another pagan tradition that they were not yet familiar with. The had previously experienced pagan traditions from asia and even possibly in the new world, neither one of which would have shaken that belief that such systems would be compatible with their own.

If the pagans had understood the full situation, that this was not just another deity, but another system, and one that would outlaw their own tradition, they probably would have reacted more hostily towards it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 13, 2005 7:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Why have a God at all?
the creator of the creation is the creation itself.

Each cell in your body is alive, more or less independent of you

There's really no end to it.

Ergo, the universe itself is alive.

Anyway, the DaVinci code was dreadful.

the way in which wicca relates to druidism, that they are in fact two complementary traditions within the same faith, like the church and the monestary were to medieval catholicism.

They're not "phony new agisms"
the way in which they DID survive was poluted.

Both traditions were outlawed under sentence of death for a thousand years in Europe.

...also the inevitable raids and mass execusions meant much knowledge was lost or destroyed before it could be passed on.

the ancient maya

Yup, I used the letter G which was confusing I suppose, because I am on pretty much exactly the same page as all you wrote above (existential rant wise). I don't imagine there's a personality involved in the creator at all, except insofar as the whole is made up of every giggle ever uttered by every atom that has ever existed. The creator is the creation, constantly expanding in every direction. Yup, my feeling on it exactly.

The one place in your rant where I might disagree is that I believe there was an original impulse of some kind, still not personality based you understand, but some kind of movement from the null into existence. What science calls the big bang, though I don't think of it as being that dynamic, more a domino effect.

I haven't read the DaVinci Code, that's a novel anyway. Gardner's work is scholarly. I only meant that his work is easier to find as a result of the popularity of the DaVinci Code.

wicca is to druidism as the mideval church is to the monasteries...never heard that concept, thanks for that, it makes complete sense to me.

Of course it takes years of study and devotion to learn the things the mystery schools teach, and some of it is information that can be dangerous in the hands of the uninitiated, but I think no one is well served by secrecy. I understand that even if the schools weren't secretive themselves, there is a point when secrecy becomes survival, as in Europe once the Romans extended their reach far enough to suppress all earth based belief systems. It's just too bad that it takes so long to recover the original information, especially since some of that info took thousands of years to hone. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a good thing that we don't get to know how to build Stonehenge, Machu Picchu, or the Egyptian pyramids while we're busy kicking the crap out of each other. I just don't personally know any wicca who aren't new-age fluffy, and most of the writing on druidism or wicca that I've managed to get my hands on has also been either pretty fluffy, or struck chords of wrong interpretation for me. Probably not looking in the right places. Ha! A featherhead like me dissing new agers, that's rich.

Hmmm, the ancient maya. There's something I wouldn't mind knowing a lot more about.

I'm also quite fond of cave paintings and the study of the information they contain, which in my opinion has recovered some ground in terms of validity of interpretation in the past decade or two, so I have hope for the rest of it as well.

Stake, good points, well stated as usual

"If the pagans had understood the full situation, that this was not just another deity, but another system, and one that would outlaw their own tradition, they probably would have reacted more hostily towards it."

Trouble is, the invaders usually had more advanced weaponry, and were never slow to introduce disease, accidentally or on purpose, and they used techniques like the extinction of food sources to gain control over indigenous populations.

Thanks to viral marketing...SERENITY: reopening soon in a theater near you.
Shiny Trees! Yavanna made Shiny Trees!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 14, 2005 4:38 AM

I studied it at length many years ago and came to the conclusion that the big bang didn't happen, from a scientific perspective.

The big bang theory has many serious flaws. It fails to explain the explanation of the distribution of matter in the universe as being both uniform and random, and in a constant state. By the theory, one would expect to see more primitive developments the further out you look, and at a much higher density. This isn't what we see. The galaxies basically show a very similar make up towards the edge of what we can see to what they show locally. This has been countered from the big bangers with a perculiary timeline fix, that the universe did most of its expanding and development very quickly, and then stalled. This just doesn't make a whole lot of sense from a physics standpoint. It reminds me of the patch theories that were uses to hold together teh geo-centric model of the solar system.

By contrast, I think the initial data may have been read incorrectly. Rather than a universal expansion, the doppler shift might be representing light losing energy over time, through the travel through space. This would not conflict with what we see in doppler shifts or with the distribution. It would also explain why the edge of the universe was a deep red, as all light was ultimately reduced to the singular quantum state, and then probably ultimately dies. This would also explain the lack of a light night sky paradox.

The infinite, unchanging universe is so old and and so large, it's hard to tell where it began. I would suspect the presence of all matter is the forgone conclusion of random vibration, and random vibration is the forgone conclusion of the existance of other strands, and the existance of energy strands is the forgone conclusion of uncertainty. This universe would most likely exhibit a curve, slightly, as it would probably fall into a perpetual cycle of black holes. Each black hole would become a new universe, and so the universe would resemble an endles number of plains of shifting sands, many levels deep, perhaps infinite.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 14, 2005 3:48 PM

Woops! Physics, a zona incognita. Science in general I comprehend intuitively (however that works), but do not understand from a 3D perspective. I never bought the big bang theory, at all, and I'm always glad to hear that some scientists are moving thought in other directions. Zero point is my favorite brain twister, with string theory a pretty close second.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I studied it at length many years ago and came to the conclusion that the big bang didn't happen, from a scientific perspective.

The big bang theory has many serious flaws. It fails to explain the explanation of the distribution of matter in the universe as being both uniform and random, and in a constant state. By the theory, one would expect to see more primitive developments the further out you look, and at a much higher density. This isn't what we see. The galaxies basically show a very similar make up towards the edge of what we can see to what they show locally. This has been countered from the big bangers with a perculiary timeline fix, that the universe did most of its expanding and development very quickly, and then stalled. This just doesn't make a whole lot of sense from a physics standpoint. It reminds me of the patch theories that were uses to hold together teh geo-centric model of the solar system.

By contrast, I think the initial data may have been read incorrectly. Rather than a universal expansion, the doppler shift might be representing light losing energy over time, through the travel through space. This would not conflict with what we see in doppler shifts or with the distribution. It would also explain why the edge of the universe was a deep red, as all light was ultimately reduced to the singular quantum state, and then probably ultimately dies. This would also explain the lack of a light night sky paradox.

I would suspect the presence of all matter is the forgone conclusion of random vibration, and random vibration is the forgone conclusion of the existance of other strands, and the existance of energy strands is the forgone conclusion of uncertainty. This universe would most likely exhibit a curve, slightly, as it would probably fall into a perpetual cycle of black holes. Each black hole would become a new universe, and so the universe would resemble an endles number of plains of shifting sands, many levels deep, perhaps infinite.

In your redshift idea, explain "the lack of a light night sky paradox"
please, if you feel like it.

*setting out traps to attract other scientific types to the discussion*

Random and chaos are my favorite words to go all heretical on, but -Not- an attempt to spike anyone's blood pressure.

I think random and chaos are just names we use for patterns we don't understand. I don't believe there is such a thing as purposeless effort 'without a governing design'. I think we just don't have a long enough view (or a big enough telescope maybe) for things that seem chaotic or random to resolve into the patterns I believe they represent. I remember the first time I happened upon fractals, and thought yes! This is so beautiful, and so right. Chaos theory, I don't know anyone well enough who understands it, but someday I will meet one of these people. Or, maybe I'll find a symposium from someone who can talk about it to the unscientific rightbrainer.

Black holes I also like quite a lot. That to me, would be one way the universe manifests infinity in a way we can almost observe from our living rooms. I mean infinity comes in all sizes, right? So there should be some access points in every size; ways the universe chooses a vector shift that you can see with the naked eye, as well as the point where particle becomes wave, and star nurseries.

I hope to RTL that I'm not being too thick here.

Thanks to viral marketing...SERENITY: reopening soon in a theater near you.
Shiny Trees! Yavanna made Shiny Trees!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 14, 2005 7:26 PM

The lack of light night sky paradox says that if the universe is infinite in size, if you looked in every direction, eventually you would hit a lightsource, and thus a photon, and the skiy would be infinitely bright. The idea that light dies would void this. I hope this explanation was totally straightforward.

You're on the edge of understanding, not totally thick.

I know chaos theory pretty well. I actually think you're in a forum here where at least half the people do. Chaos is as profound as evolution in its implications, and you can just pick up a book on it, or google it.

Random is something else. One has to accept random as being all things with an unpredictable probility. The other thing which is key is statistics.

I don't believe there's a plan. There's no planner either, and there wasn't a design.

In a very abstruse way, black holes are gateways to other universes, this is probably more true than that they are simply "collapsed stars." But it isn't how people would imagine it to be. It's less like a door, and more like the map on a computer RPG game like Ultima. If you go to a town, and it zooms in to a new map, that would be like the same sort of thing.

Wormholes are undoubtedly not big enough to fly a spaceship through. They are most likely no more than a few centimeters across, and possibly a great deal smaller. You could surf them on the outside, possibly. The Gravitational crush of passing through a worm hole would probably annihilate matter anyway.

String theory is basically correct, and can be accepted more or less as gospel. The interaction between energy strands creates 3 dimensional space and matter/energy. All things develop up through a form of scalar evolution. Understanding and applying evolution by natural selection to physics is pretty much essential to understanding the nature of the universe, and chaos is the branch of mathematics that ties it all together. Chaos theory, also, is pretty much gospel.

Yesterday's maybe is today's locked solid truth, and sort of has to be for anything to move forward. The greatest remaining unknown I think lies in information theory and the nature of consciousness.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 14, 2005 8:17 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The big bang theory has many serious flaws. It fails to explain the explanation of the distribution of matter in the universe as being both uniform and random, and in a constant state. By the theory, one would expect to see more primitive developments the further out you look, and at a much higher density. This isn't what we see. The galaxies basically show a very similar make up towards the edge of what we can see to what they show locally. This has been countered from the big bangers with a perculiary timeline fix, that the universe did most of its expanding and development very quickly, and then stalled. This just doesn't make a whole lot of sense from a physics standpoint. It reminds me of the patch theories that were uses to hold together teh geo-centric model of the solar system.

By contrast, I think the initial data may have been read incorrectly. Rather than a universal expansion, the doppler shift might be representing light losing energy over time, through the travel through space. This would not conflict with what we see in doppler shifts or with the distribution. It would also explain why the edge of the universe was a deep red, as all light was ultimately reduced to the singular quantum state, and then probably ultimately dies. This would also explain the lack of a light night sky paradox.

FINALLY!!! I found a kindred spirit!

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 14, 2005 9:52 PM