Re: [OT]: Who should God take 1st? Supreme court justice, Pat Robertson, Sponge-Bob, Dr. Dobson, Hillary or Bush?

From: Mark Fergerson (nunya_at_biz.ness)
Date: 02/08/05 

Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 09:42:15 -0700

Scott Stephens wrote:
> Mark Fergerson wrote:
>
>> Scott Stephens wrote:
>>
>>> Mark Fergerson wrote:

>>>>> Not so sure about that. There is Biblical precedent for it
>>>>> (Mathew the publican, Nicodemus.

> My mistake; Nicodemus wasn't the guy I was thinking of.

   S'all right, I was ignoring Pilate in my take on what happened with
Barabbas.

>>> Not merely just cultural, myths are the vehicle to teach
>>> objective truth. Were talking about evolving culture. We don't
>>> criticize ancient cultures for not flying around in jets, or
>>> communicating with radios.

>> Of course, and yet most cultures that appear very different on
>> their "surfaces" have the same constant values; Home, Hearth, and
>> Family, even though the borders and extent of those distinctions
>> are shaded from culture to culture. But then we're getting into the
>> genetic imperatives that generate those objective truths you
>> mention.

   I said that because in humans, the imperative of continuing one's
genetic line is dependent on maintaining a family structure due to
infants' lack of ability to survive on their own. That dependence is
expanded in clan and tribal associations (the word "nation" means a
bunch of people related by birth), and is "explained" by very similar
myth structures worldwide.

   Once the fact that all six billion of us are cousins becomes
commonplace, maybe things will settle down a bit.

<snip>

>> ...a strange thing happens in 3:22,23; God now speaks in a
>> different "voice" to a different "audience" to the point that Adam
>> "has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil" and must be
>> driven from the garden for a specific reason, so that he might not
>> become immortal.
>>
>> Now again, analytically, is becoming immortal right, or wrong?
>> Being prevented from doing so was clearly _not_ part of the
>> punishment for disobedience, but rather a standalone pre-emptive
>> measure. Why, what consequences did God see for a single person
>> living long enough to reason out the full consequences of their new
>> knowledge?

> I understand death to mean soul-death; separation from God,
> self-destruction consequent from living according to delusion. You
> have a fine objection if your purpose is to find fault rather than
> inspiration.

   But "soul death" as you define it is flatly impossible for individuals
in the larger sense except possibly for sociopaths; the least twinge of
conscience is proof that the "soul" is still kicking. This is a matter
of Absolutes again; the only real humans capable of being fully
"godlike" or fully "devilish" are extremely rare, thus are exceptions to
the general rule that we all embody both extremes, just not simultaneously.

   In that view, Genesis is a paradox; being ejected is equivalent to
being freed from the delusion that our acts don't have consequences, yet
preventing us from achieving immortality is equivalent to condemning us
to the "devilish" pile. That might be "resolved" by making it equivalent
to the actuality that few real humans embody "godliness" fulltime, but
why not just say so?

   And yes, I find fault with attempts to impose Absolutes on the real.
For me, better to recognize the messy reality and mitigate it as well as
possible. Oversimplifying such important things shaves off too much.

>> I agree with your point about cultural myths; I prefer to take this
>> part of Genesis as a Cautionary Tale set as a "Coming Of Age"
>> story, in which Adam and Eve learn that their actions have
>> consequences. This type of cultural myth is seen in other cultures
>> illustrating the same objective truth.

> I identify several morales. Such as delusion, refusing to see reality
> for what it is but rather corrupting ones awareness and reason, as
> the original sin. Blaming others. Sacrificing others to self. Fear of
> truth (nakedness before God).

   Concur. All these strike me as subthemes developed from the central
theme of responsibility for one's actions.

>>> I'm of the same opinion. People organize for benevolent purpose
>>> or for government, hire individuals to manage and serve, but
>>> somewhere along the line organization capsizes and management
>>> rather than serving, begins expecting the individuals to live for
>>> and serve them!

>> The type that "rises to the top" is always looking for new and
>> better crowd control tools to manage the "urge to serve" to their
>> benefit.

> Being rational and reasonable is the latest evolutionary development.
> Ignorance and meanness is the norm. Learning how to dumb-down or
> brainwash inferiors with brutality and excuses is naturally
> discovered. But so is wisdom, after enough suffering enlightens
> individuals & culture.

   Yep. "Us vs. Them" is the original and ongoing justification for Rule
by Delegated Brutality. Eventually we as a species will realize that
there really isn't any "Them" on the entire planet.

> Its the intention to find fault in something like religion that I
> have a problem with. I can laugh and mock Pat Robertson for
> demonstrating how to abuse religion for political ends, until I see
> some pornographic depiction of a Christian, as in "Family Guy".

   It's _organized_ religion I find fault with, because it so quickly
devolves to Crowd Control by the use of "dumbing down" tactics as
opposed to doing what it was intended for, namely humanizing people.

> What is the purpose and intent for the ridicule? Is it to free stupid
> Christians from delusion, or is it one gang degrading and dominating
> another gangs influence?

   AFAICT, some of both. Don't forget that there's more than one group
wrangling for Control of the Crowd. Once one set of delusions are
exposed and discarded, others can be substituted.

>>> Matter and energy is that which obeys principle, and principle is
>>> that which defines matter and energy.

>> Sounds good so far, except you've arbitrarily separated Principle
>> from both Cause and Effect.

> A 4-dimensional space-time object doesn't have cause or effect, it
> has a direction, with a peculiar pattern based on organizing
> "principle" along its dimensions. Causality is a perspective you get
> when immersed in 3d space looking into the time dimension Future
> direction. "Principle" is pattern printed on the 4d tapestry.
> Principle such field equations, conservation of energy and increasing
> disorder.

   Fine, except that leaves no room for Free Will. I prefer a modified
Many Worlds Interpretation.

>>> Rand said reason is an absolute.

>> Well, Rand _would_ say that, but then she was fighting back almost
>> singlehandedly against a tide of Spiritualism that threatened to
>> completely destroy all vestiges of Materialism.

> Thinking back 50 years, I would say she was singlehandedly fighting
> back a tide of amoral, socialist atheism threatening to destroy all
> vestiges of popular fundamentalism.

   Absolutes again? Reason vs. Faith? Being a Buddhist, I seek a Middle
Ground.

>> But note that she didn't completely discount spirituality (note
>> lack of capitalization) when trying to construct a basis for the
>> Materialistic culture she advocated.

> She defined the spiritual as that pertaining to consciousness, the
> cognitive, not ghosts that inhabit machines. And she denied
> materialism (such B.F. Skinner) that denies free-will. Materialists
> to her, were valueless, amoral nihilists. Objectivism asserts values
> and morality based on individual life. Kind of like Buddhism, a
> religion with duties but no deity? Duties to self and reality, rather
> than others though.

   Yep, it seemed to me she was trying for a synthesis, recognizing that
Duty to Others had to fit in somewhere. I'm thinking of _Atlas Shrugged_
in which she pitted individual excellence against the general
population getting ground under the wheels of Progress.

   Sloppily speaking, Buddhism recognizes Duty to Others through the
ideas that Others are part of one's reality just as one is part of
others' reality, which leads to the Enlightened individual (one who
"gets it") who rather than totally rejecting the material through
physical death, willingly lives on in order to pass on Enlightenment to
others.

   Not that I've fully "gotten it" yet...

   Mark L. Feregrson

Relevant Pages

  • koko, why i think she cant talk
    ... Koko cant truly talk.as a student of anthropology. ... now the reason why i actually stress this fact is ... needed to constantly change our culture to survive.it ... communicate required more thought. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: The Long Way Home (was Re: Retro Review: Out Around Rigel, by Robert H. Wilson)
    ... Anderson could assume whatever he wanted about the engineering culture ... become so cautious that progress slows to a snail's creep, so reckless ... Poul Anderson set the launch of his hypothetical starship," who knows? ... One reason for this was that the Americans and Soviets were in a race ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
  • Re: They Just Dont Make Em Like That Any More!
    ... below replacement, last time I checked, and the only reason the USA's ... Islamics don't assimilate more and better. ... Add to that the low economic growth in western Europe ... expect Latin culture to ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
  • Is todays culture making some people crazy?
    ... Is today's culture making some people crazy? ... Psychosis in the 21st century looks something like this: ... Those thoughts are from three case studies of what psychiatrists ... are calling, respectively, Truman Show delusion, Internet delusion and ...
    (sci.med.psychobiology)
  • Re: OT - But Incredible - Goodbye Europe
    ... culture, or wether they will push their own culture upon the population. ... My copy of 'The Force of Reason' by Oriana Fallaci, ... The socialist credo and the muslim tyranny- the tyranny of the cartoon ...
    (rec.martial-arts)