Interview that mentions Post-Modernism
telicalbook
Gabriel Morales quoting Meister Eckhart:
"We shall find God in everything alike, and find God always alike in
everything."
"Whoever possesses God in their being, has him in a divine manner, and
he shines out to them in all things; for them all things taste of God
and in all things it is God's image that they see."
"It is a fair trade and an equal exchange: to the extent that you
depart from things, thus far, no more and no less, God enters into you
with all that is his, as far as you have stripped yourself of yourself
in all things. It is here that you should begin, whatever the cost, for
it is here that you will find true peace, and nowhere else." -- Meister
Eckhart
G: Explain what it is to "know God" (which does not necessarily mean
just the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God) and how this can be a holistic
spirituality/philosophy as opposed to single-note "comfort"
ideologies such as liberalism, communism, biological racism, social
Darwinism, conservatism, environmentalism, anarchism, so on.
R: I believe that when one "knows God" one is eventually beginning to
understand there is no dichotomy between one's best intention for
oneself and God's intention for oneself . I believe when one knows God,
one knows that all people are of equal value to God, because all people
are created in the image of God. Being created in the image of God
means, all people are thinking, feeling, and though it might not seem
like it, but they can be or were at one point and may be again, caring
and loving individuals. God programmed a certain loving nature into our
souls, into our bodies. When a cat relaxes, and feels secure, it
naturally purrs and seems happy. We are created in the same way. Our
emotions are naturally positive, a type of instinctual purring, that
some people can tune into very easily, when they slow their thinking
and focus on their physical body, and/or their breathing. The emotion
is always there, and if it is not stressed or attached, it is positive.
That is why the Buddha is always blissful, because he is not attached
and he is focused. So, knowing God means knowing all these positive
things about reality, that we are essentially a part of God. Even
though we have no knowledge of creating the world, or of anything
before our birth, when we come to know God, we eventually do not feel
any more dichotomy between ourselves and God. There is no separateness.
This isn't to say that evangelical Christians do not know God in some
respect. The bible said that God is love. That is hard for a lot of
people to understand, because the bible also gave the Mosaic and
Pauline law regarding how people are to be treated when they are
"missing perfection," or that is, when they sin, or "miss the mark."
But negative actions in life produce negative results in life. If you
become addicted to drugs or pornography, you are going to have a pretty
screwed up life. It's just the way it is. So, it's helpful for people
to see a kind of map about what to watch out for. This is also a part
of knowing God. Knowing one's limitations. You have to limit your
definition of God. That is why I am sometimes drawn to Christianity,
because it both says God is so far outside of our comprehension but
that God is also like a loving Father, or a being that would die for
us. The symbol of the death and suffering of the creator for the
creation is pretty advanced. So, all that bad stuff that supposedly the
religion's God say for us to do or don't do are not to be taken so
seriously, as they themselves state, but if we remove the dichotomy, it
is like we ourselves would tell ourselves, about how to live life and
have a good time doing it.
So, the bible basically seems to say God is love and that we should
love each other and then it also seems to tell us how to judge each
other and get stressed out about going to hell. But these warnings are
for the sociological aspect of keeping bad people in line. Most of us
have or can get that bad side. You have to really be smart to figure it
all out. Most fundamentalists obviously haven't yet.
As far as "how this can be a holistic spirituality/philosophy as
opposed to single-note "comfort" ideologies," I believe that
knowing God is an expansive existential benefit whereas having a dogma
or a set system of beliefs can tend to muck things up, as history
pretty well shows. If everyone just knew God then they would know that
God wants us to love each other outside of our differences, and I
believe this includes caring for animals as well. Any time you love
someone or even an animal, you are rewarded for this. When people are
defending an ideology based on psychological or sociological reasons,
they do not often get the spiritual benefit from it. And obvious,
neither does anyone else.
G: Would you suggest that those who wish to know what it is to search
for God turn to the works of Meister Echkart or Arthur Schopenhauer
before reading the Bible (as one must be psychologically healthy when
reading this, lest they misconstrue it to bolster their self-image)?
R: I have read Schopenhauer more that Echkart. Schopenhauer wrote some
very good philosophy as far as the technicality of it. You can learn a
lot about how to think from reading him. But, of course, he made a lot
of statements that classified him as an atheistic philosopher, and a
pessimist. He doesn't believe in the immortality of the soul. He's
still worth reading, if only to find out how you can disagree with him.
As far as Echkart, he wasn't one of the mystics that I've read much of,
so I can't comment on that part of your questions. However, since I
don't think he's that much different than what I was reading, I will
tell you what I was familiar with when I started reading the bible. I
started with reading the Bhagavad Gita, The Dharmapada,, the Tao te
Ching, the Ouspensky/Gurdjieff books, Castanada, an Alan Watts book on
Zen as well as Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and other
popular "hippie books" by the time I was 17, as well as skimming
Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine and Isis Unveiled, which I no longer care
much for. I had read Yogananda's Autobiography, and got his weekly
lessons, starting when I was 15. I had dropped out of school
temporarily at 16 and spent about six months just reading these
philosophy books.
At that time I was also trying to find the most experimental art and
literature, so I had already had a copy of Burroughs and Gysin's "The
Third Mind" which is pretty much Burrough's big book on the cut-up
technique and his ideas about the philosophy of language. I was raised
Catholic, went to Catholic school, was an alter boy, and really enjoyed
the ritual of the mass when I helping it along. So, when I started
reading the bible for myself also at that time with reading all the
other books, I was reading it from a very altered perspective that
didn't have a lot of groundedness in normal culture. I used my
creativity and applied it to religious thinking. I was still pretty
much a child in many ways. If anything, the bible I thought was telling
me to be a radical with life and that life was not set up the way it
could be. My way of thinking at the time was that the bible could have
all these esoteric codes written in them, because Yogananda and
Ouspensky would mystify the world so that such things existed. I lived
in a kind of fairy tale world, which is the exact opposite of a lot of
people who seem to be disadvantaged by racism, or some other kind of
psychologically unhealthy thing.
What I did was a perfectly normal thing, but of course my parents were
not at all happy with this. But the whole idea of self-image is
interesting in religion because often religion can keep you punishing
yourself because you don't measure up. It's almost like you have to
totally lose religion to be free and in God. That is something you hear
Christians say, but I'm not sure that it's really that easy to do. So,
to answer your question fully, it seems like there could be a lot of
really good things one should bring to the bible to understand it
better. One of those things is ecology. The bible says that we should
be the stewards of the earth.
G: There are these two extremes on a scale: hyperreligiosity on one
end, atheism on the other. You've debunked zealotry on your website,
but what do you think of cynics, fatalists, agnostics, and the
proponents of secularity?
R: Well, each side seems to blame the other side. I think neither side
has it totally correct. I'm attracted to religion because I see that it
does a lot of good things for people who have been very hurt.
Alcoholics Anonymous for instance is a religious program. The missions
that house homeless people in downtown urban areas are religion-based.
Secularists sometimes like to think that we came from a glorious past.
Secularists are either thinking that some secularist would come in and
do the job the religious people are doing, or that these unfortunate
people should just essentially disappear somehow. I am very upfront
about the mammalian nature of humankind. The whole physical world has
this basic animalistic nature to it and humankind does as well.
Religion tempers that, and when it works, then it graduates to
spirituality. Secularists don't look at the problem about how will
people get the good results that religion gives to people if religious
influences dry up. I don't know why they avoid talking about the good
things the religions do.
The secularists are often correct about things, however. I believe that
we need both types of people. This goes back to your question about
God, because ultimately, we really can't say that we know what God's
ultimate plan is for us, except that it's something good. We evolved to
the state we are in because some people were able to put down
simplistic worldviews that religion helped create. The problem is, that
people are very often way too simplistic on both sides. Even people who
consider themselves brilliant, as many cynics, fatalists, and aetheists
do, are often very simple minded about most everything. Anyone who
takes a polarity issue is simple minded. Secularists and fundamentalist
religionists take either-or and black-and-white thinking. Perhaps
everyone except maybe about five percent of people take some kind of
extreme polarity position, but statistics tells you that the mean or
the average is what you are after. There is a lot of truth in
moderatism. Why more people are adamant moderates is a good question
because I think that is where the truth lies. But of course a moderate
has to take into account the extremes to really be a moderate. He can't
ignore what environmentalists or nutritional activists are saying and
still really be a moderate.
Religion sometimes can make a bad person good but it can also make a
good person bad. There are many people in the world today who are
living below their education level because they got into some trouble
and found a simplistic answer to their problem. I think this is like a
natural psychological cycle that happens often to people. The problem
with cynics and other effects of secularity is that they totally ignore
the healing affect of religion, or spirituality in general. If you read
the books of the lives of the so called saints in the Catholic church,
you'll see that those people did incredible things for their
communities, like set up hospitals and schools. I've seen many
secularists who are as bad as any kind of zealot.
G: What does it take to maintain a state of temperance as in a steady
Virtuism?
Well, when you say Virtuism, the meaning I would give that word is in
the same subject grouping as the words Surrealism, or Existentialism. I
find by searching through Google that a few people have used it in as
more of a common noun. But Virtuism to me is both a philosophy and art
form that looks at acts of virtue as giving the aesthetic experience.
So, it is a prolonged look at the art form of creating virtue around
you. Philosophically, it says that commonly understood notions of
virtue are important in society, to the self, to aesthetics and to
science. We will always be rewarded if we think in that way, and we
should look at why acts of virtue give us the aesthetic experience. Why
were we created in such a way to feel blissful when we are not
stressing out and when people have gratitude towards us? Why do certain
aspect of virtue sometimes have a physiologically regenerating quality?
Temperance doesn't come naturally to some people, and it's culturally
indicated. That is, Europeans can drink alcohol every day, but if you
drink alcohol every day as an American, some people are going to call
you an alcoholic. But, there is a kind of psychological maturity in
ideas of temperance. For instance, Erik Erikson said that promiscuity
was one of the signs that one hasn't achieved a state of adult
maturity. It is a bit like peeling an onion. There are so many ways
people can become dysfunctional. You know there are actual scientific
psychological reasons why people clutter, and scientific psychological
methods on how one can declutter one's life?
To maintain a state of temperance is a great goal for an artist because
our backgrounds are often those of someone who likes to party, the kind
of artist who smokes and drinks. I realized that I'm hurting my body if
I do that, and I've had to do a lot of work on myself to not smoke.
Obviously, many artists don't live long healthy lives. Often their art
becomes this document of the downward physical spiral. So, when I see
such art, I see what forces in the person created it, and what that
kind of thinking may lead to in myself. I've overcome some of those
negative things in myself, so I'm not pointing a finger. I am prone to
falling into that lifestyle, whereas a lot of people are not prone, and
they come from an outsider perspective.
G: Studies have shown that listening to classical music can develop
one's neuro-pathways, mnemonic skills, mathematical computing,
visualization (artistic abilities). According to the Gnostic Samael Aun
Weor, primarily rhythmic music such as rock stimulates animalistic
regions of the brain (especially when accompanied by aggressive/vulgar
lyrics). You've come to decide that it is futile to "gold mine" rock by
developing experimental rock genres which includes progressive rock,
field recording, art punk, minimalism, metal, etc, since they each have
- as you put it - a limiting "power structure" that is irrelevant to
the real values of music (not to mention that popular rock culture is
often destructive and egotistical).
R: I wouldn't put field recording and minimalism in that experimental
rock genre. I think they are outside it. I don't think it's futile to
develop more progressive sub-genres as long as one can maintain one's
objectivity about it. As far as the experimental rock genre thing, the
cult of personality aspect I was referring to but didn't spell out so
well also dealt with the fact that the verbiage surrounding rock or its
sub-genres isn't anything like the verbiage surrounding classical
music. That verbal history is one thing that can help us mature when we
get into classical more. Also, time has elapsed with so-called
classical music. You can't get stuck in the trend aspect of it like you
can with some rock-based music. Some people are going to think that one
kind of offshoot rock is really more than what it really is. There is a
legion of people all over the world that consider themselves serious
composers because they do musique concrete type music, or field
recording, or "lowercase" sound. These circles are sometimes not based
on anything more than how politically powerful these people are in a
sociological way, how artistically they can package their music, how
often they can afford to tour and promote their music, and so on. The
music press on that level isn't anything different. Classical music is
our salvation because it is outside of that. When one listens to enough
great classical music one can tell when some modern so-called serious
music is useless to one, and one won't feel trapped by the sociological
underpinnings of having to impress one's peers. It can lift one out of
not having the kind of interpersonal political muscle or economic
prowess one needs to get ahead in such genres like that.
Regarding your quote from Samael Aun Weor, my question is: How would
someone who listens to primarily rock music ever come to know that they
were not stimulating their brain in that way? If rock listeners were
stimulated only in an animalistic region of their brain by rock music,
they by nature they would never develop the intelligence or insight to
understand this. So, informing someone of this fact who listens to
primarily or even solely rock music is probably going to be useless. I
see my music as kind of a gateway to classical music.
It's interesting that you raised this question to me, because I was
thinking of writing some kind of essay called something like "My Escape
from Rock." To be in the rock and roll mentality is at the same time an
amazingly attractive and also amazingly limited and pretentious way to
live. I was in the inner circle of the first 100 or so people who were
dedicated to what became the Grunge rock thing in Seattle. An early
experimental band I was in developed into the band Feast, which had the
drummer from Mudhoney in it. So, I hung out with all those guys back in
84-88 before I left the rock and roll mentality completely. To give
myself an out, I was also hanging out with painters who only listened
to classical music, and other people who were very much outside of the
rock and roll thing. But, back then I liked to party and these people
were my friends so I spent a lot of time with them. I guess you could
say I experienced a golden age of rock because the Grunge sound and
bands doing it were all totally developed by 1986. Of course, back
then, it was all the creators of such an "aesthetic," it wasn't
commercialized and there weren't crass people around. I was composing
experimental music at that time, but I seemed to better socialize with
artists who had more of a rock and roll backdrop. I mention this just
so you know that I do not come from an outsider perspective when I talk
about rock. However, around 1984, I went through a period where I
personally only listened to classical music. It was a liberating
experience. I was able to be more scientific in my thinking. My music
and writing took off by leaps and bounds.
It only lasted about six months or so, because I was so conditioned by
rock that I emotionally craved it. And when I say rock, I was a bit of
a connoisseur. I was listening to prog rock and European synthesizer
music such as Synergy and Tangerine Dream as a young teenager, and then
getting into the punk thing from 15-20, in 1978-82, as well as
Industrial bands by age 20, in 1983. After I got out of the rock
lifestyle, by which I mean, when I stopped going to clubs and being a
type of combination groupie/adoring magi to these bands, I was able to
develop professionally. This of course also meant not partying as much,
which was a tremendous help. So, again, I say these things by what I've
experienced personally. I unfortunately still listen to rock, but it's
very varied, and definitely not a part of what the youth subculture
press is telling me is hip. Lately, I've listened a lot to Stereolab,
Kahimi Karie, Yes, Gong and Kevin Ayers. Hawkwind, King's X, Magma, and
Echo and the Bunnymen/Ian McColluch solo material are also favorites.
This definitely doesn't sound like the Grunge sound! I think a lot of
those bands I mentioned evolve their musical structures in a way that
at times is similar to some classical music, or at least have
innovation that shows some artistry. But if I was listening to that
popular music I mentioned soley, I do believe I would be stuck in the
archetype of the power structure of it. As much or more as I listen to
that music as I go about my daily work, I'm working on and listening to
my own music. I went through another period in the last year where I
only listened to classical music outside my music. I had a relapse back
into rock music because I'm so emotionally tied to it. It has a healing
effect on me. But that doesn't mean that I am developing intellectually
from these times of playing this music. It instead means that something
in me is a bit hurt, and this kind of music kind of calms me down.
Another question is, how much do you want to grow and stimulate your
brain? How smart do you want to be? How valuable is it to you that you
become more intelligent? What does being more intelligent mean to you,
and are you willing to listen to mostly classical music to develop this
intelligence?
I look at my music as a type of gateway music into the world of
classical music. If I had a million dollars, I could afford to put all
my music on paper and hire classical musicians to play it. Some of it
is classical music and was meant to be heard that way. Some of it is a
type of post-rock music that it seems a lot of people are making.
Minimalism in classical music seems to be a post-rock classical music.
Rock obviously has a wonderful appeal. I'm going to make a list of the
rock music that has affected me most and put it on my web page, because
I've covered a lot of ground and there is no way that people could
"goldmine" rock that easily without such a reference. Not that I think
it would be the best rock or most progressive rock music, but if people
like what I do they might find this interesting as well. If classical
composers say they like folk music, then it's not wrong to say you like
rock music. I don't think listening to folk music all day would
stimulate your brain any more than rock music, but I could be wrong.
G: Do you think ambient is the only modern music genre still capable of
truly artistic structure, enhancing the mind, and being a think-tank
for transcendent ideals as classical was?
R: I really do not have any preference for ambient music personally. I
will tell you how some of my music took more of an ambient and
sometimes minimalist turn at times recently.
Five years ago I joined a local collective of experimental composers
here in Seattle called The Sonicabal. Some of the people I grew close
to performed a type of "ambient" music. I rely on composing based on
setting up musical environments, like figuring out patches and modes,
creating chord sequences, and thinking through other structures that
for me present an interesting idea. Then I "pray for my music" like
Coltrane said he did. I really try to ask God to work through me
through my music. I then record my music and it looks so far like I
have about a 30% release rate. That is, about 30% of what I do, I can
then say, "this is my music." So, the idea of performing live was a bit
scary for me for a lot of time since I didn't have that selective
methodology I could use in a live setting. I developed a style of
playing live where I could guarantee that I would have a good concert.
All the stuff I mentioned, including a lot of praying, was involved,
but I couldn't be as adventurous and try for as difficult a thing as I
would do recording at home. So, I fell into playing a little bit more
ambiently. I am going to release a few of my concerts on CD next year,
so people can hear how I developed my composing into a live format.
That's the connection I have with ambient music. A lot of the music I
heard around me tried to do those things you've mentioned, such as
Wesley Davis of Entropic Advance, who creates free form music. They
weren't into this redundant noise aesthetic of being harsh or silly,
which most of us older people have seen around now for over 20 years
G: What is special to you about electronic music?
R: What I personally take from electronic music that is special is the
ability to control large numbers of notes and get them to do what I
want them to do without having to actually play each note by hand. The
generative aspect of my sequencer techniques is the most special thing
about my modern electronic music because it allows me the freedom to
say complex things in my music, and to create such in a relatively
short period of time.
I also of course love to create interesting patches, but that is
somewhat displaced by the documenting of notes and progressions. My
electronic music often resembles the orchestral quality of the full
experience of music, I don't mean that in texture, I mean as far as the
busyness of actual notes and their resolutions. I am not often
attracted to electronic music, even academic electronic music, that
sounds like abrasive noise. I think that's some of the most pretentious
music around. I like, a little bit more what's known as lowercase sound
but I do not like it that much. It often has a thin quality to it. It
is electronic music often composed on the computer and it has a heavy
trend-based aspect to it. That is, it is very much, "you are going to
write music within these parameters. In fact, you won't dare to write
anything outside them." Sometimes, one of these composers will create
something interesting and kind of quirky but not that much of it has
the rich organic, or maybe I should say, human, feel that I like in
music. The "lowercase sound" music is kind of the aural equivalent of
modern visual art that isn't always saying much but has an interesting
texture. My electronic music has a more robust feel that is more
similar to classical music, or good rock music. There is a lot of
potential in the lowercase sound field, but those people have to kind
of grow up and become a part of the larger picture of humanity for
their music to gel. They have to realize that you do not need to
recreate why people listen to music. If people try to do that, maybe
they are doing it to look sophisticated and cultured, which I guess is
fine, because the opposite isn't that good either. So, although I love
modern visual art for all it's freedom, I often crave more intense
compositional layouts. Hieronymous Bosch is one of my favorite painters
because his compositional schemas are so intense. There isn't that much
electronic music presently existing that using the complexity of the
great classical symphonists and also has any kind of harmonic richness
to it. I don't buy into the school of "deep listening" either. It's all
such old school stuff to me. It's something I would have found
sophisticated as a 15 year old.
I like the field recording collagists like Michael Northan or Francisco
Lopez more because there is a great richness to some of their music.
You might put that in the electronic music category, but it's really
not electronically generated sound, however it absolutely requires
electronic instruments such as the digital recorder and mixer to
create.
So, personally, outside my music, I do not hear all that much of
interest in electronic music that I am that much interested in. I would
like to find more. Often, I see there are academic composers that are
brilliant technicians of electronic music but they have nothing good to
say to the physiological whole of a person. They seem to think that
music should feel bad to listen to, to be good. Such misguided people
have always roamed the halls of academia and the academic life seems
necessary to create such misguided people. These are people that have
to impress people of their technicality and route knowledge to keep
their jobs.
I am not against academia at all. In fact, I highly respect it. I often
regret that I didn't follow the post-graduate academic path because I
had the opportunity, but then I have gained some good things by not
doing it. Hopefully my work will eventually register more with academia
without me actually having to be employed by a university. I've already
had an academic call me from out of the blue and tell me that what I
was doing in writing had significant impact on "the history of science"
and a philosophy professor praised my Virtuism writing. So far, I
haven't shopped my music around as much as my writing, but it occupies
as much space in my life. I am like many other people: a polyartist --
an artist that has more than one art. I will probably eventually edit a
book on polyartistry because so many people are and we have to go
through some stigmas associated with it.
G: Like Christopher Alexander, creator of "Pattern Language", you
yourself have created a computer tool - "ParaMind Brainstorming
Software" - that helps the common folk expand their ideas thus provides
greater possibility for creation. Theodore Kaczynski made the analysis
of post-industrial society in his FC Manifesto as being essentially
dysgenic. Had we a spiritually healthy outlook for living, do you
suppose humankind would be fine continuing the development of
technology which would then only include mechanisms such as yours that
are useful instead of machines that promote sloth (chat rooms,
television, video games, etc.), or should technology in general be
extremely limited as is wished by eco-fascists?
R: Yes, I do think that having a spiritual outlook changes everything.
One doesn't have to even use that term "spiritual," one can say
virtuous. In reality, being virtuous is pragmatic. One can take or
leave the negative aspects of our societies as they see fit. One can
always mute the commercials, which I always try to do. I can't stand
hearing commercials. They are often extremely insidious to me. Or, one
can just not have a TV at all. Of course, academically, one can say
there is much wrong with how many people live their lives. Look at how
many people are obese in America. I think that comes solely from the
fact that they can't control themselves because they are programmed by
television to think that eating anything is a right. Eating is more
like a carefully monitored responsibility than a sensual indulgence.
People need to follow good eating habits to have a healthy life but
that isn't so easy for a lot of people. What can be done in a situation
like that? People like Kacynski thought that monitoring society would
make people free from evil. But next door to the obese person is
someone who is trim and fit. One has to understand that people tend to
react to the laws of entropy. We are meant to evolve by our own
consciousness and effort. You can't legislate evolution in this way,
although I believe legislation is one of the most important things we
have and the integrity of our court system must be protected at all
costs.
It's interesting to see that so many of our science fiction scenarios
are dystopias. We rarely can create futuristic dreams about more
positive outcomes of this existence of ours. It's hard for people to
have the insight that the alpha males and females are often wrong. The
alpha males and females in our society allow which writers to create
what scenarios in what media. Since the alpha males and females got
there by mostly a type of brute strength, the only kind of science
fiction they allow to pass through is coming from this fear-based or
brutality-based imagination.
5.) Being influenced by Tristan Tzara, are you also familiar with
Julius Evola and therefore Rene Guenon?
As far as Julius Evola, I look at him as a little bit immature and
scary because of his political leanings, but I will say he is the only
author I've ever heard of the idea about an "occult warfare." That's an
interesting topic that I have actually thought about a lot and even
practiced in my own way during a couple periods in my life. When you
think about it, though you can see that the idea is in a lot of
mythologies and spiritual texts including the bible. If change can come
about first on an inner psychological level, such as prayer, and there
aren't enough people praying for the right things, then there is
something wrong which can be fixed.
The Surrealist movement said that their aim was not to create poetry or
painting but to recreate life. The Situationalists tried to further get
art out of the art gallery, and instead created situations in life. At
least this is my primary understanding of Situationalism. I was never
into Marxism or doing overt political activism and the Situationalists
were both, so I haven't gotten into them that much. In 1988, I thought
the ultimate Virtuist art to be a type of fusion of the internal
"magical ritual"/prayer of the magi/religious with the idea of a type
of performance art in my mind. I decided to make this my life, a type
of prayer in action. Since my magical worldview at the time believed
that whatever was done in the mind could have an impact "in the astral
world" or be seen by angels and even the dead, whoever it was who was
telepathic, I thought that it might have some objective merit
I looked at the idea of a golden age to be a type of structure, a type
of performance art. My artwork was taking place in my imagination, but
because of my absolute belief in esotericism at that time, also taking
place in the astral plane. One day, I declared in my "inner plane" to
be the start of a golden age -- not just for me but for those who were
my "invisible audience." Where it might lead anyone out there could
determine, hope for, or even accomplish. This seemed to me at the time
to be the logical conclusion of these esoteric ideas. All this was
heavily influenced by Salvador Dali's "Paranoiac Critical" method, as
he describes it in his book "Diary of a Genius," which was and still is
one of my favorite books.
>From July 29, 1988 to December of that year, I created within my
imagination many mystical experiences that I thought had a higher
significance. I never told anyone about this. On the outside, I mostly
appeared normal, but sometimes I wasn't. Since this was also the bottom
of my substance abuse period, I sometimes acted like the typical drunk,
like doing lewd things in art galleries, and so on. I have no idea if I
wasn't called up to some higher purpose in all this, a part of some
greater prayer that everyone was having at that time about disarmament.
Everyone was so paranoid about disarmament, which is understandable,
and there were many marches, group prayers, and so on. The cold war did
end a few years later, which was the major threat, so relatively, we
moved to more of a golden age for earth. The idea that change is
possible by some strong act that goes on behind closed doors may be a
very powerful idea for good. So, what I've seen from my own experience
is that a lot of people get very delusional with these occult ideas.
Since I have some of the background of Evola and Guenon in
understanding where they are coming from, I can see into much of what
they're saying. They tend to idolize everything except that which they
are naturally born to. The East is better because they are the West. I
did this myself when I was younger but ideas progress as time goes on.
The ideas that men fifty years ago thought were the most innovative and
groundbreaking are understood today by teenagers, and bypassed by those
teenagers when they become adults. This happened with me with the idea
of Deconstructionism. I didn't realize I was being taught basic
principles of Derrida's deconstructionism in college without anyone
ever really mentioning him by name. But when I started to read about
his work much seemed so obvious to me.
I don't really want to get into politics, but for an example of this,
Evola says, in American "Civilisation":
"In a superior civilization (to America), as, for example, that of the
Indo-Aryans, the being who is without a characteristic form or caste
(in the original meaning of the word), not even that of servant or
shudra, would emerge as a pariah. "
Evola is completely anti-American, and if we look at the fascist old
caste system of India, or Soviet Communism, or one-thousand other
regimes that have come up in the last hundred years, we should see by
now that no government is perfect.
The idea of people considering the Indo-Aryan, or Hindu, caste system
as superior to America is a little strange. I don't see him basing it
on anything logical, but of course it sounds exotic. The fact that
Evola's name is tarnished with fascism, and fascism never meaning
anything good, hasn't led me to study his work. Often when people try
to make things better than existing forms, they make it much worse.
This was the history of much of the 20th Century. I think
Post-modernism has understood that, and I'm glad for it. When things
are stable and there aren't bullets being heard in the background, and
your not walking through fresh rubble, and you can pretty much read
what you want to, I think people should be grateful. Agitators, and I'm
not talking about activists, are often guided by political motives than
are less than virtuous.
Regarding Rene Guenon, I feel like I have some similarity to him. I
just published two books called "The Experience of Hallucinations in
Religious Practice, " and "Hyperreligiosity: Identifying and Overcoming
Religious Dysfunction." As one writer put it, Guenon was against the
psuedo-intellectualism of modern esotericisms and favored instead the
traditional approaches to spiritual growth. I am the same way, except I
tend to look also at modern brain science and psychology when
understanding esotericism, brain science which Guenon didn't have.
Theosophy always said it was "Science, Philosophy, and Religion" but if
they knew what modern neurologists understood about hallucination they
would understand their canon, that is the writers such as Leadbeater
and Bailey, a lot better. I was never a Theosophist but I knew an
amazing one who grew up in a New York Theosophical family and who was a
close friend for many years. The Theosophy I was taught by her was
adamantly against talking to spirits and astral travel. It was like
somehow the Holy Spirit was guiding it because this realm of talking to
spirits is where people begin to get really crazy. Her Theosophy was
also extremely academic. My teacher had these large medallions on her
wall of many major figures, such as Ramon Lull, Paracelsus and Agrippa.
And she was totally service based.
I am writing a book that is critical of some of the ideas of the
philosopher Gurdjieff, which maintaining an appreciation for the good
ideas of his which have helped me and I've practiced since a teenager.
But no one else has ever had some of these oddball ideas that Gurdjieff
came up with, and some of them I think are just wrong. But his very
educated followers seem to take them fully as theWord of God. It gets
extremely nefarious in the case of Gurdjieff, because he had ideas that
stated mankind's purpose is to be a type of food for the moon unless
man can escape! You can see what has happened to the pristine idea that
man was created in the image of God. About five years ago there were
two major human philosophical dystopic movies: The Matrix and The
X-files movie, and the very idea that human life was created for
something not so beautiful comes right out of Gurdjieff. His followers
might not want to admit that, but it's in the books, black and white.
I like the reputation of Guenon ironing out some of the flaws of things
like Theosophy, because I see myself doing that with some the
Gurdjieffian ideas and whatever crop of new crazy thinking that has
come up.
I think esotericism can be a mask a person hides behind, to just play
with words. In this way, Gurdjieff had something to say, because people
are meant to balance themselves out, to do things they couldn't do, and
do things that they don't even want to do. But the goal of spirituality
isn't supposed to be some kind of boot camp either, nor provide
obsessive people the means to display their mental disease.
God doesn't requires us to be that sophisticated when it comes to
spirituality. Esotercism is made for man, not for God. I never met
Guenon so I can't tell you what kind of person he was but he may not
have really made a difference to the uneducated or "common" man when he
met that uneducated or "common" man in the course of his life.
Esotercists that are just part of an educated class and bandy about
difficult ideas do not impress most people. They will impress each
other, however. The end point in this is that the universe is obviously
much greater than what we commonly perceive, and if esotericism can
help you see into that, I think that's great. However, there are many
pitfalls, and if people don't realize this, it may because they are in
one.
G: Do you think Radical Traditionalism is a good solution for men and
women today who need a way to expand their intellectual understanding
of cosmic truth, to really see what is inherent in reality?
R: I don't think that Radical Traditionalism is really a good solution
to understand cosmic truth. Cosmic truth seems to operate on two
levels: on the level of science, and on the level of love. I see
Radical Traditionalism being more aligned with politics, and as far as
politics, we've seen how horrific change in that area quickly becomes.
When you say cosmic truth that means to me like not only understanding
the need and importance of love, but the need and importance of
epistemological truth and empowerment. I'm someone who wants a full
life, and, when I'm not doing periods of mostly writing or composing,
lives a full life. It's easy to get into mysticism and just say, well,
I've found God, I don't need sex or much money. Mysticism will fulfill
you totally. But often, most of us want companionship and even things
like travel which usually take money. Companionship as an artist or
thinker often means moving in the educated classes, which has an
element of competitiveness in it, as does mating in those realms. Some
people don't experience this but some people do. So, I think cosmic
truth also means understanding what it takes to get what you want in
this world. I think more unique people are disempowered by normal ideas
of religion against this capacity. I'm someone who can accept things
like the caballa or the tarot cards and also the Judeo-Christian ideas
because I have no contradictions in them. For instance, the bible says
"do not do any divination nor talk to spirits." Well, I do not use the
tarot for divination, but the tarot can be useful as a system of
archetypes of events. Some people do not get to experience all these
events, but seeing the tarot in this way could be a healing modality. I
also see as helpful a type of caballistic system based on the four
elements, as the psychological states of movement (air), expansion
(fire), solidification (earth) and condensation (water). The Gurdjieff
ideas I take only as an esoteric psychology. Since I have a deep belief
in God and prayer, I do not need to have much more than these things. I
do not believe in talking to spirits or conjuring them or using them.
I think what's most important is that people can have a secure base.
These dreams of utopias and major changes in society seem to me
delusional. There are always people who aren't going to understand your
intentions. The world is a fabric of billions of wills all intertwined.
In any country, the idea of national movement can be very scary. The
very nature of living as a mammal is to experience pain and discomfort.
When you collectivize this pain and discomfort, in comes out in bigger
waves. Bloodshed often occurs. Many people are not wise enough to
understand this, even people who may be very intellectual.
I am not fully Post-modernist. I think instead that progress is a real
thing, and more inline with the Judeo-Christian tradition that many
would like to believe. This is my understanding after even a 27 year
exposure to esotericism. What these people who dismiss or even hate the
Judeo-Christian lineage don't realize is that they can not really see
in the mirror. They are often coming from a Judeo-Christian culture and
judging thing based on achievements and advances made by
Judeo-Christian thinkers.
I don't like Traditionalism so much because it tends to downplay the
achievements of the West. If a white person starts to talk about how
the West is superior, of course they are branded a racist, but if a
white person talks about how the East or Middle East is superior, or
even some kind of mythological golden pagan age of the past, then it's
OK. What is at issue here is that the white person in this case is
making a power move to establish that he is on the side with more
power. It doesn't matter that now he is on the so-called other side.
I've heard a white male Gurdjieffian with a Sufi bent tell me that
Muslims were the most spiritual people on earth. It's interesting to
think about the Traditionalist movement now with the rise of Islamic
terrorism. It wouldn't surprise me if there was some causal
relationship involved, but I'm not implying that. That all these things
are tarnished is pretty much in keeping with the ideas and progress
made in Post-modernism philosophy. Maybe in ways we progress beyond
what anyone has any comprehension of right now, and people are just
insecure about that so they try to throw back their thinking to
something old, and probably even imaginary and safe. I'm just trying to
be present now and observe.
G: Is it possible or necessary to have flawless logic?
R: No. Someone wise once said, "it is a very advance stage to
understand that one does not know." One can know however things like
God is love. There is a force that wants our good in this world. We
were created to be loved. Prayer works. Prayer like black magic won't
work. There is a limitation to the physical world, and this might even
apply to things like knowledge. If you pray for getting things in any
easy way, that often means other people are going to have to do things
to serve you. God doesn't favor people that way and the things that the
television preachers teach are partially blasphemy. Being virtuous
makes the universe act more virtuous to you because you become someone
stronger. When the storms hit, you have learned how to remember
yourself, to remember your inner core experience, the Tao in you, the
part of you that was created in the image of God and is not
corruptible. Your essence can be purely you, the you that you really
love and want.
It is possible to live in a state of grace. Knowing that is a type of
flawless logic. Do I believe in the mystics and masters who supposedly
have "flawless logic"? It's interesting. I can give you a link that has
about 200 international headlines of recent crimes that cults have
created. There is murder, child molestation, and every other kind of
crime you can think of. All of these were committed by people who
believed that one leader had flawless logic, or by the leader. We all
have to have a certain degree of humility to keep progressing.
G: If there's anything you'd like to add, please do so
R: Well, stay tuned to my website, www.rspearson.com. A lot of new
things will be coming in over the next year. I have more books
appearing as well as ten new CDs that were recorded over the last 20
years. Thank you for the great questions.
--
--
Robert Pearson
ParaMind Brainstorming Software http://www.paramind.net
Creative Virtue Press/Telical Books/Regenerative Music
http://www.rspearson.com
Kater Moggin
> R.S. Pearson Interview done with Gabriel Morales in 2005.
> G: Explain what it is to "know God" (which does not necessarily mean
> just the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God) and how this can be a holistic
> spirituality/philosophy as opposed to single-note "comfort"
> ideologies such as liberalism, communism, biological racism, social
> Darwinism, conservatism, environmentalism, anarchism, so on.
> R: ... Buddha is always blissful, because he is not attached
> and he is focused. So, knowing God means knowing all these positive
> things about reality, that we are essentially a part of God.
A very comforting outlook. He must have misunderstood the
question.
-- Moggin
telicalbook
Kater Moggin
> How do you figure?
Like so. The interviewer wants Pearson to explain how the
understanding of God in his philosophy differs from
"singe-note 'comfort' ideologies," but Pearson replies with the
very comforting assertion that "Buddha is always blissful," and
thus "knowing God means knowing all these positive things
about reality." So it seems he misundertood the question to be
about his philosophy's _similarity_ to other comforting
outlooks rather than about the differences -- if any -- between
them.
-- Moggin
telicalbook
Kater Moggin
> Check the fourth paragraph down.
Begin at the beginning. The interviewer wants Mr. Pearson
to explain how his way of looking at things is "opposed to
single-note 'comfort' ideologies." But Pearson seems to
misunderstand the question, since he answers that the Buddha is
always blissful and "knowing God means knowing all these
positive things about reality," thus aligning his outlook _with_
"comfort ideologies," not against them.
Later he tries again, stating, "I believe that knowing God
is an expansive existential benefit whereas having a dogma
or a set system of beliefs can tend to muck things up, as
history pretty well shows." Same deal: crediting his theology
with widespread benefits (he believes that "being virtuous
makes the universe act more virtuous to you") shows that he has
a very comforting perspective.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> R.S. Pearson Interview done with Gabriel Morales in 2005.
Couple of other points while we're talking. Pearson shows
how right-wing New Agers can be. He talks mainly like a
member in good standing of the therapy-culture ("I've had to do
a lot of work on myself"), but his rejection of sex, drugs, and
rock'n'roll would gladden the heart of any cultural
conservative. When he promotes virtue and temperance he sounds
quaintly Victorian.
He's critical of the idea that "mankind's purpose is to be
a type of food for the moon unless man can escape," which
"comes right out of Gurdjieff," according to him. I don't mind
taking his word it's there, but the theme is roughly two
thousand years older: Epiphanius discusses a group of gnostics
who say "the soul is the food of the Archons and Powers"
unless it escapes from their grasp (_Panarion_ 40.2.7-8, if you
want to take a look).
Now, what about this: Pearson says, "God wants us to love
each other outside of our differences, and I believe this
includes caring for animals as well. Any time you love someone
or even an animal, you are rewarded for this." "Even an
animal," huh? Well, nevermind his tone. If God thinks animals
should be well-cared for -- a thought that I agree with --
then how come he treats them so badly? Why does he make nature
red in tooth and claw?
Pearson again: "The bible said God is love. That is hard
for a lot of people to understand, because the bible also
gave the Mosaic and Pauline law regarding how people are to
be treated when they are 'missing perfection,' or that is, when
they sin, or 'miss the mark.'" Some people, evidently
including Pearson, miss the point that God _isn't_ equated with
love in the Books of Moses, which picture an unlovely deity
who curses his Creation, drowns most of its creatures, punishes
the righteous with the wicked, revenges himself on the sons
for the sins of their fathers, and institutes a theocracy where
dissenting is a capital crime.
The Pauline writings, like the Gospels, take more than one
position on the law, but often enough they stand strongly in
opposition, claiming that Jesus ended, abolished, or erased the
commandments (chapter and verse on request), or reduce its
contents to a handful of lines, leaving out by far the majority
of the Creator's dicta.
Back to Mr. Pearson:
But negative actions in life produce negative
results in life. If you become addicted to drugs
or pornography, you are going to have a pretty
screwed up life. It's just the way it is. So, it's
helpful for people to see a kind of map about what
to watch out for.
Testify! People have gotta watch out for sewing wool with
linen. (Leviticus 19:19.) That can really screw you up.
Think how many lives have been saved by the scriptures' command
against mixing fabrics.
So, all that bad stuff that supposedly the
religion's God say for us to do or don't do are
not to be taken so seriously, as they themselves
state, but if we remove the dichotomy, it is like
we ourselves would tell ourselves, about how to
live life and have a good time doing it.
Here Pearson is contradicted separately by both the OT and
the NT. Is God talking to himself when he orders the
Israelites to observe the sabbath? No. He stopped work on the
seventh day of Creation, long before, and he isn't stoning
himself to death when he orders a sabbath-breaker killed in Num.
15:32-36.
Oh, and by the way, Job is a slap in the face to Pearson's
idea that the universe rewards virtuous behavior: Yahweh
judges Mr. Job to be an exceedingly virtuous man, then lets him
suffer horribly at Satan's hands.
Over in the NT, Jesus teaches to hate one's life, the very
opposite of Pearson's dogma, talks about this world as a
graveyard inhabited by the living dead, and predicts it will be
violently destroyed before the coming of God's kingdom. A
delusion from Pearson's point of view ("These dreams of utopias
and major changes in society seem to me delusional"). He's
welcome to his opinion. But just like the orthodox, he refuses
to let the Bible disagree.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> R.S. Pearson Interview done with Gabriel Morales in 2005.
One last thing. Praising Christianity, Pearson says, "The
symbol of the death and suffering of the creator for the
creation is pretty advanced." Is it? To me it looks more like
an excuse for the messiah's unexpected demise. lf you stick
with the canonical story, then it's just a variation on the Old
God's demand for blood.
And hey, if the Creator did sacrifice himself for the good
of the Creation, shouldn't there have been better results?
Instead pain and suffering are still a part of "the very nature
of living," as Pearson admits.
-- Moggin
James Whitehead
"Kater Moggin" <kimm...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:kimmerian-E2E3A...@news.verizon.net...
> telicalbook <telic...@aol.com>:
>
> > R.S. Pearson Interview done with Gabriel Morales in 2005.
>
> One last thing.
Q "Why does he make nature
red in tooth and claw?"
A. Because MAN broke the covenant out of free will and so fucked up
creation... its man who took over creation.. and made the world thus
according to fairly straightforward Christian theology...
"Oh, and by the way, Job is a slap in the face to Pearson's
idea that the universe rewards virtuous behavior: Yahweh
judges Mr. Job to be an exceedingly virtuous man, then lets him
suffer horribly at Satan's hands."
An example of Mr M's muddled conflation - who are we talking about- "the
universe" - or Yahweh or Satan. Well mr M argues elsewhere i think that
Satan and Yahweh are the same, he now seems to be saying or implying at
least - that the Universe is also the same? It kind of makes Job - and much
else nonsensical as there in only one thing "The Universe" (that's
everything?) AKA Satan AKA Yahweh - punishing itself?
Kater Moggin
> A. Because MAN broke the covenant out of free will and so fucked up
> creation... its man who took over creation.. and made the world thus
> according to fairly straightforward Christian theology...
My question wasn't about Christian theology. It concerned
R.S. Pearson's assertions about God. "Pearson says..."
should've clued you in, but I guess you still have difficulties
reading.
By the way, the Christian story you're telling varies from
the one in Genesis, where the Creator fucks up his own
Creation after learning that Adam and Eve disobeyed his command.
Your story also doesn't explain why the Creator leaves the
world fucked-up, so it doesn't even address the question I
raised about the suffering of animals. You've dodged the whole
thing.
The messianic prophesies in Isaiah claim the wolf will lie
down with the lamb -- but they don't give Yahweh any good
excuse for delaying, and they're still unfulfilled, even though
Christianity says the messiah came.
> An example of Mr M's muddled conflation - who are we talking about-
An example of your muddled condition. You don't even know
who you're discussing.
> "the universe" - or Yahweh or Satan. Well mr M argues elsewhere i think that
> Satan and Yahweh are the same, he now seems to be saying or implying at
> least - that the Universe is also the same? It kind of makes Job - and much
> else nonsensical as there in only one thing "The Universe" (that's
> everything?) AKA Satan AKA Yahweh - punishing itself?
Thanks so much for asking. The answer is no. Better luck
next time.
-- Moggin
Mounard le Fougueux
In the interview, the following is stated:
>I believe when one knows God, one knows that all people are of equal
>value to God, because all people are created in the image of God.
I've heard this alot and have never followed the logic. I'd never say
that all my images are either all equal to ezch other or to me. My
proverbial driver's license image is not equal to my high schools prom
image or the MRI image of my right knee. So why would we assume that all
of gods images are equal to each other or to god itself?
The oldest continuous thriving religions today are hinduism and judaism
(lets say). In both you have rigid caste systems based on the fact that
there indeed are better and worse images of god.
James Whitehead
> James Whitehead <x...@yyy.co.uk>:
>
> > A. Because MAN broke the covenant out of free will and so fucked up
> > creation... its man who took over creation.. and made the world thus
> > according to fairly straightforward Christian theology...
>
> My question wasn't about Christian theology.
I never said it was? What are you bringing it up in that case?
>It concerned
> R.S. Pearson's assertions about God. "Pearson says..."
> should've clued you in, but I guess you still have difficulties
> reading.
You need to read better - you say "If God thinks animals
should be well-cared for -" not "if Pearsn says God thinks..." and you go
on to say *you agree* with this thought... so your questions about more than
just Pearson's asseetions... and i gave *an* answer.
Your qustion was "how come he treats them so badly?" - something YOU think
.. and i gave an answer ....
Let me help you here ... you ask "how do we cross the river"
I answer "we could build a bridge"
You reply - "my question wasnt about bridge building!"
That there is one answer?- there are others - for instance the law of karma
will also work - to which you no dought will reply that your question wasn't
about Hindu philosophy... or i could say that there reason is that God
doesn't exist - but then your question wasn't about existentialism or
atheism ... one suspects its about your Gnostic answer - you already knew -
that the God of Genesis is evil and that's why... so it was a rhetorical
question?
>
> By the way, the Christian story you're telling varies from
> the one in Genesis, where the Creator fucks up his own
> Creation after learning that Adam and Eve disobeyed his command.
>
Again that's a matter for interpretation - of course the Gnostic one has god
doing the bad things- its got many if not more problems than the good god-
i.e. if god is good why is there evil in the world - is reversed to - if god
is bad why is there good in the world... A Christian interpretation puts
the blame on Satan then the Woman then Man - allowing for male dominance?
But its a consequence of disobedience with a good god. If we reverse it to
suit your ideas? then this act is a good act of rebellion- similar to
Satan's... the only problem now is if Satan rebels against God then they
cant appear to be the same?
> Your story also doesn't explain why the Creator leaves the
> world fucked-up, so it doesn't even address the question I
> raised about the suffering of animals. You've dodged the whole
> thing.
Not me - the dodging is a problem in the orthodox theology - it is
questionable - but the orthodoxy doesn't leave the world fucked up - it
already has the saviour - Jesus standing in the wings. So without Satan and
Eve there would be no need for J.C. - but as he was / is God he was around
well before the eating of the apple. This poses another question - why then
did God place the tree and forbid the eating if God already knew the
outcome? It the ole free will problem. I'm not dodging it but i certainly
lack the belief in my own abilities to solve it.
>
> The messianic prophesies in Isaiah claim the wolf will lie
> down with the lamb -- but they don't give Yahweh any good
> excuse for delaying, and they're still unfulfilled, even though
> Christianity says the messiah came.
>
true - but the nature of this coming is still debateable even within
Christianity...
Now who is getting off the point - we were talking about Isaiah - i dont
think so?
> > An example of Mr M's muddled conflation - who are we talking about-
>
> An example of your muddled condition. You don't even know
> who you're discussing.
>
> > "the universe" - or Yahweh or Satan. Well mr M argues elsewhere i think
that
> > Satan and Yahweh are the same, he now seems to be saying or implying at
> > least - that the Universe is also the same? It kind of makes Job - and
much
> > else nonsensical as there in only one thing "The Universe" (that's
> > everything?) AKA Satan AKA Yahweh - punishing itself?
>
> Thanks so much for asking. The answer is no. Better luck
> next time.
Was that a no to Yahweh = = Satan as well?
>
> -- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> I never said it was?
On your first try, you didn't know who you were discussing
-- "who are we talking about" -- and now, on your second
attempt, you don't know what you said. Which means that you're
giving one of your usual performances.
> you ask
I asked how Bob Pearson reconciled his assertion about the
Creator's belief animals should be well cared-for with the
cruelties of the natural world. He didn't have any answer, and
your reply was about Christian theology, not Bob's. The
Christian story you told, saying man fucked up the Creation, is
noticeably different from the one in Genesis, where the
Creator fucks up his own work after he learns that Adam and Eve
disobeyed his command.
> "how do we cross the river"
> I answer "we could build a bridge"
No, you didn't give an answer of your own. All you had to
offer was "straightforward Christian theology" you're now
distancing yourself from ("not me...the orthodox") which claims
-- in terms of your analogy -- mankind knocked the bridges
down, contrary the story in Genesis, where the Creator destroys
them.
> You reply -
I'm answering first of all by pointing out my question was
about Robert's New-Agery, not Christian theology, second by
noting that the Christian story you told varies from the one in
Genesis, and third by observing that your story fails to
explain why the Creator leaves the world screwed-up, regardless
how it got that way.
> "my question
Question is how Bob reconciles his idea the Creator thinks
animals should be well cared-for with all of the cruelties
they're subjected to in the Creation. So far he hasn't come up
with a response.
> you say "If God thinks animals
> should be well-cared for -" not "if Pearsn says God thinks..."
You display your lack of reading skills. I wrote "Pearson
says..." while replying to his remarks, in specific his
questionable New Age theology. You replied with an irrelevancy
about Christian story-telling.
> Let me help you here
Charity begins at home. I suggest that you go and sign up
for a remedial reading course.
> for instance the law of karma will also work - to which you
> no dought will reply that your question wasn't about Hindu
> philosophy... or i could say that there reason is that God
> doesn't exist -
In other words you could babble irrelevantly, as customary
for you. Again, my question was about Robert's idea the
Creator believes animals should be loved and cared for, at odds
with their treatment in his Creation.
> of course the Gnostic one has god doing the bad things-
Hell, look what the Creator does in the canonical writings.
Isaiah says that he creates evil (45:7), Job shows him
allowing Satan to torture a "perfect and upright" man, Amos 3:6
asks rhetorically, "Shall there be evil in a city, and the
LORD hath not done it?" and Genesis 22 shows his willingness to
punish the righteous with the wicked. In the case we're
discussing, Gen. 3 depicts the Creator screwing up the world he
made, contrary to the story you told.
> its got many if not more problems than the good god-
> i.e. if god is good why is there evil in the world - is reversed to - if god
> is bad why is there good in the world...
You sound just like a used-car salesman insisting that the
car he sold with a bad engine, bad steering, and bad brakes
couldn't be a lemon, since it has a perfectly working cigarette
lighter and an operable glove-box.
> A Christian interpretation puts
> the blame on Satan then the Woman then Man - allowing for male dominance?
> But its a consequence of disobedience with a good god. If we reverse it to
> suit your ideas? then this act is a good act of rebellion- similar to
> Satan's... the only problem now is if Satan rebels against God then they
> cant appear to be the same?
Sorry to learn about your problem. You'll be glad to know
that like many other troubles you complain about here it's
merely a product of your reading difficulties. But I've handed
you a solution to this particular problem of yours several
times before, so it seems you're wedded to your incomprehension.
> Not me - the dodging is a problem in the orthodox theology - it is
> questionable - but the orthodoxy doesn't leave the world fucked up - it
> already has the saviour - Jesus standing in the wings.
As I already pointed out, Jesus came and went two thousand
years ago, but the world remains fucked-up. The OT's
messianic prophesies are unfulfilled. Ditto the eschatological
predictions Jesus makes in the Gospels.
> Now who is getting off the point - we were talking about Isaiah - i dont
> think so?
Evidently you don't know either what you think or what you
said. You brought up "straightfoward Christian theology"
concerning the natural world. Isaiah is a part of the standard
Christian scriptures and directly addresses the question by
prophesying that the wolf will lie down with the lamb: a
tacit criticism of the Creation as it is, and no excuse for the
delay in fixing things.
> true - but the nature of this coming is still debateable even within
> Christianity...
It's very clear in the OT: the messianic age means (among
other stuff) an end to war -- swords beaten into plowshares
-- an era of peace, justice and plenty, and the wolf lying with
the lamb. Since that hasn't come to pass, Jesus obviously
wasn't the messiah the OT prophesies, though he could have been
some other kind.
> Was that a no to Yahweh = = Satan as well?
It's a _no_ to your muddleheaded pretence of understanding.
-- Moggin
James Whitehead
> James Whitehead <x...@yyy.co.uk>:
>
> > I never said it was?
>
> On your first try, you didn't know who you were discussing
> -- "who are we talking about" -- and now, on your second
> attempt, you don't know what you said. Which means that you're
> giving one of your usual performances.
>
> > you ask
>
> I asked how Bob Pearson reconciled his assertion about the
> Creator's belief animals should be well cared-for with the
> cruelties of the natural world.
You asked about God's and your own feelings re animals - " If God thinks
animals
should be well-cared for -- a thought that I agree with --
then how come he treats them so badly? Why does he make nature
red in tooth and claw?"
The thought you are agreeing with is God's
Maybe you should go back and read what you wrote - but OK if all three of
you (6 if your christian) think animals should be well cared for - and they
are not - my answer still remains. Whoever asks the question.
>He didn't have any answer, and
> your reply was about Christian theology, not Bob's.
Oh so you were asking for Bob's answer? Why post it on the internet then?
But OK if you've and argument with Bob - i'll leave you to it.
> The
> Christian story you told, saying man fucked up the Creation, is
> noticeably different from the one in Genesis, where the
> Creator fucks up his own work after he learns that Adam and Eve
> disobeyed his command.
Well sure God acts - but its not arbitrary- in Christian theology man is
responsible for the fall... but sure you can and do read otherwise.
>
> > "how do we cross the river"
> > I answer "we could build a bridge"
>
> No, you didn't give an answer of your own. All you had to
> offer was "straightforward Christian theology" you're now
> distancing yourself from ("not me...the orthodox") which claims
> -- in terms of your analogy -- mankind knocked the bridges
> down, contrary the story in Genesis, where the Creator destroys
> them.
Well you dont seem to follow the analogy - perhaps you take everything far
too literally for analogy to be of any use.
In terms of river crossing -
1. Build a bridge
2. Dig a tunnel
3. use stilts
4. get a boat
5. use a plane
6. walk on water
7. divide the waters...
In terms of suffering - of animals et al.
1. Nature is just like that.
2. god is evil and does it for fun
3. man spoilt gods perfection by disobedience
4. Animals and men are suffering due to bad karma in previous lives
5. The suffering is a process of rising to a higher level
6. Bob's yet to be seen explanation
please feel free to add anymore
>
> > You reply -
>
> I'm answering first of all by pointing out my question was
> about Robert's New-Agery, not Christian theology
> second by
> noting that the Christian story you told varies from the one in
> Genesis, and third by observing that your story fails to
> explain why the Creator leaves the world screwed-up, regardless
> how it got that way.
make up your mind "No, you didn't give an answer of your own" seems to
contradict the idea of my story - its not mine. But as i dont know Bob's
mind i cant answer your original question, secondly there isn't a
variation - the Christian story says that man was the cause of the fall -
just as you dont punish the gun but the guy who pulls the trigger- or if you
decide to stop paying rent - the cause of your eviction is your breaking of
the contract with your landlord- . Thirdly the Christian story does however
offer salvation from the world as screwed up- you dont have to accept this -
in standard christian theology - though i think in paul and Origen (sp)
there is a universal salvation.
>
> > "my question
>
> Question is how Bob reconciles his idea the Creator thinks
> animals should be well cared-for with all of the cruelties
> they're subjected to in the Creation. So far he hasn't come up
> with a response.
So we are waiting for Bobot!
>
> > you say "If God thinks animals
> > should be well-cared for -" not "if Pearsn says God thinks..."
>
> You display your lack of reading skills. I wrote "Pearson
> says..." while replying to his remarks, in specific his
> questionable New Age theology. You replied with an irrelevancy
> about Christian story-telling.
>
> > Let me help you here
>
> Charity begins at home. I suggest that you go and sign up
> for a remedial reading course.
>
> > for instance the law of karma will also work - to which you
> > no dought will reply that your question wasn't about Hindu
> > philosophy... or i could say that there reason is that God
> > doesn't exist -
>
> In other words you could babble irrelevantly, as customary
> for you. Again, my question was about Robert's idea the
> Creator believes animals should be loved and cared for, at odds
> with their treatment in his Creation.
Agreed - then shut up and wait for Bob - stop wasting bandwidth...
>
> > of course the Gnostic one has god doing the bad things-
>
> Hell, look what the Creator does in the canonical writings.
> Isaiah says that he creates evil (45:7), Job shows him
> allowing Satan to torture a "perfect and upright" man, Amos 3:6
> asks rhetorically, "Shall there be evil in a city, and the
> LORD hath not done it?" and Genesis 22 shows his willingness to
> punish the righteous with the wicked. In the case we're
> discussing, Gen. 3 depicts the Creator screwing up the world he
> made, contrary to the story you told.
Yep - that sure rings your bell... remember we ran through this before -
which ultimately ends in the Jewish race of which you are part being
Satanic. That's the conclusion of your line of argument.
>
> > its got many if not more problems than the good god-
> > i.e. if god is good why is there evil in the world - is reversed to - if
god
> > is bad why is there good in the world...
>
> You sound just like a used-car salesman insisting that the
> car he sold with a bad engine, bad steering, and bad brakes
> couldn't be a lemon, since it has a perfectly working cigarette
> lighter and an operable glove-box.
>
I'm not selling this Universe to you - hell if its so bad then please leave-
if it is so bad why do most hang around in it for so long? I guess your only
excuse is that its the best there is? Your like the guy who could always do
better - but never does anything. If you know how to make a better car, or
someone who can, or where one can be found then stop moaning on at the guy
who sold you this one - get your money back and bugger off.
> > A Christian interpretation puts
> > the blame on Satan then the Woman then Man - allowing for male
dominance?
> > But its a consequence of disobedience with a good god. If we reverse it
to
> > suit your ideas? then this act is a good act of rebellion- similar to
> > Satan's... the only problem now is if Satan rebels against God then they
> > cant appear to be the same?
>
> Sorry to learn about your problem.
Its only a problem if you identify Satan with God.
> You'll be glad to know
> that like many other troubles you complain about here it's
> merely a product of your reading difficulties. But I've handed
> you a solution to this particular problem of yours several
> times before, so it seems you're wedded to your incomprehension.
>
> > Not me - the dodging is a problem in the orthodox theology - it is
> > questionable - but the orthodoxy doesn't leave the world fucked up - it
> > already has the saviour - Jesus standing in the wings.
>
> As I already pointed out, Jesus came and went two thousand
> years ago, but the world remains fucked-up. The OT's
> messianic prophesies are unfulfilled. Ditto the eschatological
> predictions Jesus makes in the Gospels.
It all seems very black then....
>
> > Now who is getting off the point - we were talking about Isaiah - i dont
> > think so?
>
> Evidently you don't know either what you think or what you
> said. You brought up "straightfoward Christian theology"
> concerning the natural world. Isaiah is a part of the standard
> Christian scriptures and directly addresses the question by
> prophesying that the wolf will lie down with the lamb: a
> tacit criticism of the Creation as it is, and no excuse for the
> delay in fixing things.
The delay is covered elsewhere...
>
> > true - but the nature of this coming is still debateable even within
> > Christianity...
>
> It's very clear in the OT: the messianic age means (among
> other stuff) an end to war -- swords beaten into plowshares
> -- an era of peace, justice and plenty, and the wolf lying with
> the lamb. Since that hasn't come to pass, Jesus obviously
> wasn't the messiah the OT prophesies, though he could have been
> some other kind.
>
You cant jump back to an OT perspective - if you do you do get muddled -
like the apostles did.
Do you think it means literally actual Lambs lying down with bona fide
Wolves - or might this not be symbolic? Its a question you might like to
answer before you leave the building.
> > Was that a no to Yahweh = = Satan as well?
>
> It's a _no_ to your muddleheaded pretence of understanding.
>
right... then a yes to Satan AKA God.
Is it Bob that keeps you hanging around such a crap universe?
> -- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> You asked
I asked how Bob Pearson reconciled his assertion about the
Creator's belief animals should be well cared-for with the
cruelties of the natural world. He didn't have any answer, and
your reply was about Christian theology, not Bob's. The
Christian story you told, saying man fucked-up the Creation, is
noticeably different from the one in Genesis, where the
Creator fucks up his own work after he learns that Adam and Eve
disobeyed his command, and entirely fails to explain why
Yahweh lets animals suffer in a fucked-up world, regardless how
it got that way.
> The thought you are agreeing with is God's
I'm agreeing with the thought Robert Pearson attributed to
the Creator -- that animals should be well-treated -- and
observing that it's at odds with the cruelties of nature in the
Creation.
> Maybe you should go back and read what you wrote -
Maybe you ought to stop quoting out-of-context -- but then
you'd lose one of your favorite tactics.
> Oh so you were asking for Bob's answer?
I was asking about Bob's theology, not Christian orthodoxy.
> Maybe you should go back and read what you wrote - but OK if all three of
> you (6 if your christian) think animals should be well cared for - and they
> are not - my answer still remains.
Oh, so now it's your answer again? Last time you tried to
distance yourself by assigning it to orthodox Christianity.
Either way it remains irrelevant to my question, which concerns
Bob's idea of God, and in conflict with Genesis, where the
Creator fucks up the Creation, contrary to your story where man
ruins the world.
What's more, your story fails to explain why Yahweh leaves
the Creation fucked-up. You pointed to Jesus, the claimed
messiah -- but he came and went two thousand years ago, and the
world is still a mess.
> In terms of suffering - of animals et al.
> 1. Nature is just like that.
Doesn't explain why a God who believes that animals should
be well-treated would make nature cruel to them.
> 2. god is evil and does it for fun
Doesn't apply to a good God said to believe animals should
be well-treated.
> 3. man spoilt gods perfection by disobedience
Doesn't explain why God lets animals suffer in consequence
of man's actions.
> 4. Animals and men are suffering due to bad karma in previous lives
> 5. The suffering is a process of rising to a higher level
More non-answers. Nothing there even addresses God's role.
> the Christian story says that man was the cause of the fall -
> just as you dont punish the gun but the guy who pulls the trigger-
Your Christian story varies from the one in Genesis, where
Yahweh is the guy who pulls the trigger: _he_ decides to
screw up the Creation. The decision is his, the responsibility
belongs to him.
> or if you
> decide to stop paying rent - the cause of your eviction is your breaking
> of the contract with your landlord-
Clearly drawn lines here. In the NT Jesus preaches gospel
to the poor and curses the rich. By contrast, you retail a
landlord's philosophy claiming that the homeless put themselves
in the road.
> Thirdly the Christian story does however
> offer salvation from the world as screwed up- you dont have to accept this -
> in standard christian theology - though i think in paul and Origen (sp)
> there is a universal salvation.
The unorthodox doctrine of universal salvation asserts God
will set all things right again. It doesn't explain his
on-going delay or why he lets animals suffer while he's sitting
around.
> Well sure God acts - but its not arbitrary-
In Genesis, the Creator fucks up the world he made for two
reasons: in order to punish Adam and Eve for disobeying him
and to keep them from eating from the Tree of Life, which would
add immortality to the god-like knowledge of good and evil
they had already gained from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge.
> in Christian theology man is responsible for the fall.
In the Book of Genesis, the Creator is responsible for the
Fall.
> Well you dont seem to follow the analogy
I not only followed but fixed it. In terms of the analogy
you gave, Christian orthodoxy claims man knocked down the
bridges, while the story told in Genesis says that Yahweh chose
to destroy them.
[Isaiah 45:7, Amos 3:6, Book of Job, Genesis 22]
> Yep - that sure rings your bell...
That's the Bible, is what that is, the canonical scripture
of Christian orthodoxy. The passages I cited all make the
Lord and Creator responsible for evil or show how willing he is
in evil-doing.
> remember we ran through this before -
More than once. You fall into the same mistakes each time.
> which ultimately ends in the Jewish race of which you are part being
> Satanic. That's the conclusion of your line of argument.
Nah, that's your conclusion, in line with your classically
anti-Semitic remark, "Retribution opens up here for the
almighty- the Jews afterall murdered his son!" An old theme in
Christian orthodoxy.
> I'm not selling this Universe to you -
You're peddling the claim man fucked-up the Creation as an
answer to my question about the suffering of animals -- a
piss-poor reply, since even if true it fails to explain why God
doesn't fix the world.
> - hell if its so bad then please leave-
> if it is so bad why do most hang around in it for so long? I guess your only
> excuse is that its the best there is? Your like the guy who could always do
> better - but never does anything. If you know how to make a better car, or
> someone who can, or where one can be found then stop moaning on at the guy
> who sold you this one - get your money back and bugger off.
I see that I've touched a nerve -- and it's pretty obvious
which one.
> The delay is covered elsewhere...
Not hardly. You "covered" Yahweh's delay in fixing things
by pointing to Jesus -- but like I said, he came and went a
couple thousand years ago, and the world is still broken. Some
Christians say that he'll be coming back, which once again
fails to explain the hold-up, especially since he's believed to
have said he'd be back quickly.
> You cant jump back to an OT perspective -
Christian orthodoxy says Jesus is the messiah described in
the OT. But the messianic prophesies there are still
unfulfilled, so while he may have been some messiah, he clearly
wasn't that one.
> Do you think it means literally actual Lambs lying down with bona fide
> Wolves - or might this not be symbolic?
False dichotomy. The wolf lying with the lamb is the sign
of a natural world without bloodshed: a peaceable kingdom
like the one in Gen. 1, where beasts are said to live on "green
herb." Gen. 1:30.
> right... then a yes to Satan AKA God.
Since you haven't figured out which Satan you're referring
to, your recent admission that you don't know who you're
talking about still applies. You may also be muddled about who
you mean by God.
-- Moggin
James Whitehead
> James Whitehead <x...@yyy.co.uk>:
>
> > You asked
>
> I asked how Bob Pearson reconciled his assertion about the
> Creator's belief animals should be well cared-for with the
> cruelties of the natural world.
Well as Bobs not answering i'd guess it would be along the lines of Karma-
he seems to think that being nice makes the universe a better place so it
might well be his point. Where does God come in - a loving one - in this i
wouldnt like to guess. It might well be that this process is one of
attaining enlightenment for the whole of creation and its a process though
painful through which we have to pass. Echoes again i think in some Pauline
texts regarding the need to suffer and so purify oneself. As for cruelties
of the natural world it depends on what you mean by being cruel. Do you
think animals are generally cruel to each other?
> > The thought you are agreeing with is God's
>
> I'm agreeing with the thought Robert Pearson attributed to
> the Creator -- that animals should be well-treated -- and
> observing that it's at odds with the cruelties of nature in the
> Creation.
Depends on how you regard nature- certainly humans can and do inflict pain
and suffering on animals as well as each other, but do animals in general do
this?
>
> > Maybe you should go back and read what you wrote -
>
> Maybe you ought to stop quoting out-of-context -- but then
> you'd lose one of your favorite tactics.
>
> > Oh so you were asking for Bob's answer?
>
> I was asking about Bob's theology, not Christian orthodoxy.
>
> > Maybe you should go back and read what you wrote - but OK if all three
of
> > you (6 if your christian) think animals should be well cared for - and
they
> > are not - my answer still remains.
>
> Oh, so now it's your answer again? Last time you tried to
> distance yourself by assigning it to orthodox Christianity.
> Either way it remains irrelevant to my question, which concerns
> Bob's idea of God, and in conflict with Genesis, where the
> Creator fucks up the Creation, contrary to your story where man
> ruins the world.
i've answered this and i guess youve ignored it - Gods act was caused....
"because....."
>
> What's more, your story fails to explain why Yahweh leaves
> the Creation fucked-up. You pointed to Jesus, the claimed
> messiah -- but he came and went two thousand years ago, and the
> world is still a mess.
This is a tricky problem for the orthodox - but it doesnt contradict it -
but shifts the idea of salvation and where things are not in a mess.
>
> > In terms of suffering - of animals et al.
> > 1. Nature is just like that.
>
> Doesn't explain why a God who believes that animals should
> be well-treated would make nature cruel to them.
It does if God doesnt exist. It does if God lets nature evolve via a painful
process into a perfect being.
Even cat owners who love their cats - and birds - have problems when kitty
catches birds and mice.
>
> > 2. god is evil and does it for fun
>
> Doesn't apply to a good God said to believe animals should
> be well-treated.
true
>
> > 3. man spoilt gods perfection by disobedience
>
> Doesn't explain why God lets animals suffer in consequence
> of man's actions.
>
yes it does - everything in the garden was rosey- if the owners of a zoo go
bankrupt the animals suffer...
>
> > 4. Animals and men are suffering due to bad karma in previous lives
> > 5. The suffering is a process of rising to a higher level
>
> More non-answers. Nothing there even addresses God's role.
It does if such laws (of Karma) are Gods laws - and laws by which matter
becomes intelligent and eventually enlightend.
>
> > the Christian story says that man was the cause of the fall -
> > just as you dont punish the gun but the guy who pulls the trigger-
>
> Your Christian story varies from the one in Genesis, where
> Yahweh is the guy who pulls the trigger: _he_ decides to
> screw up the Creation. The decision is his, the responsibility
> belongs to him.
No he says "because... " so his actions were caused- by the actions of Eve,
Adam and the serpent. Each gets punished as a result of theor actions. It
not the same as Job.
>
> > or if you
> > decide to stop paying rent - the cause of your eviction is your breaking
> > of the contract with your landlord-
>
> Clearly drawn lines here. In the NT Jesus preaches gospel
> to the poor and curses the rich. By contrast, you retail a
> landlord's philosophy claiming that the homeless put themselves
> in the road.
Nothing to do with being poor - i could be far richer by not paying rent-
again little tiddles doesnt crap all over the house - but a wild cat can do
it anywhere it likes.
>
> > Thirdly the Christian story does however
> > offer salvation from the world as screwed up- you dont have to accept
this -
> > in standard christian theology - though i think in paul and Origen (sp)
> > there is a universal salvation.
>
> The unorthodox doctrine of universal salvation asserts God
> will set all things right again. It doesn't explain his
> on-going delay or why he lets animals suffer while he's sitting
> around.
Well the on going delay as you put it is the process- and its caused
primarily by ourselves. I think you might explain just what you mean by
animals suffering, but the problem is that the orthodox God is not Bobs -
and generally animals arnt as cared for as man. But its interesting your
bothering ton talk *now* about non Bob theologies - when you seemed to say
you were only concerned with Bob's answer re Bob's theology.
>
> > Well sure God acts - but its not arbitrary-
>
> In Genesis, the Creator fucks up the world he made for two
> reasons: in order to punish Adam and Eve for disobeying him
> and to keep them from eating from the Tree of Life, which would
> add immortality to the god-like knowledge of good and evil
> they had already gained from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge.
Then he has a reason.If Adam and Eve handnt disobeyed the Garden would still
be -
>
> > in Christian theology man is responsible for the fall.
>
> In the Book of Genesis, the Creator is responsible for the
> Fall.
That's your reading - but you've already attributed the cause to
disobedience. The responsibility lies in the hands of those that could do
otherwise.
I suppose you'd blame the architect for causing the death of a suicide who
jumped from the top of his building. We are aware of such crazy legal
actions in the USA. Maybe such thinking does get you blaming God for the
fall.
>
> > Well you dont seem to follow the analogy
>
> I not only followed but fixed it. In terms of the analogy
> you gave, Christian orthodoxy claims man knocked down the
> bridges, while the story told in Genesis says that Yahweh chose
> to destroy them.
>
Thats another analogy - you seldom fix things - you try to break them.
> [Isaiah 45:7, Amos 3:6, Book of Job, Genesis 22]
>
> > Yep - that sure rings your bell...
>
> That's the Bible, is what that is, the canonical scripture
> of Christian orthodoxy. The passages I cited all make the
> Lord and Creator responsible for evil or show how willing he is
> in evil-doing.
But now you are contradicting your own wish for Bobs theology. Bob has no
reason to take such passages as canonical, they might have been put in by
someone being naughty. Bobs theology could simply deny the truth of any
statements in the bible which put Bobs God into a bad light - re being a
kind and nice type of God. Ted might want a more tough God and leave them
in...
>
> > remember we ran through this before -
>
> More than once. You fall into the same mistakes each time.
>
> > which ultimately ends in the Jewish race of which you are part being
> > Satanic. That's the conclusion of your line of argument.
>
> Nah, that's your conclusion, in line with your classically
> anti-Semitic remark, "Retribution opens up here for the
> almighty- the Jews afterall murdered his son!" An old theme in
> Christian orthodoxy.
Whatever - you're unable to deny it as the logical conclusion of your
premise- calling it names wont undo what you've proposed.
>
> > I'm not selling this Universe to you -
>
> You're peddling the claim man fucked-up the Creation as an
> answer to my question about the suffering of animals -- a
> piss-poor reply, since even if true it fails to explain why God
> doesn't fix the world.
He might be trying all the time - but as he gave you free will you use this
to blame him for all the cruelty in the world and not yourself. Humanity
always needs a scapegoat - you use YAHWEH? And if the world is so fucked up
as you say it seems very odd you hang around in it. Here you are again in
Gods creation moaning on about how piss poor it is - that he is a cruel git,
well lets see you do something better. Why don't you fix he world if you
think its broke.
>
> > - hell if its so bad then please leave-
> > if it is so bad why do most hang around in it for so long? I guess your
only
> > excuse is that its the best there is? Your like the guy who could
always do
> > better - but never does anything. If you know how to make a better car,
or
> > someone who can, or where one can be found then stop moaning on at the
guy
> > who sold you this one - get your money back and bugger off.
>
> I see that I've touched a nerve -- and it's pretty obvious
> which one.
>
Not to me? Again you duck the responsibility of your words- if this universe
is so bad - why remain in it?
> > The delay is covered elsewhere...
>
> Not hardly. You "covered" Yahweh's delay in fixing things
> by pointing to Jesus -- but like I said, he came and went a
> couple thousand years ago, and the world is still broken. Some
> Christians say that he'll be coming back, which once again
> fails to explain the hold-up, especially since he's believed to
> have said he'd be back quickly.
>
I think he said it would be in his own time, but there is a Bob and non Bob
answer - maybe he's waiting for a change of mind- yours?
>
> > You cant jump back to an OT perspective -
>
> Christian orthodoxy says Jesus is the messiah described in
> the OT. But the messianic prophesies there are still
> unfulfilled, so while he may have been some messiah, he clearly
> wasn't that one.
It is if interpreted by orthodoxy.
>
> > Do you think it means literally actual Lambs lying down with bona fide
> > Wolves - or might this not be symbolic?
>
> False dichotomy. The wolf lying with the lamb is the sign
> of a natural world without bloodshed: a peaceable kingdom
> like the one in Gen. 1, where beasts are said to live on "green
> herb." Gen. 1:30.
Again you've switched to OT theology - where is the Kingdom of Heaven in the
NT. (you have pointed this out yourself that its not earthly in the NT- as
the earth is Satan's..) The books of the OT are *interpreted by Christian
theology* ---- at times in quite bizarre ways - e.g. The Song of Songs..
>
> > right... then a yes to Satan AKA God.
>
> Since you haven't figured out which Satan you're referring
> to, your recent admission that you don't know who you're
> talking about still applies. You may also be muddled about who
> you mean by God.
>
> -- Moggin
I wasn't aware you believed in more than one Satan - i'm aware you have a
couple of Gods? The YAHWEH and the other one of which Jesus talks?
I thought the line was the God of the OT is Satan the Satan who is Lord of
the earth in the NT. Feel free to clarify - or do you want confusion?
James Whitehead
> Nah, that's your conclusion, in line with your classically
> anti-Semitic remark, "Retribution opens up here for the
> almighty- the Jews afterall murdered his son!"
BTW I was arguing against such a line of argument- if you bother to read
the whole paragraph.
Kater Moggin
> i've answered this
You dodged the difference between your Christian story, in
which man fucked-up the Creation, and the one offered in
Genesis, where the Creator fucks up the world after discovering
that Adam and Eve disobeyed him.
What's more, even _your_ story about man ruining the world
fails to explain why the Creator left it broken, thereby
causing untold suffering for its creatures. You don't have any
reply, but you can't stop babbling.
[moved from below]
> He might be trying all the time -
Then you would have to explain his lack of success despite
his supposed omnipotence.
> It does if God doesnt exist.
Nope. Denying God's existence doesn't explain why the God
that Robert described -- a good God who believes animals
should be well-treated -- subjects them to the cruelties of his
Creation.
> It does if God lets nature evolve via a painful
> process into a perfect being.
Nope. Doesn't explain why a good God who believes animals
should be well-treated would make a defective natural world
and then put it through a "painful process" to fix the flaws he
created.
> It does if such laws (of Karma) are Gods laws -
Nope. Doesn't explain why a good God who believes animals
should be well-treated would impose laws with the opposite
consequence: same discrepancy I pointed out in the first place.
> everything in the garden was rosey- if the owners of a zoo go
> bankrupt the animals suffer...
Yahweh can't plead poverty, so bankruptcy doesn't give him
any excuse for cruelty to his creatures.
> No
Oh, yes -- definitely. According to Genesis, Yahweh makes
the decision to fuck-up the world: he chooses to kick Adam
and Eve out of the Garden, he chooses to curse the earth, so on
and forth.
> he says "because... " so his actions were caused- by the actions of Eve,
> Adam and the serpent. Each gets punished as a result of theor actions.
Love the way you retreat into passive-voice: a well-known
way of obscuring responsibility. In Genesis 3, Yahweh
_chooses_ to punish Adam, Eve, and the snake for disobeying his
command by booting them from the Garden, cursing them on
their way. The choice, the act, and the responsibility are all
his.
[moved from below]
> If Adam and Eve handnt disobeyed the Garden would
> still be -
According to Genesis, Adam and Eve were in the Garden even
_after_ they'd disobeyed the Creator's command. He then
decided to give them the boot: his choice, his action, and his
responsibility.
Genesis also says that after evicting Adam and Eve, Yahweh
barred the path back to the Garden with seraphim and a
flaming, turning sword, implying that they could otherwise have
returned.
> you've already attributed the cause to
I've already pointed out Yahweh _chooses_ to kick Adam and
Eve out of the Garden, cursing them as they go according to
the story in Genesis but contrary to the one you tell where man
ruined the Creation.
> The responsibility lies in the hands of those that could do
> otherwise.
So the responsibility for ruining the world belongs to the
Creator, in the Genesis story, since he could have chosen
otherwise, i.e., chosen not to evict Adam and Eve, not to curse
the earth, etc.
> Nothing to do with being poor -
Lots. A poor person doesn't have money for rent, his rich
landlord kicks him into the street, according to you the
responsibility lies entirely with the now-homeless guy, putting
your philosophy in sharp contrast with Jesus' gospel to the
poor and the curses that he casts on the rich in the scriptures.
> Well the on going delay as you put it is the process- and its caused
> primarily by ourselves.
An assertion that even if true does nothing to explain why
God lets animals suffer for man's sins.
> the orthodox God is not Bobs -
Precisely why your orthodox story-telling is irrelevant to
my question about Bob's theology.
> and generally animals arnt as cared for as man. But its interesting your
> bothering ton talk *now* about non Bob theologies - when you seemed to say
> you were only concerned with Bob's answer re Bob's theology.
Interesting that you're lying again. I've been discussing
your Christian story -- as well as the scriptural accounts
that it doesn't quite match -- since we began this conversation.
From my first reply:
My question wasn't about Christian theology. It concerned
R.S. Pearson's assertions about God. "Pearson says..."
should've clued you in, but I guess you still have difficulties
reading.
By the way, the Christian story you're telling varies from
the one in Genesis, where the Creator fucks up his own
Creation after learning that Adam and Eve disobeyed his command.
Your story also doesn't explain why the Creator leaves the
world fucked-up, so it doesn't even address the question I
raised about the suffering of animals. You've dodged the whole
thing.
The messianic prophesies in Isaiah claim the wolf will lie
down with the lamb -- but they don't give Yahweh any good
excuse for delaying, and they're still unfulfilled, even though
Christianity says the messiah came.
> I suppose you'd blame the architect for causing the death of a suicide who
> jumped from the top of his building.
Sounds like precisely the sort of thing that you'd suppose.
> We are aware of such crazy legal
> actions in the USA. Maybe such thinking does get you blaming God for the
> fall.
Blame for the Fall falls squarely on the Creator according
to the story in Genesis: he chooses to evict Adam and Eve
from the Garden, he chooses to curse the earth, and so on. The
responsibility is clearly his.
> now you are
Now I'm pointing out that the Bible repeatedly assigns the
Creator responsibility for making evil or shows his
willingness in evil-doing. Isaiah 45:7, Amos 3:6, Gen. 22, and
the Book of Job.
> - you're unable to deny it as the logical conclusion of your
Too late: I already did. Again, the idea the Jewish race
is Satanic your own none-too-logical contribution to this
dialogue, very much in keeping with the classically
anti-Semitic remark, "Retribution opens up here for the
almighty- the Jews afterall murdered his son!" that you offered
during an earlier go-round.
> but as he gave you free will you use this
> to blame him for all the cruelty in the world and not yourself. Humanity
> always needs a scapegoat - you use YAHWEH? And if the world is so fucked up
> as you say it seems very odd you hang around in it. Here you are again in
> Gods creation moaning on about how piss poor it is - that he is a cruel git,
> well lets see you do something better. Why don't you fix he world if you
> think its broke.
I see I've touched a nerve again -- the same one as before.
> I think he said it would be in his own time
In the canonical NT Jesus says he'll be back quickly, thus
making his delay even more obvious.
> It is if interpreted by orthodoxy.
The orthodox Christian interpretation that claims Jesus is
the messiah who's described in the Hebrew scriptures is
contradicted by (among other things) the unfulfillment of those
messianic prophesies.
> Again you've switched to OT theology -
Again you're lying. No switch involved. I'm referring to
the orthodox Christian claim that Jesus is the messiah
described in the Hebrew scriptures: obviously false, since the
messianic era (a time of peace, justice and plenty, swords
beaten into ploughshares, wolves lying with lambs, so forth and
so on) hasn't arrived.
> where is the Kingdom of Heaven in the NT.
The kingdom of heaven, also labeled the kingdom of God, is
one of the central, arguably _the_ central theme in the
Gospels, where Jesus predicts it's due to come, preceded by the
destruction of this world, in decades at most from the time
he's speaking. Two thousand years later it seems he was overly
optimistic.
> I wasn't aware you believed in more than one Satan -
Thus my point about your muddleheadedness. I've mentioned
the two different Satans in the Bible to you more than once
before, for example when I said that "the OT Satan and NT Satan
aren't the same." There it is in so many words. Yet you
remain, by your own admission, thoroughly unaware. Says it all
about you.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> ... retribution opens up here for the almighty- the Jews
> afterall murdered his son!
> BTW I was arguing against such a line of argument- if you bother to
> read the whole paragraph.
On the contrary: you spent ages trying to defend the idea
that Jews are open to retribution in return for murdering
Jesus. After falsely insisting that Jesus is killed by Jews in
the Gospels (the canonical NT, despite its efforts to place
blame on the Jews, shows him beaten and then crucified by Roman
soldiers rather enthusiastically carrying out their orders
from the Roman governor, Pilate), you backed down to the notion
that the Jews forced Pilate into crucifying Jesus by
threatening to riot. But your "near riot" is mentioned only in
Matthew's questionable story -- it's missing from the three
other canonical Gospels -- and it's highly ambiguous even
there, since the key word _thorubos_ can refer to a noisy crowd
rather than a violent one.
You fixed that little problem with a couple of half-truths:
you conveniently edited a definition of _thorubos_, quoting
only the part about rioting, and you insisted the word is
translated "riot" in English versions of Matthew, neglecting to
mention that in other English renderings the crowd is
described merely as noisy or tumultuous. In short, you ignored
all the evidence against you.
-- Moggin
telicalbook
where animals must be on their guard -- such a scenario causes
evolution. It causes a sense of aliveness.
The whole birth-death cycle puts in a greater sense of animation. This
does not negate the idea of God being love because it means possibly
the lowest form of life can evolve their its own effort to be something
great. I don't judge ideas like I have a priori knowledge of such
things, so I don't believe in reincarnation or don't believe in it.
But if it's true, it's obvious that life would have to set up a
scenario where we would
be forced to use our minds to merely stay in a state of equilibrium (to
even stay alive,
to not be eaten, etc.).
telicalbook
And by this, we can see that Post-Modernism shows the progress
of ideas!
James Whitehead
but the fact remains from your argument the Jews are the devils aka Yahweh's
chosen race.
James Whitehead
> James Whitehead <x...@yyy.co.uk>:
>
> > i've answered this
>
> You dodged the difference between your Christian story, in
> which man fucked-up the Creation, and the one offered in
> Genesis, where the Creator fucks up the world after discovering
> that Adam and Eve disobeyed him.
>
> What's more, even _your_ story about man ruining the world
> fails to explain why the Creator left it broken, thereby
> causing untold suffering for its creatures. You don't have any
> reply, but you can't stop babbling.
>
> [moved from below]
>
> > He might be trying all the time -
>
> Then you would have to explain his lack of success despite
> his supposed omnipotence.
I have - its called free will. As i said but i dont think you replied - if
you can do better lets see you....
>
> > It does if God doesnt exist.
>
> Nope. Denying God's existence doesn't explain why the God
> that Robert described -- a good God who believes animals
> should be well-treated -- subjects them to the cruelties of his
> Creation.
Yes I said this - first you didn't want non Rob theologies so an atheist
reason wouldn't count - or would a Christian one - as it too is non rob, but
then you latch onto the Christian story when you said it wasn't what you
wanted. Rob actually it appears as answered your question along the lines i
guessed - so take it up with him if your honestly concerned with his
theology.
>
> > It does if God lets nature evolve via a painful
> > process into a perfect being.
>
> Nope. Doesn't explain why a good God who believes animals
> should be well-treated would make a defective natural world
> and then put it through a "painful process" to fix the flaws he
> created.
As i said Rob's answered this for you - as does Paul - they are growing
pains - and ones that result from free will. The clockwork orange scenario.
If you can create a universe as rich as this one without pain and
suffering - or even explain how one could be you might have an argument.
>
> > It does if such laws (of Karma) are Gods laws -
>
> Nope. Doesn't explain why a good God who believes animals
> should be well-treated would impose laws with the opposite
> consequence: same discrepancy I pointed out in the first place.
>
> > everything in the garden was rosey- if the owners of a zoo go
> > bankrupt the animals suffer...
>
> Yahweh can't plead poverty, so bankruptcy doesn't give him
> any excuse for cruelty to his creatures.
Youve dodged the idea of animals being cruel to one another-
>
> > No
>
> Oh, yes -- definitely. According to Genesis, Yahweh makes
> the decision to fuck-up the world: he chooses to kick Adam
> and Eve out of the Garden, he chooses to curse the earth, so on
> and forth.
>
> > he says "because... " so his actions were caused- by the actions of Eve,
> > Adam and the serpent. Each gets punished as a result of theor actions.
>
> Love the way you retreat into passive-voice: a well-known
> way of obscuring responsibility. In Genesis 3, Yahweh
> _chooses_ to punish Adam, Eve, and the snake for disobeying his
> command by booting them from the Garden, cursing them on
> their way. The choice, the act, and the responsibility are all
> his.
>
> [moved from below]
moving and chopping - we now into the second phase then... see if you will
provide anything new?
>
> > If Adam and Eve handnt disobeyed the Garden would
> > still be -
>
> According to Genesis, Adam and Eve were in the Garden even
> _after_ they'd disobeyed the Creator's command. He then
> decided to give them the boot: his choice, his action, and his
> responsibility.
>
> Genesis also says that after evicting Adam and Eve, Yahweh
> barred the path back to the Garden with seraphim and a
> flaming, turning sword, implying that they could otherwise have
> returned.
>
argument by implication! from you! But he doesn't imply why they are being
punished he states specifically... no need for your "implication"
> > you've already attributed the cause to
>
sentence! sentence!
> I've already pointed out Yahweh _chooses_ to kick Adam and
> Eve out of the Garden, cursing them as they go according to
> the story in Genesis but contrary to the one you tell where man
> ruined the Creation.
>
> > The responsibility lies in the hands of those that could do
> > otherwise.
>
> So the responsibility for ruining the world belongs to the
> Creator, in the Genesis story, since he could have chosen
> otherwise, i.e., chosen not to evict Adam and Eve, not to curse
> the earth, etc.
and do what to punish them - surely he has the right to fix the punishment-
>
> > Nothing to do with being poor -
>
> Lots. A poor person doesn't have money for rent, his rich
> landlord kicks him into the street, according to you the
> responsibility lies entirely with the now-homeless guy, putting
> your philosophy in sharp contrast with Jesus' gospel to the
> poor and the curses that he casts on the rich in the scriptures.
no because Adam and eve had everything they needed in the garden- they could
even chat with God - everything was perfect. And Jesus would say that you
should render to Caesar - so pay your rent.
>
> > Well the on going delay as you put it is the process- and its caused
> > primarily by ourselves.
>
> An assertion that even if true does nothing to explain why
> God lets animals suffer for man's sins.
According to which theology do you now want an answer.... does the OT state
that God loves animals and doesnt want them to suffer? You seem to have
confused Bob with God?
>
> > the orthodox God is not Bobs -
>
> Precisely why your orthodox story-telling is irrelevant to
> my question about Bob's theology.
Then why do you write sentence after sentence that is irrelevant?
>
> > and generally animals arnt as cared for as man. But its interesting your
> > bothering ton talk *now* about non Bob theologies - when you seemed to
say
> > you were only concerned with Bob's answer re Bob's theology.
>
> Interesting that you're lying again. I've been discussing
> your Christian story -- as well as the scriptural accounts
> that it doesn't quite match -- since we began this conversation.
> From my first reply:
>
> My question wasn't about Christian theology. It concerned
> R.S. Pearson's assertions about God. "Pearson says..."
> should've clued you in, but I guess you still have difficulties
> reading.
then reply to that.
>
> By the way, the Christian story you're telling varies from
> the one in Genesis, where the Creator fucks up his own
> Creation after learning that Adam and Eve disobeyed his command.
>
> Your story also doesn't explain why the Creator leaves the
> world fucked-up, so it doesn't even address the question I
> raised about the suffering of animals. You've dodged the whole
> thing.
you've said this before - so now your repeating irrelevances -
>
> The messianic prophesies in Isaiah claim the wolf will lie
> down with the lamb -- but they don't give Yahweh any good
> excuse for delaying, and they're still unfulfilled, even though
> Christianity says the messiah came.
So God depends on the OK from Isaiah! as to his actions. Maybe Isaiah wrote
it down wrong - maybe Gods on the job as we write - hell 2,000 years might
seem awhile for you but its nothing to a non temporal being.
>
> > I suppose you'd blame the architect for causing the death of a suicide
who
> > jumped from the top of his building.
>
> Sounds like precisely the sort of thing that you'd suppose.
It just what you are doing
>
> > We are aware of such crazy legal
> > actions in the USA. Maybe such thinking does get you blaming God for
the
> > fall.
>
> Blame for the Fall falls squarely on the Creator according
> to the story in Genesis: he chooses to evict Adam and Eve
> from the Garden, he chooses to curse the earth, and so on. The
> responsibility is clearly his.
>
his responsibilty is to the law
> > now you are
>
> Now I'm pointing out that the Bible repeatedly assigns the
> Creator responsibility for making evil or shows his
> willingness in evil-doing. Isaiah 45:7, Amos 3:6, Gen. 22, and
> the Book of Job.
>
big deal - what do i care - thats a problem for Bob's God. Maybe i think
like Harry Lime on this matter...
> > - you're unable to deny it as the logical conclusion of your
>
sentence ... sentence..
> Too late: I already did. Again, the idea the Jewish race
> is Satanic your own none-too-logical contribution to this
> dialogue, very much in keeping with the classically
> anti-Semitic remark, "Retribution opens up here for the
> almighty- the Jews afterall murdered his son!" that you offered
> during an earlier go-round.
Another question you cant answer- and another sentence you cant refute...
>
> > but as he gave you free will you use this
> > to blame him for all the cruelty in the world and not yourself. Humanity
> > always needs a scapegoat - you use YAHWEH? And if the world is so fucked
up
> > as you say it seems very odd you hang around in it. Here you are again
in
> > Gods creation moaning on about how piss poor it is - that he is a cruel
git,
> > well lets see you do something better. Why don't you fix he world if you
> > think its broke.
>
> I see I've touched a nerve again -- the same one as before.
>
so you cant answer - that is a nerve! Moggin stuck for words.
>
> > I think he said it would be in his own time
>
> In the canonical NT Jesus says he'll be back quickly, thus
> making his delay even more obvious.
>
Well "many will come in my name ... [and say] the time is near! Do not go
after them"
> > It is if interpreted by orthodoxy.
>
> The orthodox Christian interpretation that claims Jesus is
> the messiah who's described in the Hebrew scriptures is
> contradicted by (among other things) the unfulfillment of those
> messianic prophesies.
>
> > Again you've switched to OT theology -
>
> Again you're lying. No switch involved. I'm referring to
> the orthodox Christian claim that Jesus is the messiah
> described in the Hebrew scriptures: obviously false, since the
> messianic era (a time of peace, justice and plenty, swords
> beaten into ploughshares, wolves lying with lambs, so forth and
> so on) hasn't arrived.
>
Such is explained in Christian theology in non earthly terms- if you want
the Hebrew scriptures fullfillled literally you dont become Christian.
> > where is the Kingdom of Heaven in the NT.
>
> The kingdom of heaven, also labeled the kingdom of God, is
> one of the central, arguably _the_ central theme in the
> Gospels, where Jesus predicts it's due to come, preceded by the
> destruction of this world, in decades at most from the time
> he's speaking. Two thousand years later it seems he was overly
> optimistic.
>
> > I wasn't aware you believed in more than one Satan -
>
> Thus my point about your muddleheadedness. I've mentioned
> the two different Satans in the Bible to you more than once
> before, for example when I said that "the OT Satan and NT Satan
> aren't the same." There it is in so many words. Yet you
> remain, by your own admission, thoroughly unaware. Says it all
> about you.
Gosh you've made a statement! So lets see the NT Satan is Bad and the same
guy as YAHWEH. According to you? The Old testament Satan then is different?
Not bad- then why does this Satan torture Job? Straight off the OT Satan's
first move is burning his sheep and killing his children... Elsewhere he
sets out against Israel... maybe you could get off this hook without either
ignoring or doing a cut and paste... Satan appears in the bible to be pretty
much the same character in both the OT and the NT - where then do you get
two? Is this another unsupported implication of your own fabrication? Satan
in the NT like the old is an earth dweller - unlike YAHWEH. etc etc.
>
> -- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> - its called free will.
My point precisely. In the Book of Genesis, Yahweh freely
wills the Fall -- i.e., he boots Adam and Eve out of the
Garden, he curses the earth, and so on. His will, his decision
and his responsibility.
> Rob actually it appears as answered your question
Robert hasn't addressed my question. He's trying to think
up virtues for bloodshed, which fails to explain why a good
God who feels animals should be well-treated would subject them
to the cruelties of this world.
> they are growing
> pains - and ones that result from free will.
Sure -- the Creator freely willed that his creatures would
suffer pain. But that's not consistent with Robert's claim
the Creator is a good god who feels animals ought to be treated
lovingly.
> If you can create a universe as rich as this one without pain and
> suffering - or even explain how one could be you might have an argument.
No problem for the Almighty. Otherwise he needs to change
his nickname.
> Youve dodged the idea of animals being cruel to one another-
Nope. I referred directly to nature red in tooth and claw
-- the world of natural cruelties that the Creator is
responsible for making, contrary to Robert's idea that he feels
animals should be well-treated.
> argument
Your argument "If Adam and Eve handnt disobeyed the Garden
would still be" overlooks a couple of items in Genesis.
They're still in the Garden even _after_ disobeying by snacking
on the apple. The Creator then chooses to evict them and
curse them as they go, ergo the Fall is his decision, his doing
and his responsibility.
> and
And so the Creator is responsible for fucking up the world
in the Genesis story even by your own criterion, viz.
"responsibility lies in the hands of those that could do
otherwise." Yahweh could have done otherwise than screw up the
world, therefore he's responsible.
> do what to punish them -
> surely he has the right to fix the punishment-
If might makes right the Almighty has all the right in the
world, ahead of earthly tyrants.
> no
Oh, yes -- definitely. You contended that when a landlord
kicks someone to the street, responsibility belongs to the
homeless person -- a landlord's philosophy in contrast to Jesus'
gospel to the poor and curses on the rich.
> because Adam and eve had everything they needed in the garden- they could
> even chat with God - everything was perfect. And Jesus would say that you
> should render to Caesar - so pay your rent.
Another story you haven't read too closely, if you've read
it at all.
> According to which theology do you now want an answer....
You already tried to answer by blaming man for God's delay.
But like I said, that assertion, even if true, doesn't even
begin to explain why a good God would let animals suffer as the
result of man's sins.
> you've said this before -
And you denied I said it before -- therefore you were full
of crap. Like usual.
> So God depends on the OK from Isaiah!
Isaiah's messianic prophesies remain unfulfilled, even tho
Christianity claims the messiah came.
> maybe Gods on the job as we write -
Then you would have to explain his lack of success despite
his supposed omnipotence.
> big deal - what do i care - thats a problem for Bob's God.
Nah, that's the Creator described in the OT, which assigns
Yahweh responsibilty for making evil and displays his
willingness in evil-doing. Isaiah 45:7, Amos 3:6, Gen. 22, and
the Book of Job.
> Another question
No, your earlier statement that "Retribution opens up here
for the almighty- the Jews afterall murdered his son!" A
classically anti-Semitic remark you defended strenuously, which
isn't to say successfully.
> "many will come in my name ... [and say] the time is near! Do not go
> after them"
Same speech predicting that the end-times are no more than
decades away. Not to mention other declarations: "the
kingdom of God is nigh," "behold, I come quickly," "some of you
standing here," etc.
> Such is explained in Christian theology
The OT's description of the messianic age is _contrary_ to
Christian orthodoxy, since according to prophesies in the
Hebrew scriptures, the coming of the messiah inaugurates a time
of peace, justice, and plenty, a time when wolves will lie
with lambs, and so on. That ain't happened, so Jesus isn't the
messiah discussed there.
> Gosh you've made a statement!
One of many that failed to penetrate your awareness. This
time a point about the difference between the Old and New
Testament Satans. First you missed it in the Bible, then again
coming from me, even though I said in so many words "the OT
Satan and NT Satan aren't the same." It's amazing what gets by
you.
> So lets see the NT Satan is Bad and the same
> guy as YAHWEH. According to you? The Old testament Satan then is different?
Still hasn't gotten through to you, I see, even tho I said
clearly that they're not the same.
> Not bad- then why does this Satan torture Job?
Why would you expect him not to? Especially when Yahweh's
given him explicit permission.
> Straight off the OT Satan's
> first move is burning his sheep and killing his children... Elsewhere he
> sets out against Israel... maybe you could get off this hook without either
> ignoring or doing a cut and paste...
You haven't found a hook -- but don't let me stop you from
trying.
> Satan appears in the bible to be pretty
> much the same character in both the OT and the NT -
I was going to say you should try reading them, but you're
not exactly gifted that way.
> where then do you get two?
Same places I explained last time and the time before then.
> Is this another unsupported implication of your own
> fabrication?
I leave the fabricating business entirely to you -- figure
you need the work.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> Old ground -
Ground it seems you'd rather not retrace, since you erased
any sign of what you're referring to.
> but the fact remains
The fact remains that your facts have the habit of turning
out to be half-truths or falsehoods.
> from your argument the Jews are the devils aka Yahweh's chosen race.
One of your non sequiturs, similar to your conclusion Jews
are a Satanic race and much in keeping with your previous
claim, "...retribution opens up here for the almighty- the Jews
afterall murdered his son!"
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> Regarding the idea of where's the virtue in a tooth and claw planet
I didn't ask you to find virtues for bloodshed. I pointed
out the contradiction between your idea the Creator feels
animals should be loved and well-treated and the treatment they
receive in his Creation.
-- Moggin
James Whitehead
What treatment and from who?
James Whitehead
> I leave the fabricating business entirely to you -- figure
> you need the work.
Glad to oblige...
1. Moggins OT Satan/Yahweh
"The OT clearly distinguishes Yahweh and Satan.
Yahweh is the Lord and Creator of this world, Satan is a
fairly minor character who obeys his commands."
1 Chr 21 -
"Satan stood up against Israel .....inciting David..
God was displeased with this thing... "
In no way then a "loyal servent"!
but then in 2 Sam 24 (the same event) it is Yahweh who incites David....
so here the OT Satan in Chr 21 is not a loyal servant - and *is* the same
person as
Yahweh in Samuel.
So the OT identifies Satan and YHWEH as the same person and not a loyal
servent.
2. Moggins NT Satan
"So Yahweh and the NT Satan have the same job."
"makes Yahweh and Satan one and the same."
So some confusion at start - same person or same job? What job? Ruler of the
earth or like the OT Satan tempter of man?
"There God is an unnamed deity called
the Father and Satan is his enemy, the ruler of this world."
Why enemy - who lets Satan rule the world and where did he come from?
Who can promise the earth? Either the present ruler Satan or Jesus "Blessed
are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth." And elsewhere nothing
happens but by Gods command.
"When you make a promise you must do it in my name." ...That's in Isaiah &
the name presumably Yahweh
But I tell not to swear by anything when you make a promise."
"When you make a promise, say only "Yes" or "No." Anything else comes from
the devil." And that's Jesus identifying swearing in Yahweh's name the
same as swearing in the devil's.
, "This man does not cast out demons, except by Beelzebul, the prince of the
demons." "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to
desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand.
If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his
kingdom stand?
Here is Jesus identifying himself with Satan.. and bringing division
"Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth?
No, I tell you, but rather division! From now on five in one household
will be divided, three against two and two against three; "
And identifies his Father
"Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing:
it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:"
So the God of Abraham YHWEH is JCs Dad.
Moreover in the NT
"But the unclean spirit, when he is gone out of the man, passes through
waterless
places, seeking rest, and doesn't find it."
Jesus said to him, "The foxes have holes, and the birds of the
sky have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head."
"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"
(Isaiah)
and when thou shalt think thyself consumed, thou shalt rise as the day
star.
(orieris ut lucifer ) Job
I, Jesus, have sent my angel, to testify to you these things in the
churches. I am the root and stock of David, the bright and morning star.
(revelation)
I'm not sure then of Moggins position on the NT - as he isn't clear
himself - re same person or same job regarding Satan and YHWEH, but he
appears to think that Jesus' promises come to naught - but the idea of his
bringing division seems to hold true - look at the past 2000 years of church
history! we find Satan / YHWEH in the OT causing all kinds of trouble,
and in the NT Jesus offers the keys of heaven to his disciples (that's where
YHWEH hangs out in Job) and the earth to the meek - where Satan hangs out -
also in Job. Maybe the meek are the silent majority of democracy.
So it appears as if we could make the case for Satan being Jesus or Jesus
being YHWEH - (or both) he has the deeds to both these folks homes. The
simple explanation is that he has them because he is both of these persons.
Mounard le Fougueux
> Many have complained that postmodernism falls into nihilism - making
> all philosophical (and historical) claims worthless before they are
> said.
The charge of "Nihilism" is the cannonical charge made against
"Modernism" and the Enlightenment Program, not postmodernism.
Papal Encyclicals made been written condeming Modernism. Creationists
main objection to Evolution ( a seminal 19th century
modernist/enlightenment accomplishment) is that of Nihilism. The Russian
authors Turgenev and Dostoyesvsky tried to show the horrific results in
the modernistic nihilism of their antagonists. The classic
anti-modernist novel - Frankenstein - shows the horrors resulting from
the program of the enlightenment - the accomplishments of reason without
god. In philosophy, metaphysics has been covering in fear and shame in
shadowy corners as mathematics and science displayed their terrible
enlightenment powers for all to behold.
No, the charge against postmodernism is quite different.
One basic charge is that where postmodernist texts actually try to say
something they either get it badly wrong or end up with banalisties, but
in a rococco self-referential style that implies that its the style
(or "camp") that really matters.
Another, more significant charge, is that since p-m text aren't either
science or art, they must be that third intellectual activity that
modernists thought they had killed off a long time ago - theology,
scholasticism and court-ideology.
And lastly, a common charge against p-m speak is that it almost EXCACTLY
resembles marxist analytical texts of the presvious generation. Rather
then having to wade through completely meaningless but yet hyper
self-important analyses on BASE and SUPERSTRUCTURE, its now about the
CENTER etc, but with THE EXACT SAME STYLE AND PROSE as the previous
marxist crap. The main differe=nce is that a p-m'ist will never be found
in a jail cell - in fact the main differece between them is that the
present post-modernist (lets take Christofer Hitchens) is now sided with
the preceived political powers and serves them the way the Christian
Church served the late Roman emporors - with justification by faith (and
works) in return for tenure and official charter.
> Others complain that postmodernism eliminates epistemological
> and ethical foundations. But in my opinion, these criticisms miss the
> point.
If "The Point" is what is meant by JD's "The Center", which in turn is
what is contained by "The Frame" of the Frankfurter Schola, then what is
the point of saying that they miss your point?
Is it the case that you "get" their point but they "miss" your point? So
"the point" is to be able shoot (shiesse/sheisse) farther then anybody
but yet remain untouchable by anyone else? To remove ones "center" to
such a safe distance, yet within striking distance of others' centers,
seems a noble quest, and explains the post-modernist style, for sure, as
well as its utility to "power centers" such as neoconservatives and
Intelligent-Design/Religious Fundamentalists. It beats having to rely on
travelling "post-renaissance fairs" for income.
> But perhaps the burden of
> freedom is something not all of us are willing to bear.
>
Although all men are free, evidently some are more free then others.
But fear not! "Once newspeak has taken over completely, thoughtcrimes
will be impossible, because there will be no language to express
rebellious thoughts in. Even doublethink slogans like “freedom is
slavery” will be unnecessary, as the concept of freedom will be
forgotten." - Winston Smith
Mounard le Fougueux
> Regarding the idea of where's the virtue in a tooth and claw planet
> where animals must be on their guard -- such a scenario causes
> evolution. It causes a sense of aliveness.
So it is death that is the true creative force in the world.
In Michaelangelo's famous Sistine chapel's depiction of creation where
the hand of God's reaches out/points to Adam - this is really symbolic
of death's evolutionary role in the selection of humanity.
In Hindu/Buddhist thought, Shiva/Kali is both creator AND Detroyer, in
the sense that they are the same.
Animals kill each other/select each other for food in the old testament
both BEFORE and AFTER the fall of man in the Garden of Eden. The G of E
is the place where the lion lays down with the lamb - with the lions maw
smeared with the lambs blood and the lambs guts opened up before lion.
As it was in the garden of eden, is it now.
The tragedy in the creation story of genesis is mans REALIZATION that it
is death that has created man - that death is the god that has created
man - the source and destination of ALL gods creation.
> The whole birth-death cycle puts in a greater sense of animation. This
> does not negate the idea of God being love because it means possibly
> the lowest form of life can evolve their its own effort to be something
> great.
Karl Popper developed a theory of falsifiabily as a criterion for the
scientific method - the willingness to put theories theories to
empirical test allowed science discard/prune theories and the for Popper
this played the same role in scientific development that death and
natural selection plays in the development of species and biological
advancement. Thus Popper shows that the generative force of death
continues to play a role in our intellectual sphere as it did in our
biological.
Death is mother of us all.
> I don't judge ideas like I have a priori knowledge of such
> things, so I don't believe in reincarnation or don't believe in it.
> But if it's true, it's obvious that life would have to set up a
> scenario where we would
> be forced to use our minds to merely stay in a state of equilibrium (to
> even stay alive,
> to not be eaten, etc.).
>
Bon Apetite!
James Whitehead
"Mounard le Fougueux" <Foug...@daeventhorizon.com> wrote in message
news:lZadnbh6uNA...@adelphia.com...
> telicalbook wrote:
>
> > Regarding the idea of where's the virtue in a tooth and claw planet
> > where animals must be on their guard -- such a scenario causes
> > evolution. It causes a sense of aliveness.
>
> So it is death that is the true creative force in the world.
If you mean this world - and fairly recently then i suppose it might have a
role. I thought death arrives with sex, that is simple cells like amoeba
don't age and die but age and divide. The advantage i thought for sex was
that genetic permutation could evolve more complex forms of life. With human
creativity death is overcome, Michelangelo's paintings outliving him. Once
the intellect is the vehicle of evolution biological evolution is no longer
needed. (a tip of the hat to Derrida's idea of the fundamental importance of
writing) I think we have arrived at this stage, whether we manage to
overcome biological death in physical ways other than writing- as we have
overcome other biological limits I don't (yet) know, but even if we don't
there is the argument that intelligence need not be biologically based and
if this is so then potentially immortal and creative intelligences are
possible.
>
> In Michaelangelo's famous Sistine chapel's depiction of creation where
> the hand of God's reaches out/points to Adam - this is really symbolic
> of death's evolutionary role in the selection of humanity.
>
> In Hindu/Buddhist thought, Shiva/Kali is both creator AND Detroyer, in
> the sense that they are the same.
>
> Animals kill each other/select each other for food in the old testament
> both BEFORE and AFTER the fall of man in the Garden of Eden. The G of E
> is the place where the lion lays down with the lamb - with the lions maw
> smeared with the lambs blood and the lambs guts opened up before lion.
> As it was in the garden of eden, is it now.
>
> The tragedy in the creation story of genesis is mans REALIZATION that it
> is death that has created man - that death is the god that has created
> man - the source and destination of ALL gods creation.
>
Your interpretation makes sense- but we must await Moggin's correction -
but not with bated breath...
If only the serpent had led eve to the tree of eternal life first - which
was not forbidden- what a git.
>
> > The whole birth-death cycle puts in a greater sense of animation. This
> > does not negate the idea of God being love because it means possibly
> > the lowest form of life can evolve their its own effort to be something
> > great.
>
> Karl Popper developed a theory of falsifiabily as a criterion for the
> scientific method - the willingness to put theories theories to
> empirical test allowed science discard/prune theories and the for Popper
> this played the same role in scientific development that death and
> natural selection plays in the development of species and biological
> advancement. Thus Popper shows that the generative force of death
> continues to play a role in our intellectual sphere as it did in our
> biological.
>
Or in post-modernity the consumer and the market is the generative force...
> Death is mother of us all.
>
"The Pope owns 51% of general motors.. " - George Harrison
Mounard le Fougueux
> "Mounard le Fougueux" <Foug...@daeventhorizon.com> wrote in message
> news:lZadnbh6uNA...@adelphia.com...
>
>>telicalbook wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Regarding the idea of where's the virtue in a tooth and claw planet
>>>where animals must be on their guard -- such a scenario causes
>>>evolution. It causes a sense of aliveness.
>>
>>So it is death that is the true creative force in the world.
>
>
> If you mean this world - and fairly recently then i suppose it might have a
> role. I thought death arrives with sex, that is simple cells like amoeba
> don't age and die but age and divide. The advantage i thought for sex was
> that genetic permutation could evolve more complex forms of life.
or the citizens of Dresden.
> With human
> creativity death is overcome, Michelangelo's paintings outliving him.
We steal from the dead, and line the walls of our sitting rooms with
trophies...
> Once
> the intellect is the vehicle of evolution biological evolution is no longer
> needed. (a tip of the hat to Derrida's idea of the fundamental importance of
> writing) I think we have arrived at this stage, whether we manage to
> overcome biological death in physical ways other than writing- as we have
> overcome other biological limits I don't (yet) know, but even if we don't
> there is the argument that intelligence need not be biologically based and
> if this is so then potentially immortal and creative intelligences are
> possible.
This is true only for modernists and active members of the Enlightenment
program, like R. Buckminster Fuller.
For the postmodernist, there is only the endless wheel of
deconstruction... in 5 billion year from now intelligences with
technologies beyond present comprehension will find some archive of this
newsgroup and wonder about the Whitehead-Moggin "dialogs" ....
James Whitehead
> For the postmodernist, there is only the endless wheel of
> deconstruction... in 5 billion year from now intelligences with
> technologies beyond present comprehension will find some archive of this
> newsgroup and wonder about the Whitehead-Moggin "dialogs" ....
>
They would simply reconstruct us both and we could meet face to face...
on the face of it such dialogs which create wonder in future intelligences
are a ticket to a kind of resurrection then.
Thats the only thing he's qualified to quote us?
> >
> >
> >
Kater Moggin
> 1 Chr 21 -
> "Satan stood up against Israel .....inciting David..
> God was displeased with this thing... "
Highly deceitful editing-job. In 1 Chronicles 21 God aims
his displeasure at Israel, not at Satan. "This thing"
displeasing to Yahweh is David's census, which you conveniently
left out of your quote, rather than Satan's inciting. In
fact the parallel in 2 Sam. 24 shows the Creator inciting David
in exactly the same way.
> In no way then a "loyal servent"!
Satan is here a very loyal servant to Yahweh: he does the
exact same job -- namely inciting Israel -- that Yahweh
performs for himself in the parallel version of the story. God
is angry at Israel, not Satan.
> so here the OT Satan in Chr 21 is not a loyal servant -
Here in 1 Chronicles 21 Satan is a very loyal servant; you
had to dishonestly edit the story to make it seems as tho
Yahweh was displeased with him rather than with Israel. What's
more, Satan's job in 1 Chron. 21 is the same one that the
Creator does for himself in 2 Samuel 24, contrary to your claim
Satan is acting disloyally.
> and identifies his Father
> "Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing:
> it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:"
More duplicitous editing. No, Jesus isn't identifying his
Father: he's pointing out that certain of his enemies
equate his God with theirs. Whether they're correct is a whole
'nother question. Jesus seems pretty doubtful about them --
in the next verse, which you carefully left out, he denies they
know God at all.
> So the God of Abraham YHWEH is JCs Dad.
Or the opposite: Jesus is correcting folks who mistakenly
believe his God is Yahweh.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> What treatment and from who?
Robert's claim that the Creator is a good God who believes
animals should be well-treated is contradicted by the
cruelties they're subjected to in his Creation, e.g. nature red
in tooth and claw.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> Animals kill each other/select each other for food in the old testament
> both BEFORE and AFTER the fall of man in the Garden of Eden.
Sorry, Maynard, but you're disputed by Genesis 1:30, where
the Creator says:
... to every beast of the earth, and to every
bird of the air, and to everything that creeps
on the earth, everything that has the breath
of life, I have given every green plant for food.
That's before the Fall, and God is giving the beasts green
plants to live on.
> The G of E
> is the place where the lion lays down with the lamb - with the lions maw
> smeared with the lambs blood and the lambs guts opened up before lion.
Of course you're welcome to your visions of paradise -- no
matter how bloody they are -- but Genesis doesn't mention
lions murdering lambs in the Garden (on the contrary, they seem
to have been vegetarians), and Isaiah prophesies they'll
live together peacefully ("They shall not hurt nor destroy") on
a holy mountain.
-- Moggin
James Whitehead
> James Whitehead <x...@yyy.co.uk>:
I'm amazed how little you have to say ...
>
> > 1 Chr 21 -
>
> > "Satan stood up against Israel .....inciting David..
> > God was displeased with this thing... "
>
> Highly deceitful editing-job. In 1 Chronicles 21 God aims
> his displeasure at Israel, not at Satan. "This thing"
> displeasing to Yahweh is David's census, which you conveniently
> left out of your quote, rather than Satan's inciting. In
> fact the parallel in 2 Sam. 24 shows the Creator inciting David
> in exactly the same way.
>
"And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number
Israel. " .... "And God was displeased with this thing; "
Chapter and Verse shows they are one and the same as you say "same" -
As in 2 Sam 24 where the author states
"And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved
David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. 2 "
> > In no way then a "loyal servant
>
> Satan is here a very loyal servant to Yahweh: he does the
> exact same job -- namely inciting Israel
I think you've made a mistake here - Satan "incites" *David* in 1 Chron and
God does the same job in 2 Sam.
>-- that Yahweh
> performs for himself in the parallel version of the story. God
> is angry at Israel, not Satan.
In scripture 1 Chronicles 21 and 2 Samuel 24 show god and Satan to be one
and the same. So
Satan cant be a servant - loyal or otherwise.
>
> > so here the OT Satan in Chr 21 is not a loyal servant -
>
> Here in 1 Chronicles 21 Satan is a very loyal servant;
Where does it say that in 1 Chr 21! It doesn't!
> you
> had to dishonestly edit the story to make it seems as tho
> Yahweh was displeased with him rather than with Israel. What's
> more, Satan's job in 1 Chron. 21 is the same one that the
> Creator does for himself in 2 Samuel 24, contrary to your claim
> Satan is acting disloyally.
You nearly get it - not only is his job the same the texts identify Satan
and God as doing them same thing - but not as two individuals...
In your own words - using your own reasoning here " So
Yahweh and the NT Satan have the same job. " - "which makes Yahweh
and Satan one and the same. " in the OT - and so Satan certainly isn't a
servant...
> > and identifies his Father
>
> > "Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing:
> > it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:"
>
Whoa - loads of editing moggin - you removed the muddle you have regarding
Satan in the NT - same job as YAHWEH or same person - and my attempts to
clear it up for you.
> More duplicitous editing. No, Jesus isn't identifying his
> Father: he's pointing out that certain of his enemies
> equate his God with theirs.
yes - and also equate him with Satan - which JC does not deny - you edited
that out too!
Jesus is afterall in their temple built to their God
by the son of David - which Jesus calls my fathers house!
>Whether they're correct is a whole
> 'nother question. Jesus seems pretty doubtful about them --
> in the next verse, which you carefully left out, he denies they
> know God at all.
Thats not pretty doubtful - its certain- but Jesus is talking in the NT not
the old - and telling the folks they dont know about YAHWEH whose temple
they are in.
>
> > So the God of Abraham YAHWEH is JCs Dad.
>
> Or the opposite: Jesus is correcting folks who mistakenly
> believe his God is Yahweh.
>
Whoever or whatever they think Yahweh is the Yahweh of the OT is known to
Abraham at first hand -
he "believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness." and
" Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. " -
No where does Jesus correct anybody for saying God is Yahweh - you've made
that up - Jesus is standing in Yahweh's temple which he calls My Fathers
House -
-sure folks may well not know who YAHWEH or Jesus is - but that's their
problem - you yourself are confused about who Satan is in the NT -
"And thus they returned us answer, saying, We are the servants of the God of
heaven and earth, and build the house that was builded these many years
ago,which a great king of Israel builded and set up. " Now whose house is
this
anyway?
> -- Moggin
James Whitehead
from who?
James Whitehead
> lions murdering lambs in the Garden
Do lions commit murder - that is after the fall - surely its lamiside at
worse!
Mounard le Fougueux
> Mounard le Fougueux <Foug...@daeventhorizon.com>:
>
>
>>Animals kill each other/select each other for food in the old testament
>>both BEFORE and AFTER the fall of man in the Garden of Eden.
>
>
> Sorry, Maynard, but you're disputed by Genesis 1:30, where
> the Creator says:
>
> ... to every beast of the earth, and to every
> bird of the air, and to everything that creeps
> on the earth, everything that has the breath
> of life, I have given every green plant for food.
>
> That's before the Fall, and God is giving the beasts green
> plants to live on.
1. the name is Mounard, not Maynard.
2. On the sixth day God created the "beasts of the earth" (in Genesis
1:25 the Hebrew word is chayyah, which is best translated as "wild
animal," usually referring to carnivorous mammals (in the OT 20 out of
24 uses of the term "Chayyah" clearly refers to a carnivore))
.....and God saw that it was good.
3. God didn't re-create chayyah as carnivores after the fall of man.
4. There was no "fall" of animals, only of Adam.
5. All you beasts [chayyah] of the field, All you beasts [chayyah] in
the forest, Come to eat. (Isaiah 56:9)
'Moreover, I will send on you famine and wild beasts [chayyah], and they
will bereave you of children; plague and bloodshed also will pass
through you, and I will bring the sword on you. I, the LORD, have
spoken.'"(Ezekiel 5:17)
6. The indo-euro word for god come from "to pour libation". Both jewish
and indo-euro people understood that the libation of the gods is blood,
which is why priests of all cults, as described in the Iliad as well as
the Torah, are those skilled and purified enough to pour blood on the
alter of god.
7. The massiach will be known because he will be the one to restart
blood sacrifices in the holy of holies in the temple of jerisalaim.
...
Ned Ludd
>
> 2. On the sixth day God created the "beasts of the earth" (in Genesis
> 1:25 the Hebrew word is chayyah, which is best translated as "wild
> animal," usually referring to carnivorous mammals (in the OT 20 out
> of 24 uses of the term "Chayyah" clearly refers to a carnivore))
> .....and God saw that it was good.
>
There go the ships: there is that leviathan, whom thou hast made
to play therein. These wait all upon thee; that thou mayest give
them their meat in due season. - Psalms 104:26
Ned
Kater Moggin
> 2. On the sixth day God created the "beasts of the earth" (in Genesis 1:25
True. And if you keep reading, you'll see God gives those
beasts "green plant for food" -- Gen. 1:30 -- contrary to
your claim, "Animals kill each other/select each other for food
in the old testament both BEFORE and AFTER the fall of man in
the Garden of Eden." Your image of lions slaughtering lambs in
the Garden is also missing from Genesis, and Isaiah says the
place where the lion and lamb will lie together is a "holy
mountain" where "they shall not hurt nor destroy" (65:25), once
again contradicting you.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> "Kater Moggin" <kimm...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> news:kimmerian-03492...@news.verizon.net...
> > lions murdering lambs in the Garden
Another stupid editing trick from James. I said, "Genesis
doesn't mention lions murdering lambs in the Garden (on the
contrary, they seem to have been vegetarians)," opposite to the
pseudo-quote above.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> from who?
The claim that the Creator is a good God who feels animals
should be well-treated was offered by Robert Pearson. It's
doubtful in view of the cruelties in the Creation, for instance
Kater Moggin
> "And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number
> Israel. " .... "And God was displeased with this thing; "
Highly deceitful editing-job. In 1 Chronicles 21 God aims
his displeasure at Israel, not at Satan. "This thing"
displeasing to Yahweh is David's census, which you conveniently
left out of your quote, rather than Satan's provoking. In
fact the parallel in 2 Sam. 24 shows the Creator inciting David
in exactly the same way.
> Chapter and Verse shows
Chapter and verse shows that you quoted dishonestly -- and
not for the first time.
> As in 2 Sam 24
2 Samuel 24 shows Yahweh performing the same action you're
claiming makes Satan disloyal to him in 1 Chronicles -- a
claim missing from the story there, where Yahweh is reported to
be angry with Israel -- not Satan.
> Whoa - loads of editing
Yours, in particular: uou falsely said Jesus is
identifying his Father where he's talking about how his enemies
do so, and you carefully left off the immediately following
verse, where Jesus is doubtful about their perception of things.
> Jesus is standing in Yahweh's temple which he calls My Fathers
> House -
That would explain why he drove out Yahweh's money-lenders.
Also his arguments with Yahweh's priests.
> Jesus is talking in the NT not
> the old - and telling the folks they dont know about YAHWEH whose temple
> they are in.
Or Jesus is saying that they don't know his God regardless
how familiar they are with Yahweh.
-- Moggin
Mounard le Fougueux
1. Again, in verse 30 the term "Chayyah" is used, which implies carnivore.
2. This particular translation, below, can be interpretated as saying
that beasts. fowl, and snakes are to be understood as having "living
souls" and green herbs don't have souls, but have "purpose" only as food.
"30 and to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and
to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is a living
soul, [I have given] every green herb for food.' And it was so. "
Other (KJ) translations say "green plants for meat"
3. Your point, however is taken, and can be (mis) construed (as you seem
to) as evidence that god's original intention is for everything to be
vegetarian. To the end of getting more light on this verse I've
contacted some orthodox rabbis (Chabbadnicks) for clarification.
4. However for me, in light of god not RE-creating or changing the
digestive tracts on carnivores anywhere in the bible, implies that
lions, eagles and snakes are as they were originally created, carnivores.
Kater Moggin
> 1. Again, in verse 30 the term "Chayyah" is used, which implies carnivore.
Again, if you read on, then you'll that see Gen. 1:30 adds
God gives those beasts plants to live on.
... 'to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl
of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon
the earth, wherein there is a living soul, I have
given every green herb for food.' And it was so.
So before the Fall otherwise-carnivorous beasts ate plants
rather than animals.
Your idea that the lion lying down with the lamb refers to
lions slaughtering lambs in the Garden of Eden is mere
nonsense, scripturally speaking. The expression comes from the
Book of Isaiah, which is prophesizing a time when lions and
lambs will live together peacefully -- it specifies no hurt and
no destruction -- on a holy mountain.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> That would explain why he drove out Yahweh's money-lenders.
Correction: money-changers.
-- Moggin
James Whitehead
who is treating them badly?
James Whitehead
I'm amused at the idea you have that lions could commit murder by killing a
lamb -
James Whitehead
> Mounard le Fougueux <Foug...@daeventhorizon.com>:
>
> > 2. On the sixth day God created the "beasts of the earth" (in Genesis
1:25
>
> True. And if you keep reading, you'll see God gives those
> beasts "green plant for food" -- Gen. 1:30 -- contrary to
> your claim, "Animals kill each other/select each other for food
> in the old testament both BEFORE and AFTER the fall of man in
> the Garden of Eden." Your image of lions slaughtering lambs in
do you mean murdering?
Kater Moggin
> do you mean murdering?
I mean that the Book of Genesis clearly disputes Maynard's
claim animals kill each other for food before the Fall
according to the OT, since Gen. 1:30 says God gave green plants
to the beasts for their food.
Maynard's vision of lions slaughtering lambs in the Garden
is missing from Genesis. The verse he referred to, where
lions and lambs are said to lie together, is from a prophesy in
Isaiah (11:6-9, 65:25), which states explicitly "they shall
not hurt nor destroy," the very opposite of Maynard's assertion.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
You're editing dishonestly, just as usual, in this case by
turning my remark that "Genesis doesn't mention lions
murdering lambs in the Garden" into its exact opposite: "lions
murdering lambs in the Garden."
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> who
Robert Pearson is contending the Creator is a good God who
believes animals should be well-treated -- highly doubtful
theology considering the cruelties in the Creation, frex nature
James Whitehead
> I wrote:
and what you wrote was wrong -
And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD
that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee:
James Whitehead
with such silly ideas as Lions that could murder - either in or out of the
garden - that Satan is a Loyal Servant of YAHWEH in the O.T. when by your
own logic and argument - they are the same - and in scripture neither
servant or loyalty is mentioned - but Gods displeasure with Satan is - and
that somehow the temple in Jerusalem wasn't built for the worship of YAHWEH.
Just as you confused money lenders for changers.
James Whitehead
> who
Bad example - nature being red in tooth and claw does not imply mistreatment
of animals - quite the opposite. Frex - sticking an Eagle in a cage and
feeding it vegan food *would* be cruel. Balanced eco-systems and food
chains are considered good.
I think there was even a Buddha who feed himself to a Tiger.
James Whitehead
murdering lambs in the Garden"
or anywhere in the OT as Satan as being Gods loyal servant - but it doesn't
stop you asserting it.
Kater Moggin
> And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD
> that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee:
I see you're back to giving unreferenced quotes -- all the
better to hide your editing-tricks. In this instance you
totally removed the context, which shows Satan serving as man's
prosecutor or adversary, in keeping with his name, while
Yahweh sits as judge. Zechariah is the acccused. Yahweh sides
with the defense, rebuking Satan, who loses the case. No
evidence Satan is being disloyal to Yahweh, so you haven't come
up with even a single example.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> No need to edit
Funny thing to say after editing-out the whole post you're
supposedly replying to.
Oh, even more! You've gone to the trouble of breaking the
thread, making it that much harder to go back and see the
article you erased from your follow-up: a trick I remember you
pulling before.
> you are
I'm showing where you've dishonestly edited the quotes you
give to support your false claims.
For instance, you wrongly argued that Satan is disloyal to
Yahweh in the OT, quoting 1 Chron. like so:
"Satan stood up against Israel .....inciting
David.. God was displeased with this thing... "
By removing several key lines, you made it seem as tho God
was displeased with Satan for inciting David -- _not_ the
story told in 1 Chronicles, where Yahweh gets angry with Israel
rather than Satan.
Satan is just doing his job -- something that becomes even
more obvious if you look at the parallel in 2 Samuel, where
Yahweh himself does the exact, same thing, i.e., provokes David
to number the Israelites.
Another example: you falsely claimed Jesus identified his
Father in John 8:54, where he's actually pointing out his
_enemies_' perception, and you left off the next line, where he
has doubts about their understanding.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> Bad example -
On the contrary, it's an excellent example -- probably why
you dodged it repeatedly.
> nature being red in tooth and claw does not imply mistreatment
> of animals -
Sure does. If you feel animals should be treated lovingly
-- Robert's claim about the Creator of this world -- you
wouldn't design things so that many of them are hunted down and
torn apart on a regular basis.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> or anywhere in the OT as Satan as being Gods loyal servant - but it doesn't
> stop you asserting it.
Every single example that you've given of Satan's supposed
disloyalty to Yahweh in the OT depends on your typically
dishonest editing. When you quoted 1 Chronicles you erased the
verses showing that Yahweh's anger was directed at Israel
rather than Satan, re-writing the Bible to fit your false claim.
Then you gave a totally out-of-context quote -- neglecting
to mention where it was from -- where Satan was rebuked by
Yahweh. But no disloyalty in the story, where Satan is serving
as man's prosecutor while Yahweh sits as judge. In this
instance Yahweh decides for the accused, viz. Zechariah. Satan
remains entirely loyal.
Always the same with you: ignorant assertions followed by
dishonest attempts to evade your mistakes.
-- Moggin
James Whitehead
Its you that made the assertion that Satan was a Loyal servant - so as any
lawyer would tell you its for you to prove your argument, elsewhere using
your argument i prove that Satan is in fact YAHWEH.
James Whitehead
> James Whitehead <x...@yyy.co.uk>:
>> Oh, even more! You've gone to the trouble of breaking the
> thread, making it that much harder to go back and see the
> article you erased from your follow-up: a trick I remember you
> pulling before.
References: <1129908814.6...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
<1130312360.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
<1130559805.1...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
<lZadnbh6uNA...@adelphia.com>
<kimmerian-03492...@news.verizon.net>
<dtOdnSKvKcq...@adelphia.com>
<kimmerian-FF9A5...@news.verizon.net>
<dk5q77$uve$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>
This creates an error from my ISP newserver as it did before - so i havent
gone to the trouble of breaking the thread - but have once again gone to the
trouble of pointing out another instance of your stating siomething which is
wrong. Try checking facts before making assetions in future.
James Whitehead
applying a Disney ethic on nature is both wrong and cruel...
James Whitehead
> James Whitehead <x...@yyy.co.uk>:
>
> Always the same with you: ignorant assertions followed by
> dishonest attempts to evade your mistakes.
>
Satan and YAHWEH are one and the same.
Kater Moggin
> Its you that made the assertion that Satan was a Loyal servant -
More exactly, I said that the Old Testament Satan is loyal
to the OT deity. You then contended that I was wrong.
Difference is, my claim is consistent with the OT, while you've
been forced into editing the scriptures and giving
out-of-context quotes. You ran together verses that you lifted
from 1 Chronicles to make it seem as if Yahweh's anger was
aimed at Satan rather than Israel. Then, instead of correcting
yourself, you tried to pretend that his judgment for the
defense in Zechariah's case was evidence of Satan's -- supposed
-- disloyalty, as if a prosecutor who loses in court is
disloyal to the judge. No wonder you didn't say where you were
quoting from.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> Try checking facts
Already did. I notice you've erased my fact-checking from
your reply. Here it is again:
Kater Moggin
> Satan and YAHWEH are one and the same.
Doesn't fit well with your claim that Satan is disloyal to
Yahweh.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> applying a Disney ethic on nature is both wrong and cruel...
You're free to think so, if thinking is the word. But the
claim that the Creator is a good God who believes animals
ought to be treated lovingly remains at odds with the cruelties
they're subjected to in his Creation.
-- Moggin
James Whitehead
No - you've changed the topic - you said
You've gone to the trouble of breaking the
> thread, making it that much harder to go back
Not true and proved not true.
James Whitehead
Only to the mind of an average 7 year old.
Eden resembles a worse case Victorian Zoo with captive wild animals unable
to behave naturally, even worse Lions being feed on vegetables, such zoos
are rightly considered cruel.
James Whitehead
Of course it doesn't - though i dont remember ever saying Satan was
disloyal - i was addressing your unsupported assumption without any
scriptural quote referenced or not that Satan was a loyal Servant. But i'm
happy to blow the servant idea and conclude Satan and YAHWEH in the OT are
the same- it shows your
statement
"Yes and no. The OT clearly distinguishes Yahweh and Satan.
Yahweh is the Lord and Creator of this world, Satan is a
fairly minor character who obeys his commands. "
to be wrong - it neither distinguishes clearly - it conflates - that YAHWEH
is Lord of *Heaven* and Earth - and no where is YAHWEH giving commands to
Satan but in two cases allows Satan to put Job to the test.
> -- Moggin
James Whitehead
> James Whitehead <x...@yyy.co.uk>:
>
> > Its you that made the assertion that Satan was a Loyal servant -
>
> More exactly, I said that the Old Testament Satan is loyal
> to the OT deity. You then contended that I was wrong.
> Difference is, my claim is consistent with the OT,
No its not and you are unable to use scripture to support this. Satan's
motives are not those of a loyal servant - his main intent as shown in
scripture is to create enmity between man and god - no motivation is given -
loyal or disloyal - servant or not. However in two places Satan and YAHWEH
are seen to be one and the same, something you have singularly avoided to
address.
Kater Moggin
> Satan's motives are not those of a loyal servant -
So you claim. But you've failed to show anywhere Satan is
disloyal to Yahweh in the OT. The opposite: you've quoted
the scriptures deceivingly, giving an out-of-context verse from
Zechariah -- you conveniently forgot to mention where you
quoted from -- and then running together carefully chosen lines
from 1 Chron. to make it seem Yahweh was angry at Satan
instead of the Israelites, showing you can't give your position
an honest defense.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> no where is YAHWEH giving commands to
> Satan but in two cases allows Satan to put Job to the test.
Your own example proves you wrong. Yahweh allows Satan to
put Job to the test, therefore Yahweh is in command. And
what's more, Yahweh commands Satan about the details: first to
not harm Job in his own person, then -- after Satan comes
back and asks for more working-room -- to be sure that his harm
stops short of Job's death.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> Eden resembles a worse case Victorian Zoo with captive wild animals unable
> to behave naturally, even worse Lions being feed on vegetables, such zoos
> are rightly considered cruel.
You're free to think so, if thinking is the word. But the
Kater Moggin
> No -
Oh, certainly. You dishonestly edited the quotes you gave
James Whitehead
Only to someone with the moral set of a six year old mid-west girl....
James Whitehead
That you cant see the difference is why perhaps you fail to understand the
idea of free will.
Example - as God obliviously gives me free will to murder - he commands me
too -
is rubbish.
Example 2. As God allows you free will - everything you write is at his
command -
is that so?
"Kater Moggin" <kimm...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:kimmerian-C34FE...@news.verizon.net...
Kater Moggin
> Allowing someone to do something is not the same as commanding them too.
Since Yahweh allows Satan to torture Job -- he gives Satan
his divine go-ahead -- it's clear that the Creator is in
command. And what's more, Yahweh gives Satan specific commands
about how to do his work: first he commands Satan to avoid
harming Job personally, then, when Satan asks him for some more
leeway, Yahweh commands him to stop short of Job's death.
Ergo your own example, the Book of Job, proves you wrong to say
Yahweh never commands Satan in the OT.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> Only
Only problem with the claim that the Creator is a good God
who feels animals should be well-treated is that they're
subjected to cruelties in his Creation, for instance nature red
in tooth and claw.
-- Moggin
James Whitehead
> James Whitehead <x...@yyy.co.uk>:
>
> > Allowing someone to do something is not the same as commanding them too.
>
> Since Yahweh allows Satan to torture Job -- he gives Satan
> his divine go-ahead -
Thats not the same as commanding him to do so-
>- it's clear that the Creator is in
> command. And what's more, Yahweh gives Satan specific commands
> about how to do his work:
moot point - he restricts Satan's actions - which he didn't command. I'd
say limiting someone's freedom is not the same as commanding them to do
something.
If you want to treat such limitations as command then your free to do so.
I'd say buying a train ticket doesn't command me to travel, therefore the
restriction of it being a second class ticket doesn't "command" me to travel
second class. I've never seen the term used as such but you might use it so
and perhaps find some examples.
Anyway your left with a nice point which is probably not worth debating-
failed to address the main argument i used - which was in fact your own.
Elsewhere you appear to be merely repeating yourself - so i'll leave you
with your last word which you always seem to need-
till next time-
bye.
James Whitehead
"James Whitehead" <x...@yyy.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dkcd8f$4nv$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
should read "only with someone with the moral set of 'my little pony "
Kater Moggin
> the main argument i used -
Referring to the OT, you argued "no where is YAHWEH giving
commands to Satan but in two cases allows Satan to put Job
to the test." Your own example proves you wrong: Yahweh gives
Satan his divine permission to torture Job, showing the
Creator is in command, and then gives Satan particular commands
about how to do the work: first he commands Satan to avoid
harming Job in his own person, then -- when Satan asks for more
room -- Yahweh commands him to stop short of Job's death.
The Book of Job therefore shows Satan doing evil under Yahweh's
command, contrary to your claim.
You also argued that Satan is disoyal to Yahweh in the Old
Testament, but you couldn't fine anywhere that was so.
Instead you offered an entirely out-of-context quote from taken
from Zechariah -- which you conveniently neglected to name --
and a deceitfully edited one lifted from 1 Chronicles 21, where
you simply removed a number of lines to make it seem the
Creator was angry at Satan, not Israel. Once again your chosen
examples didn't support you.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> James Whitehead <x...@yyy.co.uk> wrote in message:
I see James is reduced to talking to himself, showing once
again he doesn't like to hear dissenting voices. In this
instance we were discussing the idea that the Creator is a good
and loving god who feels animals should be well-treated: a
claim contradicted by the cruelties they're subjected to in the
Creation.
James tried and failed to reconcile the evils found in the
Creation with the Creator's supposed goodness. All his
suggestions depended on erasing part of the idea (e.g. removing
the claim the Creator is good or entirely rejecting his
existence) or dodging the issue in other, equally unimaginative
ways.
We also some talked about the Bible. James denied God has
responsibility for the Fall in Genesis, but the story told
there clearly proves him wrong. Adam and Eve are in the Garden
even after they've eaten from the Tree of Knowledge. The
Creator then chooses to throw them out, cursing them as they go.
Even James' re-written version of the Genesis story, which
blames man for the Fall, fails to explain why God has been
slow in repairing the world or making the scripturally-promised
new one.
-- Moggin
James Whitehead
The "james" thing is kind of scarry?
James Whitehead
Being in command and giving commands are not the same.
Kater Moggin
> Being in command and giving commands are not the same.
Your claim Yahweh doesn't command Satan anywhere in the OT
-- particularly in Job -- is proved false by your chosen
example. Since the Creator gives Satan his godly permission to
torture Mr. Job, it's clear he's in command, and he then
commands Satan on the details: first off, he commands Satan to
not harm Job bodily, and then, when Satan wants more
working-room, he commands Satan to stop his harm short of Job's
death.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> The "james" thing is kind of scarry?
I don't know how scarred you are, James, but I can see why
you would be wondering, too: considering all of the bull
you've offered -- for example, deleting verses from your quotes
to distort the Bible -- it's easy enough to guess why you
would have trouble looking yourself in the face. Of course the
scars could be lower down.
-- Moggin
James Whitehead
each other outside of our differences, and I believe this
includes caring for animals as well. Any time you love someone
or even an animal, you are rewarded for this." "Even an
animal," huh? Well, nevermind his tone. If God thinks animals
should be well-cared for -- a thought that I agree with --
then how come he treats them so badly? Why does he make nature
red in tooth and claw?
Question? Do you agree with Pearson's thought that God thinks animals should
be well cared for - or with God's thought that they should be well cared
for. It isnt clear?
James Whitehead
caring - or abuse!
Dumbbell.
You're lying again.
The Other, who's on the scene, has agreed you're talking
crap.
You have yet to display either veracity or intelligence in
this discussion.
typically boring crank, incapable of even a minimal
degree of honesty or intelligence,
You're lying twice-over:
An example
of your dishonesty.
You tried to slip it in much later, which was
simple dishonesty. Also pretty damn stupid
Yet another one of your bare-faced lies. No, wait -- it's
two of 'em in the same package.
There is where you try to distract from the falsehoods and
weaseling you offered by following them up with baseless
accusations, piling lies on top of lies.
You're lying again. Hopelessly, pathetically lying,
Now we both know that you're completely untrustworthy
Presenting
yourself as a delicate little flower isn't much of a substitute.
For you to call that comprehensive is exceedingly stupid.
you really should try to broaden your
reading.
Obvious that you can't back up
the crap you say.
you illiterate nincompoop,
So it's easy to see you're a con-man
You _are_ the lying swine who relies on misdirection:
The village idiot threatens he'll stop following me around.
It seems you're illiterate. But there's nothing new about
that.
What makes you illiterate is difficult for me
to say, since I don't know you personally. But if I had to
guess, I'd say it's a combination of dogmatism, sloppiness, and
natural stupidity.
monkey-boy.
Either you're lying
or illiterate -- take your pick.
Wrong again, my illiterate little friend.
=======================
"If there were nothing more to man than
animal" isn't the same as "There is nothing animal in man,"
======================
Kater Moggin
> Question? Do you agree with Pearson's thought that God thinks animals should
> be well cared for - or with God's thought that they should be well cared
> for. It isnt clear?
Thanks for asking. The answer is that I was very clear to
begin with, then piled on more clarity.
Message-ID: kimmerian-DF9FA...@news.verizon.net
Message-ID: kimmerian-CB03D...@news.verizon.net
Message-ID: kimmerian-C7CE5...@news.verizon.net
Example:
I'm agreeing with the thought Robert Pearson attributed to
the Creator -- that animals should be well-treated -- and
observing that it's at odds with the cruelties of nature in the
Creation.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> caring - or abuse!
My point precisely. Robert Pearson claimed the Creator is
a good, loving god who believes animals should be well
treated, but it's very hard to reconcile that theology with the
cruelties of the Creation.
-- Moggin
James Whitehead
And I'm observing that you agreed with such sentiments - which is it at odds
with your own behaviour.
Kater Moggin
> And I'm observing that you agreed with
Actually you're wondering what I agreed with and asking me
if I made my point clearly. The answer is that I was very
clear to begin with, then added even more clarity along the way.
Another example:
Robert Pearson is contending the Creator is a good God who
believes animals should be well-treated -- highly doubtful
theology considering the cruelties in the Creation, frex nature
red in tooth and claw.
-- Moggin
James Whitehead
> ames Whitehead <x...@yyy.co.uk>:
>
> > And I'm observing that you agreed with
>
> Actually you're wondering what I agreed with and asking me
> if I made my point clearly. The answer is that I was very
> clear to begin with, then added even more clarity along the way.
agreed - your hypocrisy is for all to see....
Kater Moggin
> agreed -
Doesn't seem so, no. I pointed out that Robert's idea the
Creator of this world is a good God who believes animals
should be well-treated is doubtful theology considering all the
cruelties animals suffer in the Creation, e.g. nature red in
tooth and claw. You tried and failed to argue differently, and
you've been dodging ever since.
-- Moggin
James Whitehead
> you've been dodging ever since.
careful - such accusations can be quite hurtful you know....