For our religious friends, here are some non-scriptural advice
ajo...@gmail.com
This is from an atheist without all the thee, thine, thous, etc.
Advice like this can compete with anything you can find in the
scriptures and you don't have to worship anyone to live it.
Don’t undermine your worth by comparing yourself with others. It is
because we are different that each of us is special. Don’t set your
goals by what other people deem important. Only you know what is best
for you. Don’t take for granted the things closest to your heart.
Cling to them as you would your life, for without them life is
meaningless. Don’t let your life slip through your fingers by living
in the past or for the future. By living your life one day at a time,
you live all the days of your life. Don’t give up when you still have
something to give. Nothing is really over until the moment you stop
trying. Don’t be afraid to admit that you are less than perfect. It
is this fragile thread that binds us to one another. Don’t be afraid
to encounter risks. It is by taking chances that we learn how to be
brave. Don’t shut love out of your life by saying it’s impossible to
find. The quickest way to receive love is to give love, the fastest
way to lose love is to hold it too lightly, and the best way to keep
love is to give it wings. Don’t dismiss your dreams. To be without
dreams is to be without hope; to be without hope is to be without
purpose. Don’t run through life so fast that you forget not only
where you’ve been but also where you’re going. Life is not a race,
but a journey to be savored each step of the way.
rasqual
> For our religious friends, here are some non-scriptural advice
>
> This is from an atheist without all the thee, thine, thous, etc.
> Advice like this can compete with anything you can find in the
> scriptures and you don't have to worship anyone to live it.
Speaking as a non-Mormon, I'll mention that the Bible has a
substantial wisdom tradition (Ecclesiastes, Job, and Proverbs are
obvious examples). Your bromides (most of which are vapid) aim at
something comparable, I guess.
As for competing with "anything" in scripture, that's not really
possible, since the wisdom literature in the Bible is relatively small
compared with its salvation history and the New Testament development
of Christian theology: God incarnate. Something that cosmic -- whether
you believe it or not -- doesn't really "compete with" banal stuff
like "Don’t dismiss your dreams."
One other observation: your platitudes have no real warrant. "Life is
not a race..." Well why the hell not? Who says? ;-)
ajo...@gmail.com
----I thought the composition I posted had a real positive thrust as
compared to dismal so-called teachings that the Bible claims to give.
One of the most disgusting and demeaning books in the scriptures are
the Old Testament writings. I believe mankind would be much better
off if it never was introduced to the rape, killings, wars and
complete despair that is found in the Old Testament. If you wish to
be in the race of life, have at it. To call God cosmic gave me one of
the biggest chuckles I've had all day.
Point Zero (LDS)
I don't want to take your post apart, because I understand that your
intentions are good, but I taken only three statements to show you how
disagreeable this would seem to good Christians, because you've chosen
to have selective understanding with religious people, and perhaps
that is not the root of the problem but just the manifestations of
what you chose to see in this world.
Take for example the following assertions you give...
a. "Don't undermine your worth by comparing yourself with others."
b. "It is because we are different that each of us is special."
c. "Don't set your goals by what other people deem important."
Ans. to a: We only come to know who we are by knowing who God is. Man
can never come to know God by knowing himself. God has to reveal
himself to man.
Ans. to b: God never created us before, but then man is NOT created
equal. Some are born with more blessing than others, more gifts, more
intelligence.
Ans. to c: Jesus Christ set our goal, "Be perfect as your Father in
heaven." What people deem important is not important according to
Solomon, he explains all this folly of man thinking that possession
here on earth meant anything in this universe in which we live. What
matters when all is done and lived, is how we treated one another for
that is what God shall be back to your mind on Judgment Day. We are
all of one family, and our Father in heaven shall hold us all
accountable on Judgment Day how we showed love for one another, and
how we hurt others.
Point Zero (LDS)
<time-t...@titor.net> wrote:
corrections:
Ans. to c: Jesus Christ set our goal, "Be perfect as your Father in
heaven." What people deem important is not important according to
Solomon, he explains all this folly of man thinking that [our]
possessions] here on earth meant anything in this universe in which we
live. What matters when all is done and lived, is how we treated one
another for that is what God shall [bring] back to your mind on
ajo...@gmail.com
wrote:
> I don't want to take your post apart, because I understand that your
> intentions are good, but I taken only three statements to show you how
> disagreeable this would seem to good Christians, because you've chosen
> to have selective understanding with religious people, and perhaps
> that is not the root of the problem but just the manifestations of
> what you chose to see in this world.
>
> Take for example the following assertions you give...
>
> a. "Don't undermine your worth by comparing yourself with others."
>
> b. "It is because we are different that each of us is special."
>
> c. "Don't set your goals by what other people deem important."
>
> Ans. to a: We only come to know who we are by knowing who God is. Man
> can never come to know God by knowing himself. God has to reveal
> himself to man.
----Not everyone believes in God, therefore my statement includes all
people. To write a statement for only Christians and the religious is
discriminate.
>
> Ans. to b: God never created us before, but then man is NOT created
> equal. Some are born with more blessing than others, more gifts, more
> intelligence.
----I believe that is what I posted, read b again.
>
> Ans. to c: Jesus Christ set our goal, "Be perfect as your Father in
> heaven." What people deem important is not important according to
> Solomon, he explains all this folly of man thinking that possession
> here on earth meant anything in this universe in which we live. What
> matters when all is done and lived, is how we treated one another for
> that is what God shall be back to your mind on Judgment Day. We are
> all of one family, and our Father in heaven shall hold us all
> accountable on Judgment Day how we showed love for one another, and
> how we hurt others.
----Again, you are being discriminate, The world has 7 billion people
and not all of them are Christians.
Mike Sullivan
"rasqual" <scott.m...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b0091f5b-b680-44d5...@f41g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
On May 12, 4:43 pm, ajo8...@gmail.com wrote:
> For our religious friends, here are some non-scriptural advice
>
>> This is from an atheist without all the thee, thine, thous, etc.
>> Advice like this can compete with anything you can find in the
>> scriptures and you don't have to worship anyone to live it.
> Speaking as a non-Mormon, I'll mention that the Bible has a
> substantial wisdom tradition (Ecclesiastes, Job, and Proverbs are
I agree with you on Ecclesiastes, but Job sucks and Ajo's platitudes
are more useful than anything in Proverbs.
Just_James
What does Ecclesiastes bring to the table? All it tells you is that no
matter how much you enjoy life, you don't "really" enjoy it.
--
Just James
"I could be chasing an untamed ornithoid without cause." ~ Data
Bret Ripley
It's a cold splash of water and a far cry from the saccharine, "My Li'l
Pony" brand of spirituality that seems so pervasive.
In short, I [heart] Ecclesiastes.
Bret
Mike Sullivan
"Just_James" <post_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:9YCOl.22244$as4....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
The repetitiveness of Ecclesiastes prose, of the
vanity of earthly life, drives to a conclusion
that meaning must be created, that there is no
inherent meaning. For the preacher, his
realization was a simple conclusion to follow
God's commandments, but for the atheist,
God is unnecessary for a rich and full meaning, and
Ecclesiastes is even more meaningful for me as an
atheist than it ever was when I was a theist.
I don't think Ecclesiastes says that life isn't really
'enjoyed', indeed he urges us to savor every taste of it,
but that the savoring of it has no other meaning than it's
own pleasure. Seek pleasure, but take it only for what it
is and not more.
Basically, Ecclesiastes teaches that everything we can
get out of life ends up for naught, that in the long term
whether one reaps great wealth or not we all become
dust and even memories are changed with the
winds.
Yet there is meaning in life. Basically, god's
commandment is to love. To love, therefore, is
where meaning is.
The beauty of it is that it never comes out and says
so, I'm led to the conclusion by the repetitive elimination
of everything else in the world as meaningless, no matter
how pleasureable!
ajo...@gmail.com
wrote:
> "Just_James" <post_mas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>
> news:9YCOl.22244$as4....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mike Sullivan wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
-----I think Mike really understands my post, which speaks of love
and the enjoyment of life. Since there are so many scriptures
posted to this newsgroup, my intention was to show that there are
many powerful words to live by besides the scriptures. And hopefullly
these words will inspire a person to the greater good without the
necessity of bowing and scraping before a God who is willing to kill
or destroy if the correct worship is not given him. I know I'm going
to get 'slammed' because of my beliefs here because I have no respect
for the Biblical God; but believe it or not, I really enjoy life, God
or no God, and all without having to 'pay' God to allow me into
Heaven. Enjoyment without God or the Bible is possible and is
something agnostics and atheist understand, but something the
religious do not.
Just_James
One of my favorite pieces was written by Robert Ingersoll, "Oration at a
Child's Grave" I always find it moving and poignant.
ajo...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
---Thanks, James, I looked up Ingersoll's oration. I agree with you,
it was quite moving. I live quite near my wife's grave, so I am able
to visit as often as I like. I will not think of Ingersoll's words
now when I visit my wif's grave.
Mike Sullivan
> ajo...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On May 13, 10:30 am, "Mike Sullivan" <s...@slacSNIP.stanford.edu>
>> wrote:
>>> "Just_James" <post_mas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:9YCOl.22244$as4....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
snip
>
> One of my favorite pieces was written by Robert Ingersoll, "Oration at a
> Child's Grave" I always find it moving and poignant.
"help for the living, hope for the dead"
The bible is an ancient work and contains a great deal of
wisdom, but contains a great deal of drek as well. The
wisdom contained in it is no better than what other men
have written who never pretended to have their words
dictated by a god. Certainly, the works of men are more
complete and coherent, the bible as a whole is a mess.
Ajo wrote a couple paragraphs that might well have expressed
exactly the sentiments of my 21 yr old daughter. I find
it interesting that a 20 year old and a 92 year old who's
seen a great deal of the world would have such a similar world
view. I share it as well.
There is nothing new in it, and nothing particularly profound. Where
the connection is made is in how the thought is delivered, using
find prose, music, poetry, or prayer.
Beethoven put these basic ideas to music in the 9th symphony.
The 4th movement is a fascinating story, Ode to Joy. It
begins with a cacaphony of sound that is interrupted by the
strong questioning of the symphonic basses and cellos
"And Freude, nicht diese tone" - "Friends, not these tones"
the strings answer, the basses lecture, and the woodwinds want
to try. They play phrases of each of the first three movements trying
to placate the scolding basses and figure out what they're driving at.
The basses say that that's much better but not quite right. You actually
hear one bass line that sounds like Uh uh...(shaking head)
Finally the basses shake off the rest of the orchestra - you guys are
hopeless - listen to this:
Then the basses introduce the Freude theme.
the orchestra learns it and plays it, repeats it, the brass
join in and the band is having a rollicking
time which crescendos to a......damn another cacaphony.
Now the Bass solo voice interrupts and does the
exact thing the orchestral basses do Obviously,
you guys have the right idea, but needs the richness
of a human voice. So he introduces Schiller's poetry
to the theme, and teaches the chorus. The first section is
joyful, talking about the earthly pleasures, there's
happy marches, sexy arias, rollicking fugue which is a blast!
But it doesn't quite work, seems not enough.
So the orchestra and chorus shift to a much more spiritual
feeling and the second theme is about the spiritual joy, not the
temporal, Seid und Schlungen, millionen?
roughly, 'are you praying, can you feel the spirit people?"
"give a kiss to all the world", embrace each other with spiritual
love and bring yourselves to the vaults of heaven.
Then the grand fugue combines the two themes, the earthy
'Freude' and spiritual "Seid" in counterpoint.
The solo quartet does another theme and moves the chorus
and orchestra closer and closer to some grand truth, some
great meaningful joy, and as they get close, the orchestra collapses
in cacaphony again. All is vanity after all.
I cry at the ending of Steinbeck's Cannery Row, where Doc is
cleaning up after the party and reading "Black Marigolds" out loud.
"Even now I have savored the hot taste of life,
in green cups and gold before the great feast"
Bret Ripley
<snip>
This left me in awe. Very well done. Thanks, Mike.
It's not going to get me worshipping a beer can, but it's damned close.
Bret
ajo...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
----God, I must be getting old. I meant I WILL think of Ingersoll's
words now when I visit my wife's grave. Wonder if I'm getting senile?
ajo...@gmail.com
>
> > ajo8...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On May 13, 10:30 am, "Mike Sullivan" <s...@slacSNIP.stanford.edu>
> >> wrote:
> >>> "Just_James" <post_mas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>
> >>>news:9YCOl.22244$as4....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> snip
>
>
>
> > One of my favorite pieces was written by Robert Ingersoll, "Oration at a
> > Child's Grave" I always find it moving and poignant.
>
> "help for the living, hope for the dead"
>
> The bible is an ancient work and contains a great deal of
> wisdom, but contains a great deal of drek as well. The
> wisdom contained in it is no better than what other men
> have written who never pretended to have their words
> dictated by a god. Certainly, the works of men are more
> complete and coherent, the bible as a whole is a mess.
---There were so many references to the Bible posted recently that I
though perhaps I would post something positive not from the Bible.
Goodness prevails in books other than the Bible and in minds other
than the religious. As you have said, Mr. Sullivan, there is much
wisdom in the Bible, but this wisdom must be culled from among words
that are not so wise.
>
> Ajo wrote a couple paragraphs that might well have expressed
> exactly the sentiments of my 21 yr old daughter. I find
> it interesting that a 20 year old and a 92 year old who's
> seen a great deal of the world would have such a similar world
> view. I share it as well.
-----Thanks for the compliment.
>
> There is nothing new in it, and nothing particularly profound. Where
> the connection is made is in how the thought is delivered, using
> find prose, music, poetry, or prayer.
-----Ah, so much truth in a small paragraph. Truth and beauty can be
generated many different ways.
------What a wonderful analysis of Beethoven's music. I like
classical music, but more in vein of Warsaw Concerto, Chopin's
Polonaise, and, of course, Franz Liszt playing the Hungarian Rhapsody
#2.
>
> I cry at the ending of Steinbeck's Cannery Row, where Doc is
> cleaning up after the party and reading "Black Marigolds" out loud.
____I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Steinbeck in the 60's at Sproul
Hall, University of California, in Berkeley, CA.
>
> "Even now I have savored the hot taste of life,
> in green cups and gold before the great feast"
---Enjoyed your post very much. Wa!akih
john.p
Karajan - Beethoven's 9th part 1 and 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2AEaQJuKDY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSEqQsAXbJw
Karajan kicked ass.
> I cry at the ending of Steinbeck's Cannery Row, where Doc is
> cleaning up after the party and reading "Black Marigolds" out loud.
>
> "Even now I have savored the hot taste of life,
> in green cups and gold before the great feast"
>
>
I'll have to check that out sometime.
--
John P.
Religion is comparable to a childhood neurosis.--Sigmund Freud
rasqual
> To call God cosmic gave me one of
> the biggest chuckles I've had all day.
Why? I think you're failing to distinguish between your incredulity
and whether the notion of God is, indeed, a cosmic notion. Any
proposition that includes God is dealing with something cosmic -- even
if you're merely denying God's existence. You're making a denial with
cosmic significance.
rasqual
wrote:
> I agree with you on Ecclesiastes, but Job sucks and Ajo's platitudes
> are more useful than anything in Proverbs.
(Gag)
There are plenty of archaisms in Proverbs (as in any ancient
literature), but the sheer banality of those posted above still has my
eyes rolling in sympathetic embarrassment.
As for Job, do you have any idea of its significance? It's one of the
most important markers differentiating worship of Yahweh from the
worship of other gods at the time. It represents one of the oldest
reflections concerning the implausibility of temporally exhaustive
justice (mortal karma, if you like) -- and one of the earliest bearing
on Kant's rationale for an afterlife (something folks in Job's era had
no good ideas about).
It explores this exhaustively in ideational dialects sometimes opaque
to our time, sure enough. And some of the book can't even be
translated -- not a living soul knows what some of the language in the
book actually says. But the "big idea" of the book is insanely
relevant to understanding how Israel's theology emerged from the world
around it. And that Israel's theology did so, in the way the book
suggests, is one of the most astonishing things in all of scripture.
rasqual
> all without having to 'pay' God to allow me into
> Heaven. Enjoyment without God or the Bible is possible and is
> something agnostics and atheist understand, but something the
> religious do not.
Huh?
You're saying I can't understand that you're capable of enjoying life?
Not just me, but other "religious" people?
That's weird.
And as for my faith (not Mormon), the entire theological point is that
you CAN'T "pay" God off. So I think in the misunderstanding
department, some shoes are on other feet just here. ;-)
sully
> On May 13, 11:34 am, "Mike Sullivan" <s...@slacSNIP.stanford.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > I agree with you on Ecclesiastes, but Job sucks and Ajo's platitudes
> > are more useful than anything in Proverbs.
>
> (Gag)
>
> There are plenty of archaisms in Proverbs (as in any ancient
> literature), but the sheer banality of those posted above still has my
> eyes rolling in sympathetic embarrassment.
(eye roll) riiggghht.
go for it, poser.
>
> As for Job, do you have any idea of its significance? It's one of the
> most important markers differentiating worship of Yahweh from the
> worship of other gods at the time. It represents one of the oldest
> reflections concerning the implausibility of temporally exhaustive
> justice (mortal karma, if you like) -- and one of the earliest bearing
> on Kant's rationale for an afterlife (something folks in Job's era had
> no good ideas about).
In other words, crap from a cow instead of crap from a pig. Here's
a challenge for you, tell me one thing very interesting about Job.
>
> It explores this exhaustively in ideational dialects sometimes opaque
> to our time, sure enough. And some of the book can't even be
> translated -- not a living soul knows what some of the language in the
> book actually says. But the "big idea" of the book is insanely
> relevant to understanding how Israel's theology emerged from the world
> around it. And that Israel's theology did so, in the way the book
> suggests, is one of the most astonishing things in all of scripture.
What is important about the theology of a violent superstitious
tribe of nomadic herdsmen other than historical interest?
sully
He's quoting theists. Theists all the time say there is no meaning
of life without God. If you believe so, then you don't get it.
Pretty simple.
RetroProphet
Thank you for this, Mike. It made my day.
And some dare say a.r.m. isn't worth the paper it's printed on...
rasqual
> On May 13, 10:24 pm,rasqual<scott.marqua...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 13, 2:29 pm, ajo8...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Enjoyment without God or the Bible is possible and is
> > > something agnostics and atheist understand, but something the
> > > religious do not.
>
> > Huh?
>
> > You're saying I can't understand that you're capable of enjoying life?
> He's quoting theists. Theists all the time say there is no meaning
> of life without God. If you believe so, then you don't get it.
Actually, he didn't "quote" anyone, and you're generalizing as much as
he about "theists."
This kind of bigotry -- dividing people into simple camps and
demonizing them -- is not something I'll lay at the feet of "atheists"
or "agnostics," however. Anyone's capable of it.
I know no theist who imagines that non-theists can't or don't
experience enjoyment.
rasqual
> On May 13, 10:19 pm,rasqual<scott.marqua...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 13, 11:34 am, "Mike Sullivan" <s...@slacSNIP.stanford.edu>
> What is important about the theology of a violent superstitious
> tribe of nomadic herdsmen other than historical interest?
Since billions of people adhere to Semitic religion and its children,
it might be of passing interest to those who wish to understand the
world we're in.
rasqual
wrote:
> The bible is an ancient work and contains a great deal of
> wisdom, but contains a great deal of drek as well. The
> wisdom contained in it is no better than what other men
> have written who never pretended to have their words
> dictated by a god.
Can you cite anything demonstrating that the writers of Ecclesiastes,
Job, and Proverbs thought their words (and editing skills, since
individual authorship isn't really possible) were dictated by a god?
As for whether it's "better," I think you're misunderstanding. The
wisdom literature of the Old Testament encourages people to go and do
likewise; it teaches that pondering wisdom is a worthwhile thing.
Wisdom is not about connections to heaven, it's about understanding
how to live in the world we're in. Such literature isn't theology at
all -- though in the context of Hebrew worship it certainly includes
God because the Mosaic covenant was very much an "in this world"
constitution.
The OP is to be congratulated for appreciating the value of pondering
wisdom, to be sure. I simply question the value of the banalities.
ajo...@gmail.com
----My denial of God has nothing to do with God, but is based on man's
view of Him, has nothing to do with cosmic in my book.
Bret Ripley
Cosmic = pertaining to the cosmos. A discussion regarding our perception of
God pertains to our perception of the cosmos.
"God exists" and "God does not exist" are propositions that pertain to the
cosmos; "don't worry, be happy" does not.
Bret
RetroProphet
Unless you are a follower of Meher Baba...
Bret Ripley
Ooh, right you are, RP. IMO anyone bearing *that* much resemblance to a
Peter Sellers character deserves the mantle "cosmic".
Bret
ajo...@gmail.com
-----The definitiion of 'cosmos' in my dictionary is: UNIVERSE 1 b
(1) : an orderly harmonious systematic universe — compare CHAOS
(2) : ORDER, HARMONY.
When I read the words of God in the scripture, I do not see anything
that is harmonious or systematic. The scriptures, for the most
part, show God as a jealous God, demanding complete obedience or
forfeit your life to a life of Hell in the hereafter. Curiously, all
these demands come from the mouth of men;...founding faith groups that
all disagree with each other. If this is correct, then your God is
the author of chaos, not harmony. If there were harmony and order,
all of the so-called faiths of God would agree. They do not.
Bret Ripley
I have only one response: those are some interesting observations
pertaining to the cosmos. :)
Be well, Ajo.
Bret
ajo...@gmail.com
I’m puzzled. There have been many scriptures posted to this newsgroup
and I have yet to read a criticism on them from you, maybe you have
and I just didn't see them. When I post positive words about life
that are not scriptures, out comes the criticism from you. This says
a lot about you. As I said in my original post, I felt that good can
come from other places than scripture. Your criticism suggests that
in not true. And what did my creed speak of? It spoke of personal
worth, of love, of goals, of dreams, and about the value of life. It
was these things that you criticized…again, this says a lot about the
kind of person you must be. Why are you so bitter about these
things? Are not the things mentioned in my post not good things?
rasqual
> ----My denial of God has nothing to do with God . . .
:-/
rasqual
> On May 13, 10:10 pm, rasqual <scott.marqua...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 13, 12:54 am, ajo8...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > To call God cosmic gave me one of
> > > the biggest chuckles I've had all day.
>
> > Why? I think you're failing to distinguish between your incredulity
> > and whether the notion of God is, indeed, a cosmic notion. Any
> > proposition that includes God is dealing with something cosmic -- even
> > if you're merely denying God's existence. You're making a denial with
> > cosmic significance.
>
> I’m puzzled. There have been many scriptures posted to this newsgroup
> and I have yet to read a criticism on them from you, maybe you have
> and I just didn't see them.
I've posted thousands of times here. ;-)
> When I post positive words about life
> that are not scriptures, out comes the criticism from you. This says
> a lot about you.
Yes, it's always proper to infer sweeping generalizations about people
you've never met. I'll follow your example, and on the basis of your
own "criticisms" (such as "dismal so-called teachings that the Bible"
and "disgusting and demeaning books in the scriptures"), I imagine
this "says a lot about you" -- such as, that you're a bozo on crack.
Of course that's not true. So maybe there's something wrong with
imagining that we can "judge a book by its cover" (to offer a meager
homage to the hackneyed cliches that opened the thread).
> As I said in my original post, I felt that good can
> come from other places than scripture.
Of COURSE it can. It does literally every second of every day, all
over the world.
But why would you go looking for it in the schmaltzy dreck of the
Hallmark aisle?
> Your criticism suggests that
> in not true. And what did my creed speak of? It spoke of personal
> worth, of love, of goals, of dreams, and about the value of life. It
> was these things that you criticized…again, this says a lot about the
> kind of person you must be. Why are you so bitter about these
> things? Are not the things mentioned in my post not good things?
They're banal. They're like saying "with every breath you take, inhale
the freshness each new day brings," etc. They're saccharide. They're
trite. They're not actionable. They sound like jingles advertising
anti-static cloths you'd throw in your clothes dryer.
Furthermore, they're incoherent. Consider your first two sentences:
"Don’t undermine your worth by comparing yourself with others.
It is because we are different that each of us is special."
So how do we come by the knowledge of differences unless we make
comparisons? Contrasts (differences) are exceptions to comparisons --
they're what stand out against a null hypothesis of sameness. One
doesn't discover them unless one LOOKS. But you're advising that we
don't look (since doing that somehow "undermines [our] worth" -- and
odd claim we're expected to accept uncritically), in which case we'd
be unable to appreciate how special each of us is because we wouldn't
be aware of our differences. Thank goodness the aphorism tells us
we're special, 'cause we mustn't do anything that would lead us to
that discovery ourselves!
Good grief.
"Don’t set your goals by what other people deem important. Only you
know what is best for you."
As it turns out, it's not true that only each of us knows what's best
for each of us. A vast number of people are in prison because they
thought they knew what was best for themselves -- some of them,
doubtless acting against the pleas of family and friends. And which of
us hasn't, at some point in our lives, slammed our steering wheel with
a "damn!", recalling during a brooding commute some regret from the
distant or recent past? Furthermore, what if I "know it's best for me"
to let my boss set some of my goals for me? I'm probably right -- but
that means this pairing of yours is also incoherent.
Another absolute banality: "Don’t take for granted the things closest
to your heart. Cling to them as you would your life, for without them
life is meaningless." OK, so am I to understand that this is extremely
important advice? It's a tautology. If the things are "closest to your
heart," that would be precisely because the person IS clinging to
them. That's where things end up when you cling to them -- that close.
It's advice given to those who don't need it, when the advice needed
is to people who have no idea what's worth valuing that closely --
folks who need a helluva lot more than touchy-feely platitudes, folks
who need a mentor and someone to wash the barf off 'em with the hose
before dragging 'em into their house and helping their poor wife tuck
'em into bed, then following up like a good friend and sticking by 'em
until they see their need for help.
There's a world full of people needing advice that's red beef and
beer; your collection is bubblegum for effete moralists.
ajo...@gmail.com
> On May 14, 4:01 pm, ajo8...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 13, 10:10 pm, rasqual <scott.marqua...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 13, 12:54 am, ajo8...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > To call God cosmic gave me one of
> > > > the biggest chuckles I've had all day.
>
> > > Why? I think you're failing to distinguish between your incredulity
> > > and whether the notion of God is, indeed, a cosmic notion. Any
> > > proposition that includes God is dealing with something cosmic -- even
> > > if you're merely denying God's existence. You're making a denial with
> > > cosmic significance.
>
> > I’m puzzled. There have been many scriptures posted to this newsgroup
> > and I have yet to read a criticism on them from you, maybe you have
> > and I just didn't see them.
>
> I've posted thousands of times here. ;-)
>
> > When I post positive words about life
> > that are not scriptures, out comes the criticism from you. This says
> > a lot about you.
>
> Yes, it's always proper to infer sweeping generalizations about people
> you've never met.
--"This says a lot about you" is a sweeping generalization?
> I'll follow your example, and on the basis of your
> own "criticisms" (such as "dismal so-called teachings that the Bible"
> and "disgusting and demeaning books in the scriptures"), I imagine
> this "says a lot about you" -- such as, that you're a bozo on crack.
----Is this a sweeping generalization that you abhor, that I am on
crack? Is this not hypocritical?
-----The Bible can be proven to be a disgusting and demeaning book.
>
> Of course that's not true. So maybe there's something wrong with
> imagining that we can "judge a book by its cover" (to offer a meager
> homage to the hackneyed cliches that opened the thread).
-----Cliches that speak of goodness, which apparently you seem to
reject.
>
> > As I said in my original post, I felt that good can
> > come from other places than scripture.
>
> Of COURSE it can. It does literally every second of every day, all
> over the world.
>
> But why would you go looking for it in the schmaltzy dreck of the
> Hallmark aisle?
----If it say what I think is good, why not look in the "schmaltzy
dreck of the Hallmark aisle". It is much better than reading
say;....chapter 31 of Numbers in old testament, something you would
love I suppose.
>
> > Your criticism suggests that
> > in not true. And what did my creed speak of? It spoke of personal
> > worth, of love, of goals, of dreams, and about the value of life. It
> > was these things that you criticized…again, this says a lot about the
> > kind of person you must be. Why are you so bitter about these
> > things? Are not the things mentioned in my post not good things?
>
> They're banal. They're like saying "with every breath you take, inhale
> the freshness each new day brings," etc. They're saccharide. They're
> trite. They're not actionable. They sound like jingles advertising
> anti-static cloths you'd throw in your clothes dryer.
----I think I understand you; self worth, love, goals, dreams are
banal to you. Intersting ! Do you start the day not taking a breath
and feeling freshness of each new day? I pity your life, if I
understand your statements.
>
> Furthermore, they're incoherent. Consider your first two sentences:
>
> "Don’t undermine your worth by comparing yourself with others.
> It is because we are different that each of us is special."
> So how do we come by the knowledge of differences unless we make
> comparisons? Contrasts (differences) are exceptions to comparisons --
> they're what stand out against a null hypothesis of sameness. One
> doesn't discover them unless one LOOKS. But you're advising that we
> don't look (since doing that somehow "undermines [our] worth" -- and
> odd claim we're expected to accept uncritically), in which case we'd
> be unable to appreciate how special each of us is because we wouldn't
> be aware of our differences. Thank goodness the aphorism tells us
> we're special, 'cause we mustn't do anything that would lead us to
> that discovery ourselves!
---I think it is importand to be an individual. One should do 'there
own thing' not try to mimick others.
Suppose the world were to mimick you obvious outlook on life, people
would go thru life finding fault,..if you are like your posts all the
time.
>
> Good grief.
----Indeed, good grief.
>
> "Don’t set your goals by what other people deem important. Only you
> know what is best for you."
>
> As it turns out, it's not true that only each of us knows what's best
> for each of us. A vast number of people are in prison because they
> thought they knew what was best for themselves
___Obviously, if they are in prison, they ignored the the love, goals,
dreams, and values of life I had initially posted. If they had, they
would not have been prison.
-- some of them,
> doubtless acting against the pleas of family and friends. And which of
> us hasn't, at some point in our lives, slammed our steering wheel with
> a "damn!", recalling during a brooding commute some regret from the
> distant or recent past? Furthermore, what if I "know it's best for me"
> to let my boss set some of my goals for me? I'm probably right -- but
> that means this pairing of yours is also incoherent.
-----It only incoherent to those that do not believe in love, goals,
dreams, and value of life.
>
> Another absolute banality: "Don’t take for granted the things closest
> to your heart. Cling to them as you would your life, for without them
> life is meaningless." OK, so am I to understand that this is extremely
> important advice? It's a tautology. If the things are "closest to your
> heart," that would be precisely because the person IS clinging to
> them. That's where things end up when you cling to them -- that close.
> It's advice given to those who don't need it, when the advice needed
> is to people who have no idea what's worth valuing that closely --
> folks who need a helluva lot more than touchy-feely platitudes, folks
> who need a mentor and someone to wash the barf off 'em with the hose
> before dragging 'em into their house and helping their poor wife tuck
> 'em into bed, then following up like a good friend and sticking by 'em
> until they see their need for help.
-----My children are closest to my heart, and I do not take them for
granted. I nuture them continually. Incidentally, they are all well
rounded professional making a contribution to this world.
>
> There's a world full of people needing advice that's red beef and
> beer; your collection is bubblegum for effete moralists.- Hide quoted text -
---I don't have a clue of what you are speaking of, try English next
time.
>
> - Show quoted text -
----;-)))) I could have written your response for you, it was so
obvious what you would say.
Bret Ripley
He mentioned God but didn't inhale.
Bret
Point Zero (LDS)
>----Again, you are being discriminate, The world has 7 billion people
>and not all of them are Christians.
Which are the religions who claim that God revealed himself?
Yes, I would agree with you that most are man made religions.
If you only stick to the ones that saw God then we can eliminate all
the static religions and focus on the ones that alive.
The Greek philosophers fell to understand the true nature of God, for
He was undiscoverable with all their philosophies. In the end they
resorted to fables and myths, and were not able to come to a consensus
that there was only one God that rule this world.
The Hebrews while they succeeded in having God come down upon a
mountain top, they fell to have the required faith that Moses had to
talk with God. While Moses was up on the mountain top seeing and
talking with God directly, God wrote his laws that would have allowed
God to come down among the tribes of Israel, and they would have
become a great people, as the people of Enoch who never died. But
instead of have laws that would have allowed a perfect being to come
down with His associates and mingle with the Hebrews, the Hebrew
tribes of Israel were mocking God with their worship of the gold calf.
Moses upon coming down the mountain top found Joshua who had not taken
part in the worship of the golden calf, only Joshua was allowed to
enter the promise land, the rest Hebrew had to die in the desert and
only the next generation was allowed to enter the promise land.
Point is that the great Moses upon seeing the wickedness of the tribes
of Israel in having made a image of God, and the tribe of Dan having
committed orgies around the gold calf as it was the Egypt custom of
worshiping and venerating the gold calf, Moses broke the spiritual
laws that God had written with his finger that would have allowed the
tribes of Israel to have God come down among them. Yes, Moses broke
God's laws, and said, Those that will not live by the law shalt die by
the law. And then he cast down the laws and broken them, and the tribe
of Dan was complete destroyed that day.
So what we have is failure Greek philosophies and Jewish works to come
to a knowledge about the nature of God. While the Greeks made up many
gods, the Jewish were able to at least come to a knowledge that there
was only one God. Still they both fell to learned about God's true
nature as God never came down the mountain with his family and
associates.
Now, we have this in the scriptures coming from the followers of the
New Covenant of God:
(1 Cor. 1: 23-25) "But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a
stumbling-block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which
are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the
wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and
the weakness of God is stronger than men."
Yes, it is clear to me that all the manmade religion in the world who
never once called down God, are easily grouped with the Greeks
philosophies and it not being discriminative because I can classify
them as seekers of the true but never once having called down a god.
And the other group of believers as having had God reveal himself upon
a mountain top, but never having seen his face.
Either way both groups lack the knowledge of the mystery of god, as
revealed unto Moses.
Now, where do I go from here, to the book of The Revelation, where a
mastery of that knowledge is hinted to be in the works, wherein it is
revealed that there will come a time when the mystery of God shall be
revealed unto the world....
"But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel [an messenger can
be referred as an angel], when he [meaning a male messenger] shall
begin to sound [meaning preach as we are doing now], the mystery of
God should be finished [meaning made known], as he hath declared to
his servants the prophets." [Rev. 10:7]
Now what come be so different in the message of the seventh
(messenger) in the latter days that he will reveal about the nature of
God that the former prophets like Moses were not able to do?
I mean the great Moses did the works of a god in cast all those
plagues and parting the sea, and causing water to gush out of a rock
like a river. And Joshua was said to have command the Sun to stand
still. What I mean is that whoever the seventh messenger is, there
must have been six other messenger before him, and non revealed the
mystery of God, but only the seventh messenger could.
As I understand it book The Revelation, said the holy menorah
represents seven messengers...
"And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and
voices: and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne,
which are the seven Spirits of God. [Rev. 4:5]
The Jews had a ancient menorah with seven lamps of fire burning in the
temple, and all they know is that it represents the kingdom of God,
yet it full mystery has not yet been revealed to the Jews other than
the center lamp of fire on the menorah represents to the Jews �Our
leader' the precious one that will come and to establish the kingdom
of heaven on earth, the literal government of God.
Could this leader be the seventh messenger?
I have worked to identify the other six lights or messenger of the
menorah through history, the first light was [1] Noah , [2] Moses, [3]
Elijah, [4] ?, [5] Peter, [6] Joseph Smith, [7] Joshua.
Only number [4] is a mystery, I know that to the Christian number is
Jesus Christ, but he did not fulfill the mission of the seventh angel
(messenger), for according to the Christians Jesus Christ is more than
an �angel' or �messenger' for He is the literal Son of God. Therefore
it must be speaking of some below Jesus Christ.
Now, I know that old King David would have been a perfect proxy to
have established the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, and as the king of
the Throne of David would have had legal rights to rule the earth,
since the earth belongs to Jesus Christ.
Now, this much I can ascertain from having read the scriptures that
Jesus Christ had a legal right to sit upon the throne of David, and
David called him his master, therefore if old King David had not
fallen from grace he could have been four messenger sent to the earth,
and as the four messenger that would Joshua the actual seventh
messenger.
Now, Joshua is actually number six, because old King David fell from
grace when he conspired to murder an innocent man Uriah. The
scriptures reveal that old King David was promised that another person
of his family tree would rise up in the later days and sit upon his
throne, and that he would inherit the rights to be the proxy of Jesus
Christ on earth and establish the Kingdom of Heaven.
This man would be both a priest and a king, and he would build the
temple of God in Jerusalem, and fight the battle of Armageddon as if
he were a god, but in reality he is an angel.
(Zech. 12: 7-8) "The Lord also shall save the tents of Judah first,
that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants
of Jerusalem do not magnify themselves against Judah. In that day
shall the Lord defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is
feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of
David shall be as God, as the angel of the Lord before them."
So who is that seventh messenger? It is the Grail King who would come
in the latter days to fight as an "angel of the Lord." When the world
sees him fight "as God" then the "mystery of God would be finished".
Now, the prophet Zechariah reveals much about the seventh messenger,
he called him the BRANCH, and connected him with the six messenger
Joshua....
"Hear now, O Joshua the High Priest, thou, and thy fellows
(messengers) that sit before thee: for they are men [whom this world]
wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH."
[Zech. 3:8]
Now, we know that the BRANCH, is called the branch because he is the
center branch of the ancient menorah. This BRANCH is the same person
whom the prophet Isaiah spoke about....
(Isa. 11: 1) "And there shall come forth a rod [messenger Joshua] out
of the stem of Jesse (Jesus Christ), and a BRANCH shall grow out of
his roots:"
(Isa. 11:10) "And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which
shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles
seek: and his rest shall be glorious."
Now, who is that BRANCH that the Gentile world will seek out and his
rest shall be glorious?
The prophet Joseph Smith had this to say about him as it was revealed
to him while asking God...
(D&C 113:5) "What is the root of Jesse spoken of in the 10th verse of
the 11th chapter?"
"Behold, thus saith the Lord, it is a descendant of Jesse, as well as
of Joseph, unto whom rightly belongs the priesthood, and the keys of
the kingdom, for an ensign, and for the gathering of my people in the
last days. (D&C 113:6)
SAY WHAT??? This is a descendant of Jesse? That would make him a Grail
King of the tribe of Judah, given hin right to sit upon the throne of
David and rule this earth. And he is also of the tribe of Joseph, that
would give him the right to be a priest upon the throne. Sure this was
not Joseph Smith calling for God told him it was someone else that
would come in the last day, not the latter day when Joseph Smith was
born.
Now, how do I know this to be true, because it is in the
scriptures....
11 Then take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them upon the
head of Joshua the [spiritually adopted] son of Josedech (Jesus
Christ), the high priest;
12 And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the Lord of hosts,
saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up
out of his place [in America], and he shall build the temple of the
Lord [in Jerusalem]:
13 Even he shall build the temple of the Lord; and he shall bear the
glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a
priest upon his throne [which thing old King David was not a priest]:
and the counsel of peace shall be between them both. [Zechariah
6:11-13]
IN other words there shall be two world capitals, Zion and Jerusalem,
one in America, and the other one in Israel. Joshua will rule the
City of Zion in Independence, Missouri, and the BRANCH will rule
Jerusalem the city of the great kings.
What connection is this that we see between Joshua and the BRANCH, are
they both related?
And what is the message that the BRANCH, "Our Leader", the center
flame of the menorah to reveal unto the world that will cause him to
be ensign to the world??
The BRANCH will fight as God upon a flying horse, which none of the
prophets has ever done before, and when the Gentiles see the BRANCH
upon a white flying horse with 144,000 newly appointed gods fighting
the battle of Armageddon in 2012 then the mystery of God shall be
finished as all prophets revealed, for then the whole world will
discriminate between the truth and the lies about God's nature, and
the whole world will then that man can become like God and discern
what is true.
Point Zero
rasqual
> On May 15, 1:08 am, rasqual <scott.marqua...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 14, 4:01 pm, ajo8...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On May 13, 10:10 pm, rasqual <scott.marqua...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On May 13, 12:54 am, ajo8...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Yes, it's always proper to infer sweeping generalizations about people
> > you've never met.
> --"This says a lot about you" is a sweeping generalization?
Good question! Let's find out. If it says "a lot," I'm sure you can
cite a couple things about me. Right?
> > I'll follow your example, and on the basis of your
> > own "criticisms" (such as "dismal so-called teachings that the Bible"
> > and "disgusting and demeaning books in the scriptures"), I imagine
> > this "says a lot about you" -- such as, that you're a bozo on crack.
> ----Is this a sweeping generalization that you abhor, that I am on
> crack? Is this not hypocritical?
> > Of course that's not true. So maybe there's something wrong with
> > imagining that we can "judge a book by its cover" (to offer a meager
> > homage to the hackneyed cliches that opened the thread).
Why don't you edit your remarks when you find out that you inserted
them too soon?
You ask "Is this not hypocritical" immediately before content that
indicates my generalization was illustrative to make a point, not
since and hypocritical.
> > > Your criticism suggests that
> > > in not true. And what did my creed speak of? It spoke of personal
> > > worth, of love, of goals, of dreams, and about the value of life. It
> > > was these things that you criticized…again, this says a lot about the
> > > kind of person you must be. Why are you so bitter about these
> > > things? Are not the things mentioned in my post not good things?
> > They're banal. They're like saying "with every breath you take, inhale
> > the freshness each new day brings," etc. They're saccharide. They're
> > trite. They're not actionable. They sound like jingles advertising
> > anti-static cloths you'd throw in your clothes dryer.
> ----I think I understand you; self worth, love, goals, dreams are
> banal to you. Intersting ! Do you start the day not taking a breath
> and feeling freshness of each new day? I pity your life, if I
> understand your statements.
No, you don't understand at all. You're evidently not making much
effort to, either. You're regarding my judgments concerning entire
propositions as judgments concerning the terms in those propositions.
If I were to say that "love sucks!" is a stupid proposition, since the
proposition at issue is concerned with love would you claim that
therefore I think love is stupid? No, of course not. So when I speak
of your propositions as banal, why would you infer that I intend to
judge the TERMS in those propositions banal? That's ludicrous.
> ---I think it is importand to be an individual. One should do 'there
> own thing' not try to mimick others.
Why not? What contradiction is there between mimicking others and
being an individual? We ARE individuals. A budding young musician does
several things; for one, she mimicks and practices rigorously in order
to master fundamental technical skills. For another, she studies the
aesthetic qualities of his craft's exemplars. And of course, she heeds
her own muse and strikes out in original ways.
None of this means she has never mimicked, nor will never again
mimick, others.
You said your collection was about "self worth, love, goals, dreams."
Can you cite how this musician -- spending years mimicking others
before becoming interesting for her original work -- in any way during
that time lacked self-worth, did not experience love, had no goals
(heh) nor dreams?
No. Of course you can't. Because individualism is not the sine qua non
of any of those. A person could trend well away from individualism and
still have a strong sense of self-worth, enjoy love, and have goals
and pursue dreams.
> > As it turns out, it's not true that only each of us knows what's best
> > for each of us. A vast number of people are in prison because they
> > thought they knew what was best for themselves
> ___Obviously, if they are in prison, they ignored the the love, goals,
> dreams, and values of life I had initially posted. If they had, they
> would not have been prison.
Really? Let's examine each freaking one and see whether they'd keep
someone out of prison.
"Don’t undermine your worth by comparing yourself with others."
Can you cite anything about heeding that, that will prevent a person
from ever going to prison? No. Indeed, this sounds narcissistic -- a
trait many criminals suffer. "My worth is so important that I'm going
to consider myself sui generis."
"It is because we are different that each of us is special."
How's this supposed to keep someone out of prison? Being "special" is
the value, and I possess it merely because I'm understood to be
different. Being "virtuous" isn't on the table at all. As long as I'm
special -- an inherent quality -- that's all that matters. I can kill
someone and I'm still "special." Why? Because I'm "different" --
including being different than the person I killed. He's dead. I'm
alive. That difference is so great I must be even MORE special.
That aphorism is morally contentless. Ergo, BANAL.
"Don’t set your goals by what other people deem important."
This is consistent with disrespect for communitarian conventions that
bind societies. In fact, a complete antisocial ethic is 100%
consistent with this. How's that supposed to keep anyone out of
prison?
"Only you know what is best for you."
Right. Never mind those friends who told you to go to counseling for
your anger. And now you're in for aggravated battery. Too bad.
"Don’t take for granted the things closest to your heart."
She's MINE, dammit. He has no right to call her. Next thing you know,
he's up on stalking charges.
Or maybe she LOVES shoes. Next thing you know, she's Imelda Marcos.
"Cling to them as you would your life, for without them life is
meaningless."
Yeah, that's how Imelda felt about her shoes.
"Don’t let your life slip through your fingers by living in the past
or for the future. By living your life one day at a time, you live
all the days of your life."
Dude. How does that uber-banality keep anyone out of prison. Taken
literally, that's Bonnie and Clyde.
"Don’t give up when you still have something to give."
Sounds like the ethic of the street gangs. Or of folks in the church.
Or of ethical humanists. Or Buddhist monks. Or jihadists who haven't
yet given their lives in a suicide bombing. Whatever. It's MORALLY
CONTENTLESS.
"Nothing is really over until the moment you stop trying."
:-/
Are you getting the idea yet? MORALLY CONTENTLESS. "Keep trying to
bust the safe open, Lou!"
"Don’t be afraid to admit that you are less than perfect."
How does admitting imperfection keep someone out of prison? This says
nothing about one's moral disposition toward imperfection. Apparently,
there are vast numbers of people who are quite indifferent to the
implications of whatever imperfections they might admit to. They're
called "incorrigible."
"It is this fragile thread that binds us to one another."
Being bound to one another is morally contentless. You could be a
prelate with a nun bound by Platonic love of sublime degree -- or you
could be a couple of thugs who have each others sixes every time they
burglarize a home.
"Don’t be afraid to encounter risks. It is by taking chances that we
learn how to be brave."
Just what we need -- brave thugs. MORALLY CONTENTLESS.
"Don’t shut love out of your life by saying it’s impossible to find."
How's that keep you out of prison?
"The quickest way to receive love is to give love, the fastest way to
lose love is to hold it too lightly, and the best way to keep love is
to give it wings."
Great, so when a neglected child gives love and does not receive it in
return, the embittered adolescent will curse your arse for a lout. Or
does your secular brain subscribe to karma?
Too lightly? Is that right?
http://sn.im/i3u5x
This is as close to sanity as your list comes, because it emphasizes
selflessness. But go back to "Don’t take for granted the things
closest to your heart. Cling to them as you would your life, for
without them life is meaningless." Unless you want to court
contradictions, we'll infer that "things" is exclusive of people. But
that gets us to where we're clinging to things as much as to life
itself. You're between a rock and a hard place.
"Don’t dismiss your dreams."
Stalin. Mao. Hitler.
Next:
"To be without dreams is to be without hope; to be without hope is to
be without purpose."
Morally contentless. Tyrants would happily nod assent.
"Don’t run through life so fast that you forget not only where you’ve
been but also where you’re going. Life is not a race, but a journey
to be savored each step of the way."
Morally contentless. How does that keep someone out of prison?
Now perhaps I'm being unfair. Would you agree that aphorisms and their
implications are best understood dialogically -- through conversation
and reflection in the company of, especially, people wiser than
ourselves? Or among friends with whom we share enough trust to be
wrong without dread of rejection?
Proverbs (secular, religious, whatever) are pithy. The temptation is
to imagine that in their brevity they accomplish much with little
said. Personally, I think it's quite the contrary. They're seeds --
useless unless planted, watered, cultivated, weeded, and surrounded by
much else of beauty.
I'm taking issue with you, however, for speaking as if these things in
and of themselves amount to much of value. They don't. Neither do
scriptural proverbs. For that matter, Jesus said his own instructions
were worthless to those who hear them casually and disregard their
practical implications in daily life.
But so darned many of your items are non-actionable. They're abstract.
They're obvious. They're trite. They may even be neglected truths, but
as packaged they're sure to be neglected still more -- or taken
entirely for granted by those who are light-years past their shallow
suggestiveness.
> > doubtless acting against the pleas of family and friends. And which of
> > us hasn't, at some point in our lives, slammed our steering wheel with
> > a "damn!", recalling during a brooding commute some regret from the
> > distant or recent past? Furthermore, what if I "know it's best for me"
> > to let my boss set some of my goals for me? I'm probably right -- but
> > that means this pairing of yours is also incoherent.
>
> -----It only incoherent to those that do not believe in love, goals,
> dreams, and value of life.
I don't think you understand the meaning of "incoherent." It means not
holding together. When you claim that knowing what's best for you is
exclusive of letting others determine some of your goals, that claim
is proven incoherent the moment we find someone who properly,
realistically, and wisely appreciates how appropriately her boss
determines at least many of her daily goals.
Another image of "not holding together" would be a couple of folks in
a three-legged race, trying to run to opposing ends of the field. It's
precisely when at least one of them defers to the other (or to the
rules of the race) that they progress toward any goal whatsoever.
Until they get over their stubbornness, they're no different than the
Zaxen of Dr. Seuss fame.
> > Another absolute banality: "Don’t take for granted the things closest
> > to your heart. Cling to them as you would your life, for without them
> > life is meaningless." OK, so am I to understand that this is extremely
> > important advice? It's a tautology. If the things are "closest to your
> > heart," that would be precisely because the person IS clinging to
> > them. That's where things end up when you cling to them -- that close.
> > It's advice given to those who don't need it, when the advice needed
> > is to people who have no idea what's worth valuing that closely --
> > folks who need a helluva lot more than touchy-feely platitudes, folks
> > who need a mentor and someone to wash the barf off 'em with the hose
> > before dragging 'em into their house and helping their poor wife tuck
> > 'em into bed, then following up like a good friend and sticking by 'em
> > until they see their need for help.
> -----My children are closest to my heart, and I do not take them for
> granted. I nuture them continually.
Right. And why would you need to be told not to take them for granted,
if you're holding them that close to your heart. Do you understand the
point? It's a tautology. It's analytically true. Holding them close to
your heart and not taking them for granted are concomitants. People
just don't take things for granted if they're holding them close to
their heart. It's a piece of non-advice, 'cause everyone does it.
Either that or they just don't hold anything close at all.
It's like you're telling a bachelor to ensure that as long as he's a
bachelor, he ought to remain unmarried.
> Incidentally, they are all well
> rounded professional making a contribution to this world.
With a family that loved them as much as I'll guess you have -- why
would I doubt it? I'm pleased to hear it and hearty congratulations
are due. You have a lot to be thankful for.
ajo...@gmail.com
>
> read more »
----I don't like lengthy posts, so I have a suggestion. Since you
have criticized my post, I challenge you to rewrite the creed I posted
as it should have been written according to you. Then we all can read
a correct creed. So, am waiting for your correctly written piece.
Bret Ripley
You are both writing in English, but I'm not at all sure you are speaking
the same language.
Bret
rasqual
> ----I don't like lengthy posts, so I have a suggestion. Since you
> have criticized my post, I challenge you to rewrite the creed I posted
> as it should have been written according to you. Then we all can read
> a correct creed. So, am waiting for your correctly written piece.
A novel suggestion! A couple thoughts, though.
First, I don't think recognizing banality is tantamount to a gift for
original sagacity. I may loathe bad food, but this does not make me a
great chef. It does, however, make me thankful on those rare occasions
where I'm sitting at a gourmet's table. I may not be able to serve a
feast, but I know when I'm served one -- and when I'm not.
Second, if your list is generally banal, it's difficult to conceive of
how I might have written "it" better. I would not be saying the same
things better; that's probably not possible. I would be saying
different things -- and for different reasons. I wouldn't be setting
out to prove, in Quixotic fashion, the superiority of either atheistic
or theistic wisdom traditions. Why not? Because that'd be foolish, and
thus ironic. In general, wisdom is agnostic. Pitting "secular" versus
"religious" wisdom against each other is like asking whether your left
or right shoe is better. If you think my remarks have been intended as
a counter-charge against an atheist attempt to foist some superiority
over scriptural proverbs, you're mistaken. My remarks intended only to
show the folly of anyone lobbing such a first volley in the first
place. I'm not going to take someone arguing that hopping about on
one's left foot is best, as a sound rational for me hopping about on
my right as some kind of absurd riposte.
How about starting a thread for each of the virtues you find important
to life, and invite religious and non-religious alike to contribute
their pensées? Wisdom is more communal than individualistic,
notwithstanding the navel-gazing self-help tenor of your collection,
and your apparent interest in promoting rivalry as a matter of
principle rather than understanding as a matter of discovery.
Bret Ripley
<snip>
> How about starting a thread for each of the virtues you find important
> to life, and invite religious and non-religious alike to contribute
> their pensļæ½es?
Now that was a kick in the ol' memory circuits. From the OP:
"Donļæ½t let your life slip through your fingers by living
in the past or for the future. By living your life one day at a time,
you live all the days of your life."
Taking your suggestion quite literally, then, I dare offer Pacal's Pensļæ½e
#172:
"We do not rest satisfied with the present. We anticipate the future as too
slow in coming, as if in order to hasten its course; or we recall the past,
to stop its too rapid flight. So imprudent are we that we wander in the
times which are not ours, and do not think of the only one which belongs to
us; and so idle are we that we dream of those times which are no more, and
thoughtlessly overlook that which alone exists. For the present is
generally painful to us. We conceal it from our sight, because it troubles
us; and if it be delightful to us, we regret to see it pass away. We try to
sustain it by the future, and think of arranging matters which are not in
our power, for a time which we have no certainty of reaching.
"Let each one examine his thoughts, and he will find them all occupied with
the past and the future. We scarcely ever think of the present; and if we
think of it, it is only to take light from it to arrange the future. The
present is never our end. The past and the present are our means; the
future alone is our end. So we never live, but we hope to live; and, as we
are always preparing to be happy, it is inevitable we should never be so."
Bret
ajo...@gmail.com
> On May 15, 6:37 pm, ajo8...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > ----I don't like lengthy posts, so I have a suggestion. Since you
> > have criticized my post, I challenge you to rewrite the creed I posted
> > as it should have been written according to you. Then we all can read
> > a correct creed. So, am waiting for your correctly written piece.
>
> A novel suggestion! A couple thoughts, though.
>
> First, I don't think recognizing banality is tantamount to a gift for
> original sagacity. I may loathe bad food, but this does not make me a
> great chef. It does, however, make me thankful on those rare occasions
> where I'm sitting at a gourmet's table. I may not be able to serve a
> feast, but I know when I'm served one -- and when I'm not.
----In other words, your a 'blow hard' that likes to make insulting
criticisms of others but afraid to accept the challenge to correct
what you see wrong.
I'm through with you, I don't debate with blow hards. I'll bypass you
'excuses' for not meeting the challenge you post below.
rasqual
> On May 15, 5:23 pm, rasqual <scott.marqua...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 15, 6:37 pm, ajo8...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > ----I don't like lengthy posts, so I have a suggestion. Since you
> > > have criticized my post, I challenge you to rewrite the creed I posted
> > > as it should have been written according to you. Then we all can read
> > > a correct creed. So, am waiting for your correctly written piece.
> > A novel suggestion! A couple thoughts, though.
> > First, I don't think recognizing banality is tantamount to a gift for
> > original sagacity. I may loathe bad food, but this does not make me a
> > great chef. It does, however, make me thankful on those rare occasions
> > where I'm sitting at a gourmet's table. I may not be able to serve a
> > feast, but I know when I'm served one -- and when I'm not.
>
> ----In other words, your a 'blow hard' that likes to make insulting
> criticisms of others but afraid to accept the challenge to correct
> what you see wrong.
How does one "correct" pop-psych self-help gibberish as vapid as
"Don’t undermine your worth by comparing yourself with others. It is
because we are different that each of us is special." Did you make a
grammatical error? A malapropism, perhaps? No. My "correction" of such
silliness would be to elide it.
Not all of your items fare as badly. Most remain Hallmark card
material.
I don't "correct" Hallmark cards.
> I'm through with you, I don't debate with blow hards. I'll bypass you
> 'excuses' for not meeting the challenge you post below.
:-/
I can only bask in the exquisite precision of my characterization of
your motivations and projections:
> > your apparent interest in promoting rivalry as a matter of
> > principle rather than understanding as a matter of discovery.
In driving a wedge between religious and secular traditions of wisdom,
you prove yourself divisive. The entire point of this exchange, from
my point of view, has been to expose you to the divide you seem to
prefer.
You don't like it. Yet you clamor for more. Why?
ajo...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
----Since you are critical of my post but unable to correct what you
criticize, I’m asking you to write an essay about about worth, love,
goals, dreams, and the value of life,…IN YOUR OWN WORDS so the posters
here will know how it should be done correctly. Since you have so
wordily castigated my friend’s, the atheist, essay, this should be a
cinch for you and would allow me and others to examine your efforts
and see how to write meaningful. For you to not do so, after your
criticism, would prove your past commentarys to be nothing more than
valueless empty words and you as a person so be cowardly. We wait
your essay for comparison.
rasqual
> We wait your essay for comparison.
First of all, who's "we?"
Second, I've indicated that as long as this remains a challenge
between atheism and theism, it's foolish because wisdom is neither.
Wisdom is the application of generalizations about how the world
operates -- whether a person deems it God's world or no one's.
Third, do you seriously think I find particularly motivating, a
playground challenge from someone who mistakes banalities for
profundities?
Fourth, I've enjoyed thousands of intelligent arguments in this forum.
I've abstained from thousands more. Needless to say, juvenile
challenges that appeal to ego just don't register. It'll be
interesting to see whether you're capable of believing that, or
whether you'll respond as if you don't even understand what I just
said.
ajo...@gmail.com
> On May 16, 12:03 pm, ajo8...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > We wait your essay for comparison.
>
> First of all, who's "we?"
-----It doen't take a rocket scientist to know others read these
posts.
>
> Second, I've indicated that as long as this remains a challenge
> between atheism and theism, it's foolish because wisdom is neither.
> Wisdom is the application of generalizations about how the world
> operates -- whether a person deems it God's world or no one's.
------It is not a challenge between atheism and theism, it is 'put up
or shut up' regarding your criticism. Your big mouth vapid excuses
won't help, you made some charges now back them uip, no more excuses.
>
> Third, do you seriously think I find particularly motivating, a
> playground challenge from someone who mistakes banalities for
> profundities?
----Apparently you seriiously did think you found it partuculary
motivating enough to take time to criticize and to respond to my
emails. You just don't have the guts to put in writing what your
mouth claims. You made criticism, now back them up, or were just
being nasty.
>
> Fourth, I've enjoyed thousands of intelligent arguments in this forum.
> I've abstained from thousands more. Needless to say, juvenile
> challenges that appeal to ego just don't register. It'll be
> interesting to see whether you're capable of believing that, or
> whether you'll respond as if you don't even understand what I just
> said.
-----Your initiated the juvenile challenge by making critical remarks
to my post. But when challenged all of a sudden it's "juvenile".
It's not juvenile, it is you not being able to support your
criticism,....just a lot of hot air apparently.
-----Now that you have made your juvenile criticism, let's see you
show how it should be done, course, if you can't, I would expect so
see the wallowing you have done so far. ;-)))
rasqual
> On May 16, 6:30 pm, rasqual <scott.marqua...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 16, 12:03 pm, ajo8...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > We wait your essay for comparison.
> > First of all, who's "we?"
>
> -----It doen't take a rocket scientist to know others read these
> posts.
Did you claim that others "read", or that others "wait?"
I think it takes one of two things for you to claim that others "wait
for [my] essay" -- either clairvoyance that can envision others
patiently watching their screens, or ego enough to imagine that your
issue with me must be others' as well.
> ------It is not a challenge between atheism and theism, it is 'put up
> or shut up' regarding your criticism.
As I said:
> > Needless to say, juvenile
> > challenges that appeal to ego just don't register. It'll be
> > interesting to see whether you're capable of believing that, or
> > whether you'll respond as if you don't even understand what I just
> > said.
Some people are just too easy to read.
> -----Your initiated the juvenile challenge by making critical remarks
> to my post.
Really? You stated that your post offered "advice" that can "compete"
with scripture. You're challenging a corpus valuable to well over a
billion inhabitants of this planet -- and you're doing so with
Hallmark banalities. And having shown both ignorance of and contempt
for documents valued by so many people, you're thin-skinned about your
own meager offering?
You claimed your collection would keep people out of jail. The moment
I offered a simple refutation of that, you claimed you didn't like
long posts and provided a distraction from the failure of your claim.
You're welcome to the last word in a thread that's apparently
descended into egotistical chest-beating. If you care about more than
that, you're welcome to return to wisdom -- perhaps selecting an item
from your opening post and inquiring just what I find so abysmal about
it. I've already mentioned that not all of what you offered is absurd.
That alone should be cause for cheer to someone who likes to think
positively. Unless he prefers to bicker egotistically.
rasqual
> "We do not rest satisfied with the present...
A good selection.
In the human mind I don't think past, present and future are as
distinct as they are in the physical world. We make the past present
in our memories, and the future present in our imagination. We can
live in the present in the past, or in the future. For example, we can
make the past present in memory during the present, perhaps to inform
some current decision we're making with regard to our hopes for the
future. In fact, we train ourselves to do that -- "muscle memory" is
indispensable to guitar playing. We can't make wonderful music without
doing just this, and who would promote our concert tour next year if
it were otherwise?
I would disagree with Pacal that the present alone is ours; the gifts
of memory and imagination (or hope, if you will) make the past and the
future ours in thought; we transcend the physical order of things.
This is part of the Imago Dei, and entails the entailments of what it
means to be responsible in a changing world.
It's easy to find interesting examples in scripture. In Hebrews 12,
for example: "fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of
faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the
shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God." In
the present, we continually attend to what we recall of Jesus' past
acts, who in his time but motivated by joy he anticipated, endured the
joyless cross, and ascended to an enduring station with God. Just look
at the complex temporal relations in THAT mess.
So about the time we get this figured out for ourselves, we recall
that in relationship with others it gets more complex.
On a side note, music itself depends on living in the [very recent]
past.
sully
> On May 16, 6:30 pm, rasqual <scott.marqua...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 16, 12:03 pm, ajo8...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > We wait your essay for comparison.
>
> > First of all, who's "we?"
>
> -----It doen't take a rocket scientist to know others read these
> posts.
>
>
>
> > Second, I've indicated that as long as this remains a challenge
> > between atheism and theism, it's foolish because wisdom is neither.
> > Wisdom is the application of generalizations about how the world
> > operates -- whether a person deems it God's world or no one's.
>
> ------It is not a challenge between atheism and theism, it is 'put up
> or shut up' regarding your criticism. Your big mouth vapid excuses
> won't help, you made some charges now back them uip, no more excuses.
speaking of "vapid", I'd asked you to write something interesting
about Job.
Remember that I found it valueless crap from a moral standpoint, or
anything that informs one on life. As far as I could see, Ajo's
generalizations seem to have generated more interesting comments and
conversation on ARM that Job ever has.
Why is that? Job sucks.
rasqual
> speaking of "vapid", I'd asked you to write something interesting
> about Job. Remember that I found it valueless crap from a moral standpoint, or
> anything that informs one on life.
Well at least it's as good as usenet, then.
Job is a piece of theater. The prologue sets up three bound principles
-- one of which must be false. The book works through that tension.
1. God is just
2. Job is innocent
3. You get what you deserve in this life
Job's very nearly a nonsense book unless one understands the latter
proposition's importance in the ancient world. For a superb summary:
http://sn.im/retribution If you understand that, the book will make
much more sense.
But as far as I can tell, if you're trying to find moral teachings
(per se) in Job, you'd do better to look for crossword puzzles in
Plato's writings.
Many fundamentalists and atheists alike expect the Bible to
consistently present simple things, which the former go on to affirm
and the latter deny. But the Bible's an ancient document -- not a
Hallmark card. And Job is perhaps the most challenging book in the
Bible.
Hallmark cards and self-help books definitely generate more commercial
activity than sales of Job commentaries, so this isn't surprising:
> As far as I could see, Ajo's
> generalizations seem to have generated more interesting comments and
> conversation on ARM that Job ever has.
Could be. I haven't time to parse out the 400+ hits the phrase "book
of job" returns for this group -- nor to hunt down how many instances
of "job" are not speaking about employment.
I think I first discussed Job here with Kerry Shirts, in 1996 -- and
only a few times since then. Probably a few times at SRM as well.
> Why is that? Job sucks.
I think you forgot that it's Ajo who's a bit thin-skinned here, not
me. You're poking sticks into an empty cage, mate. ;-)
ajo...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
---I don't recall being asked to write something about Job,...I've
posted my disgust over the Book of Job on this newgroup before.
However, here is how I feel. I agree with your position on Job. A
case where God meets with His enemies and has a little chat. Then God
makes a wager with Satan at the expense of Job,....nice God! Job
looses his family, his home, his valuables plus being attacked by
every form of sickness. In the end, God gives Job a new family and
new riches which makes Bible thumbers feel good. The problem is, who
would forget one family after they were destroyed? Who would forget
the work to build a home and all that goes with it. Job was a perfect
man, according to God, then God suggest that Satan attack this perfect
man. Those who would worship such a being are, in my mind, a little
wacky.
ajo...@gmail.com
> On May 16, 9:51 pm, ajo8...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On May 16, 6:30 pm, rasqual <scott.marqua...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 16, 12:03 pm, ajo8...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > We wait your essay for comparison.
> > > First of all, who's "we?"
>
> > -----It doen't take a rocket scientist to know others read these
> > posts.
>
> Did you claim that others "read", or that others "wait?"
-----I'm speaking of my immediate friends, and your trying to change
the subject away from the fact that you criticized someone else's post
but doesn't have the guts to back up your criticism. Stay on the
subject, the subject is your big mouth and weak spine.
>
> I think it takes one of two things for you to claim that others "wait
> for [my] essay" -- either clairvoyance that can envision others
> patiently watching their screens, or ego enough to imagine that your
> issue with me must be others' as well.
>
> > ------It is not a challenge between atheism and theism, it is 'put up
> > or shut up' regarding your criticism.
>
> As I said:
>
> > > Needless to say, juvenile
> > > challenges that appeal to ego just don't register. It'll be
> > > interesting to see whether you're capable of believing that, or
> > > whether you'll respond as if you don't even understand what I just
> > > said.
-----Changing the subject won't work, you need to back up your
criticism.
>
> Some people are just too easy to read.
>
> > -----Your initiated the juvenile challenge by making critical remarks
> > to my post.
>
> Really? You stated that your post offered "advice" that can "compete"
> with scripture. You're challenging a corpus valuable to well over a
> billion inhabitants of this planet -- and you're doing so with
> Hallmark banalities. And having shown both ignorance of and contempt
> for documents valued by so many people, you're thin-skinned about your
> own meager offering?
-----If I said that, then show us how it should have been offered, put
up or shut up.
>
> You claimed your collection would keep people out of jail. The moment
> I offered a simple refutation of that, you claimed you didn't like
> long posts and provided a distraction from the failure of your claim.
-----Give us a piece on how you would keep people out of jail. And if
you had readk the essay, I ddn't say that, the piece was by an atheist
friend of mine, not me. Show us how it's done and quit blathering.
>
> You're welcome to the last word in a thread that's apparently
> descended into egotistical chest-beating. If you care about more than
> that, you're welcome to return to wisdom -- perhaps selecting an item
> from your opening post and inquiring just what I find so abysmal about
> it. I've already mentioned that not all of what you offered is absurd.
> That alone should be cause for cheer to someone who likes to think
> positively. Unless he prefers to bicker egotistically.
----Don't change the subject, forget the chest-beating, what is
abysmal, what is absurd about worth, love, goals, dreams and the value
of life.
Show us how it is done, It is one thing to criticize, which you do
very well, ...but to post anything positive,..then we have the blather
and no action.
Shoe us how it is done. The us is my family. I personally find no
problem with anyone posting about worth, love, goals, dreams and the
value of life.
Why do you?
Bret Ripley
<snips>
> Show us how it is done, It is one thing to criticize,
While we're on the subject, I am reminded that Sully posted some rather
uncomplimentary things about Joyce's "Ulysses". I'm still waiting for him
to back up his criticism of Ireland's favorite son by posting the corrected
version.
Bret
ajo...@gmail.com
> On Sun, 17 May 2009 09:30:50 -0700 (PDT), ajo8...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snips>
>
> > Show us how it is done, It is one thing to criticize,
>
> While we're on the subject, I am reminded that Sully posted some rather
> uncomplimentary things about Joyce's "Ulysses". I'm still waiting for him
> to back up his criticism of Ireland's favorite son by posting the corrected
> version.
>
> Bret
-----When I posted an article about worth, love, goals, dreams, and
the value of life; rasqual first response to me included items like
the following:
Your bromides (most of which are vapid) aim at
something comparable, I guess.
"compete with" banal stuff
like "Don’t dismiss your dreams."
your platitudes have no real warrant
...and then he wonders why I am so ""thin skinned"
rasqual is quick to criticize, but cannot prove himself to be any
better ! I've met people like him during WW II, brave souls with a
lot of criticism but when the bombs started dropping and machine gun
started to clatter, these same brave individuals were found hiding and
shaking under a deck tarp. I am familiar with his kind.
rasqual
Dude. You think about Job more naively than the simplest
fundamentalist I've ever met.
Among myriad other things, you need a definite article with "satan,"
and you certainly shouldn't uppercase it.
You're literally not equipped to understand the book, much less judge
it.
rasqual
> rasqual is quick to criticize, but cannot prove himself to be any
> better ! I've met people like him during WW II, brave souls with a
> lot of criticism but when the bombs started dropping and machine gun
> started to clatter, these same brave individuals were found hiding and
> shaking under a deck tarp. I am familiar with his kind.
Good grief.
Now your egotism has gone to the level where you believe your Hallmark
card quips are the literary equivalent of bombs and machine guns.
Dude.
ajo...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
-----3,000 other Christian faiths in the world don't understand the
book either, based on the number of faiths. Tell ya what,since I
don't understand Job, why don't you explain it to me like a good
Christian, if you are one.
Also, it is harder to get you write an essay on worth, love, goals,
dreams and value of life than it is to get a fox out of a henhouse!
Aren't any of these things in you life.
ajo...@gmail.com
-----You got it, Dude, can't help it if you remind me of such. Maybe
if you had the guts to write the essay I asked you to, I might change
my opinion.
rasqual
OK, so you get to cull unoriginal Hallmark banalities, but I have to
"write an essay."
;-)
Meanwhile, new variations on the chest-thumping keep cropping up.
rasqual
> -----3,000 other Christian faiths in the world don't understand the
> book either, based on the number of faiths.
??
> Tell ya what,since I
> don't understand Job, why don't you explain it to me like a good
> Christian, if you are one.
Why not a good atheist? Aren't atheists as capable of understanding
ancient literature as theists?
You're as capable of understanding Job as the next guy, if you leave
off simplistic, fundamentalistic notions and actually deal with the
text as a text, instead of something you're reflexively bigoted about.
It baffles me how many atheists are superstitious about the Bible.
Check the link I cited to Sully. In all seriousness, it will help you
understand Job -- provided you can set aside your superstitions about
the Bible and just treat it as literature with a particular historical
situatedness.
> Also, it is harder to get you write an essay on worth, love, goals,
> dreams and value of life than it is to get a fox out of a henhouse!
Your contributions were original, were they?
> Aren't any of these things in you life.
Certainly.
sully
> On May 17, 3:41 am, sully <s...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
> > speaking of "vapid", I'd asked you to write something interesting
> > about Job. Remember that I found it valueless crap from a moral standpoint, or
> > anything that informs one on life.
>
> Well at least it's as good as usenet, then.
>
> Job is a piece of theater. The prologue sets up three bound principles
> -- one of which must be false. The book works through that tension.
Job is a rorsach test. It's a silly bit of nonsense like an 'artist'
throwing spatters of paint on a canvas that people who read the words
that are written see it for what it is, nonsense, :"cloudy with a
chance of meatballs"
People who need to assert that Job is not silly nonsense make up
dizzy
quasi-dialectical spew that tortures some sort of genius out of the
paint splotch, it's a butterfly, not a splotch.
>
> 1. God is just
> 2. Job is innocent
> 3. You get what you deserve in this life
>
> Job's very nearly a nonsense book unless one understands the latter
> proposition's importance in the ancient world. For a superb summary:http://sn.im/retribution If you understand that, the book will make
> much more sense.
>
> But as far as I can tell, if you're trying to find moral teachings
> (per se) in Job, you'd do better to look for crossword puzzles in
> Plato's writings.
LOL, you give me a supposed excellent summary that says that Job
is a lesson that God's retribution and reward are not granted on
earth,
so that it would lead men to greater righteousness, then make the very
stupid claim that Job is not supposed to have a moral teaching.
You expected me not to read it because you knew it was more crap.
"Righteousness' is morals, and that summary used the word liberally.
I will therefore accept your response to my request to say something
interesting about Job. What's interesting is that the first thing
you say about Job is complete contradiction! I think that's very
funny!
>
> Many fundamentalists and atheists alike expect the Bible to
> consistently present simple things, which the former go on to affirm
> and the latter deny. But the Bible's an ancient document -- not a
> Hallmark card. And Job is perhaps the most challenging book in the
> Bible.
I bet.
>
> Hallmark cards and self-help books definitely generate more commercial
> activity than sales of Job commentaries, so this isn't surprising:
Ajo never claimed that his paragraph was profound, did he?
sully
>
> <snips>
>
> > Show us how it is done, It is one thing to criticize,
>
> While we're on the subject, I am reminded that Sully posted some rather
> uncomplimentary things about Joyce's "Ulysses". I'm still waiting for him
> to back up his criticism of Ireland's favorite son by posting the corrected
> version.
>
Bloom eats breakfast then takes a crap and his wife screws her
boyfriend then Bloom meets a bunch of weird ppl and he meets Stephen
and gets drunk and sings in a pub while there's a parade going on
around the town then he beats off to two hotties at the beach, Mollie
gets preggers and has a baby over a long time and makes reading it as
painful as childbirth, and
there's probably more but nobody has read that far.
The End
sully
> On May 17, 11:16 am, Bret Ripley <rip...@gotsky.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 17 May 2009 09:30:50 -0700 (PDT), ajo8...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > <snips>
>
> > > Show us how it is done, It is one thing to criticize,
>
> > While we're on the subject, I am reminded that Sully posted some rather
> > uncomplimentary things about Joyce's "Ulysses". I'm still waiting for him
> > to back up his criticism of Ireland's favorite son by posting the corrected
> > version.
>
> > Bret
>
> -----When I posted an article about worth, love, goals, dreams, and
> the value of life; rasqual first response to me included items like
> the following:
>
> Your bromides (most of which are vapid) aim at
> something comparable, I guess.
>
> "compete with" banal stuff
> like "Don’t dismiss your dreams."
>
> your platitudes have no real warrant
>
> ...and then he wonders why I am so ""thin skinned"
Scott's criticism is valid, actually. His criticism could be
said for any statement that tries to sum up the meaning and ends
of our lives.
The vapidity isn't in the meaning itself, which is most often
blindingly simple that a child figures it out, it is only in the way
that meaning is expressed.
Artists create great works expressing very vapid thoughts, no?
Your point is well made, Ajo. The bible can't do what you did,
declare a simple meaning. There are great writings in the bible but
most of it isn't.
rasqual
> On May 17, 7:39 am, rasqual <scott.marqua...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 17, 3:41 am, sully <s...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
> Job is a rorsach test. It's a silly bit of nonsense like an 'artist'
> throwing spatters of paint on a canvas that people who read the words
> that are written see it for what it is, nonsense, :"cloudy with a
> chance of meatballs"
A complex, ancient fable dealing with the most profound issue of its
time is a "rorsach"(sic) test for moderns?
> People who need to assert that Job is not silly nonsense make up
> dizzy quasi-dialectical spew that tortures some sort of genius out of the
> paint splotch, it's a butterfly, not a splotch.
What makes that paragraph not a splotch? Just curious.
> > http://sn.im/retribution If you understand that, the book will make
> > much more sense.
>
> > But as far as I can tell, if you're trying to find moral teachings
> > (per se) in Job, you'd do better to look for crossword puzzles in
> > Plato's writings.
> LOL, you give me a supposed excellent summary that says that Job
> is a lesson that God's retribution and reward are not granted on
> earth,
> so that it would lead men to greater righteousness, then make the very
> stupid claim that Job is not supposed to have a moral teaching.
Your concern, I believe, was whether Job delivered moral teachings in
the sense that Ajo delivered aphorisms -- thus my "per se" above.
Obviously the book is dealing with morals, or I'd not have cited its
moral trilemma:
> > 1. God is just
> > 2. Job is innocent
> > 3. You get what you deserve in this life
> You expected me not to read it because you knew it was more crap.
Ah! A superb explanation for why people offer links. Folks do that
because they expect people NOT to follow them!
Such an outcome is better ensured by simply not providing links in the
first place. :-\
I cited that link because it offers the most concise introduction to
the worldview of the time (as well as a good framework of the story).
Without understanding that, Job would read like an ink blot to most
people.
> "Righteousness' is morals, and that summary used the word liberally.
What was my expressed reason for citing that link? Amid your pursuit
of pretenses for rancor, did you happen to learn anything that would
make the book itself more scrutable? Less of an ink blot to you?
It seems to me that if you view Job as a rorschach test, that's an a
priori commitment -- a sollipsistic hermeneutic -- that'll moot
anything anyone might offer as an aid to understanding. That's not a
problem you can lay at others' feet, sir.
Your request for illuminating remarks concerning something that's no
more than an ink blot to you, then, seems a troll's interest in
wasting others' time for his own amusement, rather than good-faith
curiosity.
> > Many fundamentalists and atheists alike expect the Bible to
> > consistently present simple things, which the former go on to affirm
> > and the latter deny. But the Bible's an ancient document -- not a
> > Hallmark card. And Job is perhaps the most challenging book in the
> > Bible.
>
> I bet.
Sounds like you believe Job "presents simple things."
> > Hallmark cards and self-help books definitely generate more commercial
> > activity than sales of Job commentaries, so this isn't surprising:
> Ajo never claimed that his paragraph was profound, did he?
"Advice like this can compete with anything you can find in the
scriptures"
Obviously, if he doesn't believe "anything" in the scriptures is
profound, then his claim is not that what he offered was profound. But
I wonder why he'd set forth anything he intended as merely mediocre,
if his intention was to impress biblicists with what secular wisdom
has to offer?
I think Ajo regards Biblical literature far too casually, and Hallmark
cards far too highly. I suspect this is because he doesn't understand
the Bible (his summary of Job reflects total ignorance of the book),
and at least understands Hallmark cards.
ajo...@gmail.com
> On May 17, 9:28 pm, ajo8...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On May 17, 7:12 pm, rasqual <scott.marqua...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > -----You got it, Dude, can't help it if you remind me of such. Maybe
> > if you had the guts to write the essay I asked you to, I might change
> > my opinion.
>
> OK, so you get to cull unoriginal Hallmark banalities, but I have to
> "write an essay."
>
> ;-)
----I have no problem with Hallmark, that is yours.
>
> Meanwhile, new variations on the chest-thumping keep cropping up.
----I may be a chest thumper, but I'm no shrinking violet. You
criticize those for things you cannot do, Terrific.
ajo...@gmail.com
> On May 17, 9:27 pm, ajo8...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > -----3,000 other Christian faiths in the world don't understand the
> > book either, based on the number of faiths.
>
> ??
>
> > Tell ya what,since I
> > don't understand Job, why don't you explain it to me like a good
> > Christian, if you are one.
>
> Why not a good atheist? Aren't atheists as capable of understanding
> ancient literature as theists?
----Explain it as a good atheist then, if your capable.
>
> You're as capable of understanding Job as the next guy, if you leave
> off simplistic, fundamentalistic notions and actually deal with the
> text as a text, instead of something you're reflexively bigoted about.
----What am I bigoted about. You appear to fear worth, love, goals,
dreams and the worth of life.
>
> It baffles me how many atheists are superstitious about the Bible.
>
> Check the link I cited to Sully. In all seriousness, it will help you
> understand Job -- provided you can set aside your superstitions about
> the Bible and just treat it as literature with a particular historical
> situatedness.
---There you go, pointing fingers again. Prove I am superestitious
about the Bible.
>
> > Also, it is harder to get you write an essay on worth, love, goals,
> > dreams and value of life than it is to get a fox out of a henhouse!
>
> Your contributions were original, were they?
---You read it, you know where it came from.
ajo...@gmail.com
----I agree, Sully, I-'e been reading the Bible off and on for 75
years. There are indeed, some great writings. But there is also a
lot of nonsense, it would be hard for me to believe that a perfect
being, as is claimed, inspired or wrote any of it.
>
>
ajo...@gmail.com
> On May 18, 2:00 am, sully <s...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
> > On May 17, 7:39 am, rasqual <scott.marqua...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 17, 3:41 am, sully <s...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
> > Job is a rorsach test. It's a silly bit of nonsense like an 'artist'
> > throwing spatters of paint on a canvas that people who read the words
> > that are written see it for what it is, nonsense, :"cloudy with a
> > chance of meatballs"
>
> A complex, ancient fable dealing with the most profound issue of its
> time is a "rorsach"(sic) test for moderns?
>
> > People who need to assert that Job is not silly nonsense make up
> > dizzy quasi-dialectical spew that tortures some sort of genius out of the
> > paint splotch, it's a butterfly, not a splotch.
>
> What makes that paragraph not a splotch? Just curious.
>
----Well, obviously, you think wrong. Why would I consider you
opinion on Job when you have none on worth, love,goals, dreams and
the worth of life? Since I recapped Job and you criticize my short
recap, tell me where I was in error. And, yes, I have received many
Hallmark cards in my life, but your dislike of such cards seems to
suggest you have never received any. Sad!
rasqual
> ----I agree, Sully, I-'e been reading the Bible off and on for 75
> years. There are indeed, some great writings.
Such as?
Mike Sullivan
"rasqual" <scott.m...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6bcfab65-9cc0-422c...@b34g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> On May 18, 2:00 am, sully <s...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> On May 17, 7:39 am, rasqual <scott.marqua...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On May 17, 3:41 am, sully <s...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>> Job is a rorsach test. It's a silly bit of nonsense like an 'artist'
>> throwing spatters of paint on a canvas that people who read the words
>> that are written see it for what it is, nonsense, :"cloudy with a
>> chance of meatballs"
>
> A complex, ancient fable dealing with the most profound issue of its
> time is a "rorsach"(sic) test for moderns?
yes. Didn't I just say that?
>
>> People who need to assert that Job is not silly nonsense make up
>> dizzy quasi-dialectical spew that tortures some sort of genius out of the
>> paint splotch, it's a butterfly, not a splotch.
>
> What makes that paragraph not a splotch? Just curious.
Not sure what you mean here, both you and the summary invented contexts
to try to tease some other meaning out of a story that god is a sadistic
immoral bully.
The historical context was that ancient Israelites were clueless somehow
about the nature of the afterlife. So, you know better now?
How silly.
>
>> > http://sn.im/retribution If you understand that, the book will make
>> > much more sense.
>>
>> > But as far as I can tell, if you're trying to find moral teachings
>> > (per se) in Job, you'd do better to look for crossword puzzles in
>> > Plato's writings.
>
>> LOL, you give me a supposed excellent summary that says that Job
>> is a lesson that God's retribution and reward are not granted on
>> earth,
>> so that it would lead men to greater righteousness, then make the very
>> stupid claim that Job is not supposed to have a moral teaching.
>
> Your concern, I believe, was whether Job delivered moral teachings in
> the sense that Ajo delivered aphorisms -- thus my "per se" above.
> Obviously the book is dealing with morals, or I'd not have cited its
> moral trilemma:
Which is why you are twisting. You told me if I were to go to
Job for moral teachings I might as well look for crossword puzzles
in Plato.
>
>> > 1. God is just
>> > 2. Job is innocent
>> > 3. You get what you deserve in this life
>
>> You expected me not to read it because you knew it was more crap.
>
> Ah! A superb explanation for why people offer links. Folks do that
> because they expect people NOT to follow them!
yep. Especially long tomes of tortured logic.
>
> Such an outcome is better ensured by simply not providing links in the
> first place. :-\
>
> I cited that link because it offers the most concise introduction to
> the worldview of the time (as well as a good framework of the story).
> Without understanding that, Job would read like an ink blot to most
> people.
True of the Book of Mormon, and of Dianetics as well. Theists have
to make up amazingly confounding 'contexts' to make silly things somehow
true.
>
>> "Righteousness' is morals, and that summary used the word liberally.
>
> What was my expressed reason for citing that link? Amid your pursuit
> of pretenses for rancor, did you happen to learn anything that would
> make the book itself more scrutable? Less of an ink blot to you?
Been through that crap with Jesuits, bro.
>
> It seems to me that if you view Job as a rorschach test, that's an a
> priori commitment -- a sollipsistic hermeneutic -- that'll moot
> anything anyone might offer as an aid to understanding. That's not a
> problem you can lay at others' feet, sir.
LOL. see what I mean?
>
> Your request for illuminating remarks concerning something that's no
> more than an ink blot to you, then, seems a troll's interest in
> wasting others' time for his own amusement, rather than good-faith
> curiosity.
The trolling card. I'm impressed.
>
>> > Many fundamentalists and atheists alike expect the Bible to
>> > consistently present simple things, which the former go on to affirm
>> > and the latter deny. But the Bible's an ancient document -- not a
>> > Hallmark card. And Job is perhaps the most challenging book in the
>> > Bible.
>>
>> I bet.
>
> Sounds like you believe Job "presents simple things."
In Ajo's summary of Job, is there something he missed? Something
in Job that is, not something you or other people make up about Job.
>
>> > Hallmark cards and self-help books definitely generate more commercial
>> > activity than sales of Job commentaries, so this isn't surprising:
>
>> Ajo never claimed that his paragraph was profound, did he?
>
> "Advice like this can compete with anything you can find in the
> scriptures"
>
> Obviously, if he doesn't believe "anything" in the scriptures is
> profound, then his claim is not that what he offered was profound. But
> I wonder why he'd set forth anything he intended as merely mediocre,
> if his intention was to impress biblicists with what secular wisdom
> has to offer?
The basic moral tenets that can be found in the scriptures is as simple
as what Ajo wrote, that's his point. What can also be found in the
scriptures
are grossly immoral tenets. Those are the parts you guys have to make
up stuff about. As far as "profound", I used the word, not Ajo.
I already defined a few things for you, in this thread, that simple moral
tenets are made profound by their presentation. There are profound
writings
in the bible, absolutely, and that's why you guys figured out that God must
have
inspired it, but there's way more profound things out there that just
regular
guys wrote.
>
> I think Ajo regards Biblical literature far too casually, and Hallmark
> cards far too highly. I suspect this is because he doesn't understand
> the Bible (his summary of Job reflects total ignorance of the book),
> and at least understands Hallmark cards.
I suspect he understands the bible better than you do.
When someone looks at an ink blot and claims that that is a butterfly,
and someone else says that it looks to them like someone spilled ink
on one side of the paper and folded in half, who has the better
understanding of the blot?
Mike Sullivan
<ajo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ae7dd61a-a880-4c0c...@18g2000prx.googlegroups.com...
BTW, just to be clear, Sully is also me, the same person, but
my outward ID changes according to which newsreader I'm using.
sometimes ppl double up on identities so it looks like there are more
ppl who support their POV, an old old usenet trick.
I didn't correct Joshua when he listed me twice, just because I
enjoyed having one of my religions listed as 'drinker'.
Regards!
Mike
Mike Sullivan
> Such as?
I've already listed Ecclesiastes and explained why I think it
is so profound in this thread. I've also shown that it's
not unique in literature or other arts to show the struggle
of man to come to terms with meaning.
Did you catch that? Do you think I missed something in
Ecclesiastes or that I fail to understand it? If there's
something I don't understand about it, I'm willing to learn,
but I'm pretty good at reading through jargon to see that someone
is simply bullshitting like your Job tomes.
Remember, I'm an atheist, so my conclusion differs slightly from the
preacher's, but take God out of it as the supposed source of
morality, and I agree with the preacher.
rasqual
wrote:
> "rasqual" <scott.marqua...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> On May 18, 11:03 am, ajo8...@gmail.com wrote:
> > ----I agree, Sully, I-'e been reading the Bible off and on for 75
> > years. There are indeed, some great writings.
> > Such as?
> I've already listed Ecclesiastes . . .
I was just curious about what what Ajo found to be "great writings."
I did catch your mention of Ecclesiastes.
> but I'm pretty good at reading through jargon to see that someone
> is simply bullshitting like your Job tomes.
Work on that prowess a bit more. ;-)
Mike Sullivan
On May 18, 12:20 pm, "Mike Sullivan" <s...@slacSNIP.stanford.edu>
wrote:
> "rasqual" <scott.marqua...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> On May 18, 11:03 am, ajo8...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
> > but I'm pretty good at reading through jargon to see that someone
> > is simply bullshitting like your Job tomes.
> Work on that prowess a bit more. ;-)
:^) I appreciate your sense of humor.
ajo...@gmail.com
---Have you not read the Bible? I can think of one Bible thought that
most do not exercise:
Matthew 7 v12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should
do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the
prophets.
Luke 6 v31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to
them likewise.
The basic principle is also mentioned in many other places as well.
I'm sure you'll find fault with this also, you are an expert at 'fault
finding",
Mike Sullivan
<ajo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a9280a3d-9aa2-4368...@c7g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
On May 18, 9:33 am, rasqual <scott.marqua...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 18, 11:03 am, ajo8...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > ----I agree, Sully, I-'e been reading the Bible off and on for 75
> > years. There are indeed, some great writings.
>
> Such as?
> ---Have you not read the Bible? I can think of one Bible thought that
> most do not exercise:
> Matthew 7 v12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should
> do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the
> prophets.
> Luke 6 v31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to
> them likewise.
> The basic principle is also mentioned in many other places as well.
Nah, "do unto others" is a Hallmark platitude, vapid drek! :^)
ajo...@gmail.com
wrote:
> <ajo8...@gmail.com> wrote in message
-----Thanks, Mike, ...as Lew Lehr used to say, "Monkeys is the
cwaziest peoples.", (Take note rasqual)
(Your just a kid, Mike, bet you have look up Lew Lehr.)
D_Frum...@ndersnat.ch
> In Ajo's summary of Job, is there something he missed? Something
> in Job that is, not something you or other people make up about Job.
but perhaps they should be.
Job, Victor Hugo's massive masterpiece (though I admit up front that
I'm much more familiar with it in its Broadway incarnation), the ordeal
of Joseph Smith in the jails of Missouri, and the story of my own
ancestors, are sources of inestimable comfort and strength to me. I
think there are profound lessons to be learned from all of them.
The "title characters" of Les Miserables are Jean Valjean, Cosette,
and Fantine. Valjean endures a lifetime of misery, as a prisoner and a
fugitive, yet becomes and remains a noble and admirable character.
(Javert, OTOH, while outwardly righteous and loyal to the law, is of
course the villain of the story.) Through the lifelong efforts and
sacrifice of Valjean and Fantine, Cosette transcends her misery.
Fantine, who dies early in the play, returns as an angel in the last
scene and sings the show's final solo line: "To love another person is
to touch the face of God." Those are profound truths, to anyone who
will heed them.
I still remember the nihilistic spin my professor gave the Book of
Job. I disagreed with him then; decades later I disagree even more. I
have my doubts as to the literality of Job. I think it may be fiction
just like Les Miz is, but fiction can still be truth. Job, like Valjean
after him, maintains his integrity in the face of misery, along with his
faith in God: "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him." (Job 13:
15)
Latter-day Saints get more out of Job than many other Jews and
Christians, because they believe in a pre-existence. When the Lord
appears to Job in the whirlwind and asks him where he was "When the
morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy"
(38: 7), the question is rhetorical because the answer is known. In the
LDS view, Job, being a son of God, was present at the creation,
understood its purpose, and understood that its ultimate end would be
great happiness, however hard the trials might be in between. A modern
aphorism among Mormons has the Lord saying "I never said it would be
easy, I only said it would be worth it."
Job fills another role for Latter-day Saints. When Joseph Smith
records his complaints at his miserable, unjust imprisonment, he also
records the Lord's response: "Thou art not yet as Job; thy friends do
not contend against thee, neither charge thee with transgression, as
they did Job" (D&C 121: 10). (Interesting how this equates betrayal by
friends with other suffering.) This document raises the comparison to
an even higher level: "The Son of Man hath descended below them all.
Art thou greater than he?" (122: 8) Along with this gentle rebuke, this
revelation simultaneously provides considerable comfort: "know thou, my
son, that all these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for
thy good," (122: 7) and "thy days are known, and thy years shall not be
numbered less; therefore, fear not what man can do, for God shall be
with you forever and ever" (122: 9)
When times get tough for me, I also remember what my great-great
grandparents went through. They pushed a rickety handcart from Iowa to
Wyoming, in miserable weather, with inadequate food and clothing,
endurng blizzards, immersion in icy rivers, and temperatures that
reached -10F. They made it through all that with their family and their
faith intact. My problems don't come anywhere near those of Valjean,
Job, Jesus, Joseph Smith, or my GGGF and GGGM. The perspective that I
get from these accounts is invaluable.
FWIW,
Frumious
__o | On ne voit bien qu'avec le coeur.
_`\(,_ | L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux.
(_)/ (_) | --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Mike Sullivan
<ajo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cec69b4d-6dbd-4054...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
You're right, I had to look him up, but I know the "cwaziest" line
comes from one of the old Warner bros cartoons. I didn't
know it was a real guy they caricatured!
Don't underestimate this youngster, Ajo, I can generally guess which big
band is playing a tune even if I haven't heard that particular song, and
I am a huge fan of Ish Kabibble and the ukelele tunes by Cliff Edwards
(my daughter plays Ukelele Lady with me).
Bret Ripley
> On May 17, 11:16�am, Bret Ripley <rip...@gotsky.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 May 2009 09:30:50 -0700 (PDT), ajo8...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> <snips>
>>
>>> Show us how it is done, �It is one thing to criticize,
>>
>> While we're on the subject, I am reminded that Sully posted some rather
>> uncomplimentary things about Joyce's "Ulysses". I'm still waiting for him
>> to back up his criticism of Ireland's favorite son by posting the corrected
>> version.
>>
>> Bret
>
> -----When I posted an article about worth, love, goals, dreams, and
> the value of life; rasqual first response to me included items like
> the following:
Yes, I witnessed the whole shocking thing.
<snip>
> ...and then he wonders why I am so ""thin skinned"
To be honest: I wonder that, too. I have been taken aback by the anger that
has accompanied your responses.
To be quite honest, Ajo, my reaction to the list of sayings was similar to
Scott's: the best of them reminded me of the sort of thing one hears at
just about any high-school graduation, and the worst of them simply made no
cohesive sense. If someone finds that sort of thing useful or interesting,
well, bully for them, I guess.
But more to the point, it was suggested that these bite-sized sentiments
could compete with /anything/ one could find in the scriptures. There seems
to be an odd expectation rolled into that statement: an expectation that
the purpose of scripture is to produce truisms that can be readily-digested
by a modern western audience. I cannot relate to the notion that the value
of *any* work of literature can or should rely on how prolifically it spits
out wisdom McNuggets (unless, of course, that is its stated purpose). The
situation only becomes more complicated if we are discussing ancient
literature produced by authors/redactors from whom we are culturally and
linguistically separated. Accessibility becomes more difficult, for to
appreciate authorial intent the modern reader finds that she must make some
effort to strap herself into the sandals of the original audience. Modern
readers are often unwilling to make that effort, and so we see reactions to
books like "Ecclesiastes" or "Job" that I suspect would very much puzzle
the original authors.
Of course, any reading of "Exodus", "Job", "Hebrews", "Revelation", (or
"Gilgamesh" or "The Iliad") that is primarily interested in identifying
quotes that will fit on a coffee mug is very probably in danger of missing
the point.
In what sense, then, should we consider that "don't take for granted the
things closest to your heart" competes with, say, the story of Samson? Or
David's flight from Saul? Or the sweeping epic of the Exodus? They are
different beasts altogether: why should we try to imagine these examples as
competing with each another in the first place?
Anyway, I completely missed the part of your original post that competes
with "Song of Songs". Could you please post that bit? Oh, and could you put
it in a plain brown wrapper? Cheers. ;)
> rasqual is quick to criticize, but cannot prove himself to be any
> better !
Frankly, I don't understand why he should be expected to. He doesn't like
cheese-puff one-liners, so you want him to produce superior cheese-puff
one-liners? Or what? I don't get it.
> I've met people like him during WW II, brave souls with a
> lot of criticism but when the bombs started dropping and machine gun
> started to clatter, these same brave individuals were found hiding and
> shaking under a deck tarp.
>
> I am familiar with his kind.
Well, okay, but that only makes your responses to Scott all the more
puzzling.
Bret
Bret Ripley
Argh -- I should've known you'd call my bluff, ya bastard.
Did I ever tell you that I wrote a review of "Ulysses"? Here 'tis --
"Early on, the reader is introduced to the idea that Leopold Bloom's wife
is thinking about having an affair. And, 150 pages later, I wouldn't blame
her if she did."
That's it. At least now that you've spoiled the ending, I'll never have to
bother finishing it.
Bret
ajo...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
---I'll be more cautious when dealing with you. ;-)))) Ish Kabible,
great fun. "Little spider on the wall, he ain't got no hair atall,
what does he care, he ain't got no hair" I love the Ukelele. I would
take it up, but my fingers don't work to well anymore.
Bret Ripley
I may be revealing something about my age (or state of mind) when I admit
that the first thing that popped into my head when reading that line was
"Boris the Spider".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWpz2OYf1QU
Bret
ajo...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
-----One question, how did you know I was a bastard?
Bret Ripley
Ummmmmmm, it takes one to know one?
But I was actually referring to Sully: a bastard's bastard if ever there
was one. And there was.
Bret
rasqual
Well said -- as ever.
One note:
> I cannot relate to the notion that the value
> of *any* work of literature can or should rely on how prolifically it spits
> out wisdom McNuggets (unless, of course, that is its stated purpose).
A pet peeve of mine in this forum since 1996:
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=%22doctrine+dispensing%22
But again, I find it fascinating that this is an expectation of both
atheists and fundamentalists (not all of either, of course). I turn
from Mormons to atheists and see the same thing happening. It's like
watching a ping pong game -- they both agree on the ball they're using
-- they just want to hit it in opposite directions.
They'd do better to drop the wad of gum and use an actual ping pong
ball.
rasqual
> Latter-day Saints get more out of Job than many other Jews and
> Christians, because they believe in a pre-existence.
(will not get sucked into ARM again, will not get sucked into ARM
again, will not get sucked into ARM again, will not get sucked into
ARM again, will not get sucked into ARM again, will not get sucked
into ARM again....)
;-)
Bret Ripley
<enter Kerry Shirts>
"Scott: I am your father. Look into your heart. You know it to be true."
Bret
Mike Sullivan
"Bret Ripley" <rip...@gotsky.com> wrote in message
news:1v6trzb4k4ypa$.1vjhpu2y5mfv5.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Sun, 17 May 2009 13:02:06 -0700 (PDT), ajo...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On May 17, 11:16 am, Bret Ripley <rip...@gotsky.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 May 2009 09:30:50 -0700 (PDT), ajo8...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> <snips>
>>>
snip
> But more to the point, it was suggested that these bite-sized sentiments
> could compete with /anything/ one could find in the scriptures. There
> seems
> to be an odd expectation rolled into that statement: an expectation that
> the purpose of scripture is to produce truisms that can be
> readily-digested
> by a modern western audience. I cannot relate to the notion that the value
> of *any* work of literature can or should rely on how prolifically it
> spits
> out wisdom McNuggets (unless, of course, that is its stated purpose). The
> situation only becomes more complicated if we are discussing ancient
> literature produced by authors/redactors from whom we are culturally and
> linguistically separated. Accessibility becomes more difficult, for to
> appreciate authorial intent the modern reader finds that she must make
> some
> effort to strap herself into the sandals of the original audience. Modern
> readers are often unwilling to make that effort, and so we see reactions
> to
> books like "Ecclesiastes" or "Job" that I suspect would very much puzzle
> the original authors.
Ajo's point began with whether the Bible has any wisdom that
came from God. The very first thing I said was that it was little
different
than you could get from a 20 year old who hadn't lived 92 years,
there are digestable truisms that accompany our ability to think and to
love one another (which we've evolved to do).
Ajo rightly pointed out that there's a great deal of value in the
bible, but since there's a great deal of garbage too, how does it make
the bible so great?
Yes, it has HUGE historical importance, passages written and conceived
two and a half millenia ago are of fascinating import, but doesn't
demonstrate
any evidence of God. The irony of a good guy getting trashed by a deity
is is the story of Ulysses, is it not? Did Homer read Job?
(this thread is poetic in it's weaving themes, no????)
>
> Of course, any reading of "Exodus", "Job", "Hebrews", "Revelation", (or
> "Gilgamesh" or "The Iliad") that is primarily interested in identifying
> quotes that will fit on a coffee mug is very probably in danger of missing
> the point.
Indeed, I got that point from Ajo's first comment. They are just
stories written by people, some referencing real life events, some
myth, but aren't inherently superior than any other human story except
in presentation. There are only a few basic lessons, and a few
ironic twists that arise from those stories.
There isn't any basic truth in there that ppl haven't figured out for
themselves already or in parallel.
And yes, for 99% of ppl who follow the bible's teachings as
the "word of God", the bible is boiled down to a few coffee
cup mottos. That also was Ajo's point!!!!
>
> In what sense, then, should we consider that "don't take for granted the
> things closest to your heart" competes with, say, the story of Samson? Or
> David's flight from Saul? Or the sweeping epic of the Exodus? They are
> different beasts altogether: why should we try to imagine these examples
> as
> competing with each another in the first place?
>
> Anyway, I completely missed the part of your original post that competes
> with "Song of Songs". Could you please post that bit? Oh, and could you
> put
> it in a plain brown wrapper? Cheers. ;)
>
>> rasqual is quick to criticize, but cannot prove himself to be any
>> better !
>
> Frankly, I don't understand why he should be expected to. He doesn't like
> cheese-puff one-liners, so you want him to produce superior cheese-puff
> one-liners? Or what? I don't get it.
Ask a christian to summarize the moral lessons, or lessons in
meaning that is derived from God's word and his summary
will boil down to a droll paragraph similar to Ajo's.
Ajo wondered if maybe Scott wanted to take a shot at it,
but Scott knows he won't find anything profound either.
>
>> I've met people like him during WW II, brave souls with a
>> lot of criticism but when the bombs started dropping and machine gun
>> started to clatter, these same brave individuals were found hiding and
>> shaking under a deck tarp.
>>
>> I am familiar with his kind.
>
> Well, okay, but that only makes your responses to Scott all the more
> puzzling.
Up until now you were the only one that hadn't called me a name
on ARM until this thread.
Now I'm a bastard too! :^)
Mike Sullivan
<D_Frum...@ndersnat.ch> wrote in message
news:guse33$tl0$1...@news.xmission.com...
>
>> In Ajo's summary of Job, is there something he missed? Something
>> in Job that is, not something you or other people make up about Job.
>
> I don't know if stories of suffering are a recognized literary genre,
> but perhaps they should be.
> Job, Victor Hugo's massive masterpiece (though I admit up front that
> I'm much more familiar with it in its Broadway incarnation), the ordeal
> of Joseph Smith in the jails of Missouri, and the story of my own
> ancestors, are sources of inestimable comfort and strength to me. I
> think there are profound lessons to be learned from all of them.
Does the story have to be true?
I mean, Hugo's stuff is great, but you mentioned Joseph Smith's ordeal.
Is the ordeal of JS jr, the real one, or the story that's been changed and
embellished by LDS followers to make him more heroic?
I am intrigued, inspired, and informed by fictional stories as well,
but when there's a story that is supposedly true, I'd like it to be the
true story, or as close as we can get using our critical tools at hand.
Mike
Mike Sullivan
"Bret Ripley" <rip...@gotsky.com> wrote in message
news:1v6trzb4k4ypa$.1vjhpu2y5mfv5.dlg@40tude.net...
>
>> On May 17, 11:16 am, Bret Ripley <rip...@gotsky.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 May 2009 09:30:50 -0700 (PDT), ajo8...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
> Of course, any reading of "Exodus", "Job", "Hebrews", "Revelation", (or
> "Gilgamesh" or "The Iliad") that is primarily interested in identifying
> quotes that will fit on a coffee mug is very probably in danger of missing
> the point.
Those stories as stories are very rich in both style and substance,
but are claimed to be the font of wisdom, meaning, and morality
for most christians. There's the bible, then there's books by men.
Can you tell the diff?
I was thinking of another Job-like story in fiction. Did you read the
tales of Hurin and Turin? In Job, a good man is assaulted by a sadistic
deity to prove a point. In Hurin, a wholly evil spirit causes evil to
happen
in a number of ways, the most profound being to trick or goad Turin into
great evil himself. Turin kills his best friend, and falls in love
unwittingly with
his own sister, and Hurin is forced to watch from afar shackled to the
walls of Thangorodrim.
This is a far better story than Job, for there is no context such that
Morgoth
(the evil spirit) is a just God that is showing how really good Hurin is.
Now what I REALLY want to know is who Gaurthar is. Points for
remembering where that comes from...
ajo...@gmail.com
----=Actually, like everyone. I even like rasqual, but I would never
tell him. ;-))))) I just like to debate, but I don't like some words
and it kinda bothers me. Maybe it has something to do with my early
childhood. As a Native American I have heard them all.
rasqual
> <enter Kerry Shirts>
>
> "Scott: I am your father. Look into your heart. You know it to be true."
...as Scott falls into the statistical abyss of SRM's posting numbers
in recent weeks, passing through a black hole to find an ontological
argument playing in a sandbox with while, only partly bizarrely,
Duwayne Anderson rides off into the sunset on a Tapir, grasping the
rigging with just one hand as a clown dodges the bulla ridden by Jong
"the toady" Kim, till the strains of Margaritaville remind us to take
the three-wheeler down to the shore and dip our feet in the water,
where David's tertium quid are teeming and tickle our toes . . .
rasqual
wrote:
> Ajo's point began with whether the Bible has any wisdom that
> came from God.
I think I missed that. Was that before this thread? I don't see it in
the OP.
> > Of course, any reading of "Exodus", "Job", "Hebrews", "Revelation", (or
> > "Gilgamesh" or "The Iliad") that is primarily interested in identifying
> > quotes that will fit on a coffee mug is very probably in danger of missing
> > the point.
>
> Indeed, I got that point from Ajo's first comment.
Help me out here. His first comment [in the thread, I'll presume] was:
For our religious friends, here
are some non-scriptural advice
This is from an atheist without all
the thee, thine, thous, etc. Advice like
this can compete with anything you
can find in the scriptures and you don't
have to worship anyone to live it.
> There isn't any basic truth in there that ppl haven't figured out for
> themselves already or in parallel.
Which, as a judgment on history, is a lot like saying the Greeks and
Arabs weren't doing anything with math that our own contemporaries
haven't figured out for themselves. Or like saying that children
learning to walk are rightly boring to us, because what's so
remarkable about it? When they're adults they'll walk fine
anyway. :-/
> And yes, for 99% of ppl who follow the bible's teachings as
> the "word of God", the bible is boiled down to a few coffee
> cup mottos. That also was Ajo's point!!!!
Again, I don't see it at all, explicit or implicit in his remarks.
Where do you get the 99% figure? It seems likely to comport with your
attitudes about religion, but it seems a frightfully difficult number
to find actual evidence for. Aren't atheists generally -- perhaps 99%
of the time -- concerned with the empirical methods of science? I
realize there's that exceptional 1% that's not, but . . .
> > Frankly, I don't understand why he should be expected to. He doesn't like
> > cheese-puff one-liners, so you want him to produce superior cheese-puff
> > one-liners? Or what? I don't get it.
>
> Ask a christian to summarize the moral lessons, or lessons in
> meaning that is derived from God's word and his summary
> will boil down to a droll paragraph similar to Ajo's.
>
> Ajo wondered if maybe Scott wanted to take a shot at it,
> but Scott knows he won't find anything profound either.
So let me get this right. If I don't dance when Ajo pipes, it can't
possibly be because my faith can't be reduced to a droll paragraph --
it can only be because it can't possibly end up being far more than
that? And all this from an argument from silence and non-evidence
(which is what my non-posting "is")?
Wow! We've gone from finding what Ajo mysteriously "meant" in his
opening post, to knowing what I'd be capable of having said had I only
failed to not say it.
Maybe I should hang out at ARM a bit longer this time around.
As ever, not much about Mormonism going on, though.
Heh. Dittos for SRM though, so hey. ;-D
Bret Ripley
I guess I missed that. From the first post in this thread:
"This is from an atheist without all the thee, thine, thous, etc.
Advice like this can compete with anything you can find in the
scriptures and you don't have to worship anyone to live it."
That was the only qualification I saw.
> The very first thing I said was that it was little
> different
> than you could get from a 20 year old who hadn't lived 92 years,
> there are digestable truisms that accompany our ability to think and to
> love one another (which we've evolved to do).
>
> Ajo rightly pointed out that there's a great deal of value in the
> bible, but since there's a great deal of garbage too, how does it make
> the bible so great?
Maybe what one person considers garbage depends largely on one's
expectations? If you're looking for trite words to live by, Job is probably
garbage. If you're looking for clues regarding the evolution of
Yahweh-worship, it's probably a bit more interesting. But you go one to say
something similar here:
> Yes, it has HUGE historical importance, passages written and conceived
> two and a half millenia ago are of fascinating import, but doesn't
> demonstrate any evidence of God.
Did we approach Job with the expectation of finding evidence for God? Was
it the author's intent to demonstrate evidence for God? To the modern
reader, no less? Then why should we judge it by that criteria?
> The irony of a good guy getting trashed by a deity
> is is the story of Ulysses, is it not? Did Homer read Job?
>
> (this thread is poetic in it's weaving themes, no????)
>
>
>
>>
>> Of course, any reading of "Exodus", "Job", "Hebrews", "Revelation", (or
>> "Gilgamesh" or "The Iliad") that is primarily interested in identifying
>> quotes that will fit on a coffee mug is very probably in danger of missing
>> the point.
>
> Indeed, I got that point from Ajo's first comment. They are just
> stories written by people, some referencing real life events, some
> myth, but aren't inherently superior than any other human story except
> in presentation. There are only a few basic lessons, and a few
> ironic twists that arise from those stories.
>
> There isn't any basic truth in there that ppl haven't figured out for
> themselves already or in parallel.
>
> And yes, for 99% of ppl who follow the bible's teachings as
> the "word of God", the bible is boiled down to a few coffee
> cup mottos.
I'm suspicious of the 99% figure -- maybe it's close to being true among
fundies, but probably not of Christianity in general.
> That also was Ajo's point!!!!
So it's actually a criticism of a shallow approach to complex texts, rather
than the texts themselves? And we illustrate this by substituting complex
texts with simple ones?
>> In what sense, then, should we consider that "don't take for granted the
>> things closest to your heart" competes with, say, the story of Samson? Or
>> David's flight from Saul? Or the sweeping epic of the Exodus? They are
>> different beasts altogether: why should we try to imagine these examples
>> as
>> competing with each another in the first place?
>>
>> Anyway, I completely missed the part of your original post that competes
>> with "Song of Songs". Could you please post that bit? Oh, and could you
>> put
>> it in a plain brown wrapper? Cheers. ;)
>>
>>> rasqual is quick to criticize, but cannot prove himself to be any
>>> better !
>>
>> Frankly, I don't understand why he should be expected to. He doesn't like
>> cheese-puff one-liners, so you want him to produce superior cheese-puff
>> one-liners? Or what? I don't get it.
>
> Ask a christian to summarize the moral lessons, or lessons in
> meaning that is derived from God's word and his summary
> will boil down to a droll paragraph similar to Ajo's.
Okey dokey, I s'pose. I guess I never realized I was supposed to boil texts
down to whatever moral chicklets I can squeeze out of them. I mean, if I
know that friendship creates strong bonds of loyalty and sometimes things
work out in unexpected ways, I guess I'll never have to read "The Lords of
the Rings" again, right? On the bright side, it would probably be good
practice if I wanted to start a new career writing for a fortune cookie
company.
Look: I know there are a lot of shallow Christians out there, but not all
Christians are shallow. If the OP intended to criticize something other
than shallowness, it is just possible that he ended up caricature-bashing
instead. Which is completely understandable -- this being Usenet, after
all.
> Ajo wondered if maybe Scott wanted to take a shot at it,
> but Scott knows he won't find anything profound either.
>
>>> I've met people like him during WW II, brave souls with a
>>> lot of criticism but when the bombs started dropping and machine gun
>>> started to clatter, these same brave individuals were found hiding and
>>> shaking under a deck tarp.
>>>
>>> I am familiar with his kind.
>>
>> Well, okay, but that only makes your responses to Scott all the more
>> puzzling.
>
> Up until now you were the only one that hadn't called me a name
> on ARM until this thread.
I apologize for my oversight.
> Now I'm a bastard too! :^)
Well, yeah, but not the bad sort.
Bret
Mike Sullivan
On May 18, 4:52 pm, "Mike Sullivan" <s...@slacSNIP.stanford.edu>
wrote:
> "Bret Ripley" <rip...@gotsky.com> wrote in message
> > On Sun, 17 May 2009 13:02:06 -0700 (PDT), ajo8...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ajo's point began with whether the Bible has any wisdom that
> came from God.
I think I missed that. Was that before this thread? I don't see it in
the OP.
> > Of course, any reading of "Exodus", "Job", "Hebrews", "Revelation", (or
> > "Gilgamesh" or "The Iliad") that is primarily interested in identifying
> > quotes that will fit on a coffee mug is very probably in danger of
> > missing
> > the point.
>
> Indeed, I got that point from Ajo's first comment.
Help me out here. His first comment [in the thread, I'll presume] was:
For our religious friends, here
are some non-scriptural advice
This is from an atheist without all
the thee, thine, thous, etc. Advice like
this can compete with anything you
can find in the scriptures and you don't
have to worship anyone to live it.
> There isn't any basic truth in there that ppl haven't figured out for
> themselves already or in parallel.
</scott>
***
<sul>
be happy to help
Scripture: is the bible, and when the bible is called scripture it
assumes the existence of a real live god.
Religious people: People who believe in God and claim to live
a life accordingly.
Advice: Some things told to people, in this context,
to live their lives. One can also be given advice on how
to fix a car.
thus, in the context Ajo intended where people claim that they
can find all the meaning and morals to life in this word from
god, I can do as well without the god mumbo jumbo, advise that is.
</sul>
<scott>
Which, as a judgment on history, is a lot like saying the Greeks and
Arabs weren't doing anything with math that our own contemporaries
haven't figured out for themselves. Or like saying that children
learning to walk are rightly boring to us, because what's so
remarkable about it? When they're adults they'll walk fine
anyway. :-/
</scott>
<sul>
Ajo wasn't trying to compete with the bible as a historical
document, is that what you think? He's pretty old though.
</sul>
<scott>
> And yes, for 99% of ppl who follow the bible's teachings as
> the "word of God", the bible is boiled down to a few coffee
> cup mottos. That also was Ajo's point!!!!
Again, I don't see it at all, explicit or implicit in his remarks.
Where do you get the 99% figure? It seems likely to comport with your
attitudes about religion, but it seems a frightfully difficult number
to find actual evidence for. Aren't atheists generally -- perhaps 99%
of the time -- concerned with the empirical methods of science? I
realize there's that exceptional 1% that's not, but . . .
</scott>
<sul>
how many ppl have actually read the bible from cover to cover among
ppl who believe it's the word of god? How many of THOSE read
it critically?
You pick a number, let's go with that. If it's 99% or 50%, that's the
group that Ajo was addressing.
Good Mormon dodge, though, classic deliberative obfustication. You
used to work at FARMS with Kerry, right?
You speak excellent jargonese!
</sul>
<scott>
> > Frankly, I don't understand why he should be expected to. He doesn't
> > like
> > cheese-puff one-liners, so you want him to produce superior cheese-puff
> > one-liners? Or what? I don't get it.
>
> Ask a christian to summarize the moral lessons, or lessons in
> meaning that is derived from God's word and his summary
> will boil down to a droll paragraph similar to Ajo's.
>
> Ajo wondered if maybe Scott wanted to take a shot at it,
> but Scott knows he won't find anything profound either.
So let me get this right. If I don't dance when Ajo pipes, it can't
possibly be because my faith can't be reduced to a droll paragraph --
it can only be because it can't possibly end up being far more than
that? And all this from an argument from silence and non-evidence
(which is what my non-posting "is")?
Wow! We've gone from finding what Ajo mysteriously "meant" in his
opening post, to knowing what I'd be capable of having said had I only
failed to not say it.
</scott>
<sul>
We've gone from you failing to understand a very simple post from
Ajo to you whining about failing to understand it.
That about sum it up?
Bret Ripley
> "Bret Ripley" <rip...@gotsky.com> wrote in message
> news:1v6trzb4k4ypa$.1vjhpu2y5mfv5.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Sun, 17 May 2009 13:02:06 -0700 (PDT), ajo...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On May 17, 11:16 am, Bret Ripley <rip...@gotsky.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 17 May 2009 09:30:50 -0700 (PDT), ajo8...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> snip
>
>> Of course, any reading of "Exodus", "Job", "Hebrews", "Revelation", (or
>> "Gilgamesh" or "The Iliad") that is primarily interested in identifying
>> quotes that will fit on a coffee mug is very probably in danger of missing
>> the point.
>
> Those stories as stories are very rich in both style and substance,
> but are claimed to be the font of wisdom, meaning, and morality
> for most christians. There's the bible, then there's books by men.
>
> Can you tell the diff?
So is this meant as a criticism of a particular approach to the texts, or
of the texts themselves?
> I was thinking of another Job-like story in fiction. Did you read the
> tales of Hurin and Turin?
Yep -- good stuff.
> In Job, a good man is assaulted by a sadistic
> deity to prove a point. In Hurin, a wholly evil spirit causes evil to
> happen
> in a number of ways, the most profound being to trick or goad Turin into
> great evil himself. Turin kills his best friend, and falls in love
> unwittingly with
> his own sister, and Hurin is forced to watch from afar shackled to the
> walls of Thangorodrim.
I hate it when that happens.
> This is a far better story than Job, for there is no context such that
> Morgoth
> (the evil spirit) is a just God that is showing how really good Hurin is.
If I understand you, Job loses points for /not/ presenting Yahweh in a
manner consistent with a particular (modern western) view of God? I can see
how that notion may be unnerving to fundamentalists, but I don't imagine
it's a big deal to those who don't hold scripture to be "inerrant" (or
similar fundie notions).
> Now what I REALLY want to know is who Gaurthar is. Points for
> remembering where that comes from...
Boy, you got me there. It sounds vaguely familiar, but I may be confusing
it with Gorthaur (Sauron).
Bret