The meaning of death - still the biggest taboo

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

Story Link

The meaning of death - still the biggest taboo
Churches should tackle the hard questions around
life and death, writes Chris McGillion.

WHILE it is true that most people, at one time or another, are apprehensive about death, it is also true that all cultures throughout history have attempted to explain the phenomenon in ways that make it comprehensible at least, and in this way somewhat easier to confront. Ours is the noticeable exception.

A private belief persists in an afterlife populated by immortal souls which retain the distinctive personalities of the once-living. But the religious systems that underpin this notion - in effect, the eternities promised by the churches - are no longer held with any cultural conviction. Belief thus doesn't bring the comfort that it should. And while secular society has managed to ditch many of the superstitions regarding the dead, death is no more explicable than it ever was and the dying are probably more of an embarrassment than ever.

In place of a once widely held and strongly felt sense of eternal life, is a kind of soppy popular concession that a spirit may linger. This is a theme common, for instance, in movies, ranging from the 1990 Patrick Swayze-Demi Moore tear-jerker Ghost to the recent blockbuster The Sixth Sense. The lingering, however, is intensely personalised and usually temporary. Typically it is to allow some kind of reconciliation between the living and the dead so that the former can get on with life and the latter can truly "rest in peace" - and so be forgotten.

This is a far cry from the ancestor worship of older cultures or the Christian proposition that there exists a "communion of saints" linking in a palpable sense (through prayer) those who have gone before with those who are alive today. The diluted modern version of the great beyond avoids the embarrassments of heaven and hell but at a price of further isolating grief and raising the prospect of everyone's eventual annihilation.

In this context, the news reported in the Herald last week that Duke University in North Carolina has opened an Institute on Care at the End of Life is interesting. The fact that this is to be an inter-disciplinary centre - involving physicians, palliative care specialists and psychologists, but also pastoral clergy and theologians - may be profoundly significant.

At the very least, Duke University seems to be opening debate on what is essentially a taboo subject in Western culture. The contribution aside of Dr Elisabeth Kubler-Ross (whose groundbreaking 1969 book On Death and Dying argued that death should be viewed as a natural part of life), talk about death remains awkward where it is encouraged and avoided more often. People who express confidence in their personal survival after death are thought of as unduly religious or simply gullible, or both. Sophistication demands that we live for the moment and only hope secretly that there might be a pleasant surprise in store beyond the grave.

The Duke University approach also promises to drive the debate about death in other than exclusively medical terms. Medicine has its place in this debate, of course, and an important one at that. But it suffers from the limitations of any science that ignores the subjective side of life and seeks to explain human behaviour in entirely materialistic terms.

In short, medical science can tell us how we die - and in certain circumstances how we can delay death or ameliorate its suffering. But it can't explain why we die in a way that satisfies the emotional, aesthetic, existential or relational aspects of who we are.

In Biology and the Riddle of Life, Charles Birch puts the case in this way: "The dominant modern worldview, which is probably unprecedented in Western society, is of a world devoid of purpose, ruled by chance and necessity, without intrinsic meaning or value. It is quite unable to deal with the question: what is life?''

Or, by extension, the question, what is death?

The churches also have something to learn as far as offering an answer is concerned. In the ongoing debate about euthanasia, for instance, their representatives rarely venture beyond blanket condemnation when church traditions could bring moral, philosophical and pastoral insight to the general discussion.

Instead of viewing euthanasia as secularism's latest assault on the dignity of life, the churches should seize this opportunity to promote a broader dialogue on the meaning of life and death and the value of both.

Chris McGillion is the Herald's religious affairs columnist. He teaches in the School of Communication at Charles Sturt University.

---------------article end----------------

Tabled for discussion. In Australia this is a difficult topic when discussion becomes public. It's not very constructive sometimes.

Regards

-- Pieter (zaadz@icisp.net.au), April 03, 2000

Answers

Thank you for this very interesting post. This is one reason I am a Scientific Pantheist. This is from Paul Harrison's very fine book, The Elements of Pantheism.

"Pantheists do not believe in any separate paradise, heaven, hell or nirvana beyond this earth. Whether they believe in natural death and rejoining nature's cycles or in reincarnation, pantheists know there is only one home they will ever have. This earth is our only home. This is where we are born, live and die. This is where we belong.

This earth is the only place where we can find and make our paradise. It is not some temporary launch pad toward heave or a stop-gap until God violently destroys it and replaces it with a new heaven and a new earth. Pantheists believe this earth is indescribably beautiful, endlessly diverse, a clouded blue sapphire hanging in the deep black of space. Why should we need a new earth?

The only requirement is that we take care of it for ourselves, and for our children and grandchildren, and for the sake of all the other species for which earth is also home."

I personally do not intend to spend my life worrying about the afterlife.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), April 03, 2000.


When I was in college (early to mid 70's) I wrote an essay on exactly this subject for the Carleton College Philosophical Review. I won $10.00 as 2nd prize!! Whoopee! I forget themain points of the guy who won the first prize ($25.00).

My essay ("The Meaning of Death") more or less argued that death was similar to the period (or other punctuation) at the end of a sentence. It brought the whole of a life to a rounded conclusion. Furthermore, that a life without a death could not be thought of as complete or perfect. That, in a special sense, death perfected a person's life, by giving it a final form.

I contrasted this to the myth of Tithonis, who asked a nymph to grant him perpetual life, without remembering to ask for perpetual youth. In the myth, Tithonis shrivels with age, until he becomes a grasshopper. The purpose of this myth us to remind us, I wrote at age 19, that health is what we value, not life. And since there is no health without any regard to advancing age, we are foolish to wish for endless life without death, when what we crave is endless health and youth. Endless health and youth, I argued had never been possible, but, if it were, it would be at the cost of age and wisdom.

You may decide if my opinion was ever worth $10.00 in 1974 dollars. I still believe more or less as I did then, when it comes to the specific question of what death means to as a fact of life. It is. It has a purpose. Our wishes to the contrary are both unavailing and foolish.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), April 04, 2000.


Don'tcha just HATE it when someone dies when YOU had something else planned? [grin]

That sounds like a great essay, Brian. My 87-year old mom keeps telling me, "Don't get old." I keep telling her, "You'd prefer the alternative?"

I'm going to have to look into that Scienfific Pantheist stuff, Gilda. I could BE one of those folks and not know it. SOME of the reincarnation theories make sense to me. For instance, why is it that some folks are in their mid-40's and STILL act like children, while some folks at 18 or 19 are so much wiser? It makes sense that the 45-year olds are on a first or second pass through life on earth and that the 18 or 19 year olds have inherent wisdom developed in past lives.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), April 04, 2000.


Sci Pan is a good belief system. Harrison is a very articulate spokesman. I read their forum for more than a year and all that Paul had put on the web. It is slowly growing and I am sure that if it had more exposure it would grow even faster. Having been of the Unitarian persuasion I found it to have a lot of appeal.

-- tc (tc@webtv.net), April 04, 2000.

This is the second reference to Scientific Pantheism that I've seen on this forum. First time I've heard anyone refer to SP since I investigated Paul Harrison's beautiful website at Scientific Pantheism some 4 years ago, when I was looking for information on animism. The first website I had ever reviewed end to end, I found SP very appealing. Sort of a thinking-man's version of animism.

Hallyx

"The Universe is sacred. Therefore, it should be viewed with reverence and treated with respect." ---prime tenet of Pantheism

-- (Hallyx@aol.com), April 04, 2000.



Anita, I laughed out loud when I read your post, for I was "one of those folks" and did not know it until I checked out Paul Harrison's website. Later I bought his book which really touched me, and was what I had always believed anyway in my heart.

Chris (catsy pond) on this forum and the old TB posted a link to the Sci-Pan site, and I've been forever grateful. Thanks Chris. Check it out Anita, sorry I don't have address. Scientific Pantheism will get it.

Hallyx, this is what the books said about animism. "A closely related belief [to pantheism] is animism. Animism holds that every living thing, every animal, plant, tree, rock and stream has its own spirit or divinity within itself that must be respected and revered."

I couldn't agree more. If every living thing on the earth were treated with respect, I can see an end to lots of the hatred and wars that now take place.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), April 04, 2000.


I already hate this new E-mail address. The old non-working one always flies from my fingers into the space before I think.

Gilda: Hallyx provided a link. I checked out a few portions of it, but it seemed too organized for my tastes.......not the site......the philosophy. I don't want to "belong" to anything, or have a creed or anything. I understand it's not REQUIRED, but I guess the thought turned me off a little.

In addition, I'd feel obliged to stop eating meat and stop killing the tree roaches when they come into the house. I think I'll just keep being "unlabeled."

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 04, 2000.


Scientific Pantheism?

Talk about an oxymoron! Show me the studies proving any of this stuff before calling it "Scientific". Why not just call it "feel-good pantheism" which would be closer to the truth?

Since the above *appears* :) negative in tone, let me say I looked through the site and found lots of new-age "oneness" stuff, but no real "right vs. wrong" code. What's the point of saying you have a belief system if that belief system is only to believe and do whatever you want as an individual?

Why not just say you're a non-harmful me-ist?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam`), April 04, 2000.


Interesting subject/post Pieter...

A short story:

Twins are in the womb. One twin says to the other "I heard that we are going on a journey, down a long tunnel, towards a bright light."

The other twin became annoyed and insisted that there was no such thing. This is where they were, and this is where they would stay. Where we are now is all there is. Period.

Continuing, the first twin said "and once we've gone out the tunnel, into the light, there will be a grand, caring, loving person waiting there, and we will call it Mother."

Twin 2 simply cannot fathom any of this, believing the other to be making up this whole story where we head down a tunnel, towards a light and are embraced by a loving entity called "Mother."

Perhaps, death is another rebirth? Just a thought...

Cheers!

-- Agent Smith (AgentSmith0110@aol.com), April 04, 2000.


Thanks Gilda TC and Hallyx for those kind words about natural/scientific pantheism (http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/index.htm)

Frank wrote: >Talk about an oxymoron! Show me the studies proving any of this >stuff before calling it "Scientific". - Scientific refers to the fact that we respect the methods and the evidence of science. As for "studies proving any of this stuff" - we accept the evidence of our senses and of science, and on those we base our religious feelings. Those feelings are ones of awe, wonder and reverence for the universe and for nature. If they don't make you feel like that, that's up to you, but I think they make most people feel like that. Most people don't need any "studies" to prove they feel that way, any more than you need studies to prove that the landscape you say is beautiful really is beautiful.

As for ethics, there's plenty, just read the ethics pages starting here: http://members.aol.com/pantheism0/ethicpan.htm

Also two of the nine credo clauses are ethical. Here they are: 3. We are an integral part of Nature, which we should cherish, revere and preserve in all its magnificent beauty and diversity. We should strive to live in harmony with Nature locally and globally. We acknowledge the inherent value of all life, human and non-human, and strive to treat all living beings with compassion and respect.

4. All humans are equal centers of awareness of the Universe and nature, and all deserve a life of equal dignity and mutual respect. To this end we support and work towards freedom, democracy, justice, and non-discrimination, and a world community based on peace, ustainable ways of life, full respect for human rights and an end to poverty.

These ethical principles follow naturally from the reverence for life and other humans, and they have quite strong consequences for social action. The areas where we say "do as you like" are areas of private personal behaviour where no-one is harmed. Religions simply make themselves ridicilous when they tell people that God cares deeply about what substances they smoke or what they get up to in bed etc.

Regards, Paul

-- Paul (heraclitus@pantheism.net), April 04, 2000.



Frank, this is not nearly as much a "me-ist" belief as most other religions. Concerning the Scientific part, that simply means, that Scientific Pantheists do not discount Science as so many religions do, but that they embrace scientific discovery as part of the exploration of the divine universe. It's a very simply concept; not new age at all, and I certainly don't mean anything against new age beliefs, whatever they are.

Pan means all, and theos means God, which are derived from the Greek language, hence the name Pantheism or "All is God." As far as this being New Age, it predates Christianity by about 6 or 7 centuries.

"Pantheism of one kind or another, came to dominate East and West in the ancient world." The spread of Christianity and Islam forced pantheism underground but it is now rising in popularity again.

So I guess you're saying if there is no code of "right vs. wrong" then what's the point of having a belief system. Actually there is a code, but not in the sense of "sinning and redemption." It's a reverence and love for nature, a love of justice, and accepting and enjoying life, and not seeing our life on this earth as a holding pen for the real thing.

Anita, there is no push for anyone to join anything. If you want too fine, if you don't, that's fine too. There is no church or buildings or preachers or home office, as far as I know. You don't have to confirm or repent or pledge or belong or any of that. I don't suppose every Pantheist is a vegetarian either. But then I was a vegetarian long before I even read about Pantheism.

I didn't just read about this and decide that this was the belief for me. I've believed this way all my life, even when I was a child. Then I accidently read about it and thought, "Amazing, this is how I've felt and believed for all my life."

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), April 04, 2000.


Paul,

You said, "Scientific refers to the fact that we respect the methods and the evidence of science". So do I. What does this have to do with pantheism? To me when someone adds "scientific" in a title they mean one of two things, either a declaration that their work was done in accordance with the scientific method (which I don't think applies here) or as sort of an "appeal to authority" effort to appear legitimate. I suppose I'm *assuming* this group falls into the latter category.

Also, to "Most people don't need any "studies" to prove they feel that way, any more than you need studies to prove that the landscape you say is beautiful really is beautiful. " This is true, but I *don't* claim my feelings are scientific.

Also, to "Also two of the nine credo clauses are ethical. Here they are: 3. We are an integral part of Nature, which we ****should**** cherish, revere and preserve in all its magnificent beauty and diversity. We ***should*** strive to live in harmony with Nature locally and globally. "

And to "4. All humans are equal centers of awareness of the Universe and nature, and all deserve a life of equal dignity and mutual respect."

In point 3. you say people *should* do something, but they don't really have to if they don't want to, hardly an imperative. In point 4. when you say **all humans deserve a life** does that mean that your version of pantheists are opposed to abortion, or does it mean "all humans deserve a life WHEN CONVIENIENT FOR THE PRACTITIONER"?

My problem with these new-age revivals is their lack of absolutes. For example, I could ask a Muslim if "there is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet" is true, and they would say "yes". A Judeo/Christian person would agree that God said "you shall have no other God before me", and this was an absolute command. From this belief in absolutes comes the notion of right and wrong. With "pantheism" you're creating a Bill Clinton religion: Do what you want if you can come up with a good rationale for it. My trouble with that is that what's good for you may not be good for me.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 04, 2000.


Gilda,

Thanks for the reply. You said, "So I guess you're saying if there is no code of "right vs. wrong" then what's the point of having a belief system. Actually there is a code, but not in the sense of "sinning and redemption." It's a reverence and love for nature, a love of justice, and accepting and enjoying life, and not seeing our life on this earth as a holding pen for the real thing. "

If there is a code, what, if anything, is forbidden under all circumstances? Is there anything absolutely necessary to do? If not, how is this different than saying "just do what you want and call it holy"?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 04, 2000.


Gilda thanks for pointing me to this thread.

Yes, I too found out last year that there was a name for my own personal beliefs, which had developed on it's own with a lot of pondering over the years, and it was called Scientific Pantheism. It's actually Hardliner who pointed that out to me and gave me the URL, in private email. Up until then, I had a hard time telling people what my "religion" was, since I don't adhere to anyone religion, and so I would say I was an ethical atheist. But the "A" word is extremely taboo here in america, and so I was happy to find out that there was someone who had organized my thoughts and beliefs into a neat webpage, and called this philosophy Scientic Pantheism. I don't belong to a this website and have not even returned to it in many months, and I don't "follow" Harrisson or any Pantheistic movement, but I do like to call myself a Scientic Pantheist, because it is what describes my philosophy and beliefs best. Like Anita, I am always leery of organizations and labeling. I think there's a name and a website for that too, called Freethinkers (can find the URL now, might try again later), and I also like that philosophy which describes my own. Sounds better to me to be called a Freethinker than a plain old rebel, outcast or any other such epithets ;-)

Paul, thanks for posting the main ethics of Pantheism. Since at least my early teens, my motto/credo/manifesto has been "Anything in moderation is ok as long as it does not hurt me, you or anyone else." When you take time to really ponder this sentence (domino effects and concequences), you see it could really be used for the Pantheist movement's answer "what is Pantheism in one sentence?"

And Anita, I understand your retiscence, I too don't want to give up my current lifestyle and continue killing varmin's and eat meat. What this website really is is an expression of the Ultimate Pantheistic Attitude, a guide. Just like in any religions or organizations, not everyone is a holy Pope, nun or priest, or a blameless follower of the religion or philosophy.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 04, 2000.


Again with the "New Age Religion," eh, Frank? In the event you hadn't read Gilda's explanation before posting your error, may I reiterate: animism/pantheism is the oldest recognizable religious belief, predating extraterrestrial monotheism by at least tens of millennia. I still chortle at the irony of these religious newbies---Jews, Muslims, Christians---who think they have a lock on religious understanding. Kind of reminds me of teenagers who know just absolutely, like everything. Ask 'em, Dude. They'll tell you---just like the monotheists.

Frank further misunderstands: "Do what you want if you can come up with a good rationale for it."

If one is imbued with reverence and respect for all life and for the universe, then what one "wants" to do is generally congruent with the furtherance of life and the integrity of the system one cherishes. Unlike children, an ethical adult should not need "absolute" strictures in order to behave ethically. May I observe that it is monotheism which generally rationalises (often execrable) behavior as being for the glory of their god or for personal salvation.

Frank contumeliously continues: "My trouble with that is that what's good for you may not be good for me."

My trouble with dogmatic beliefs is that what's good for them may not be good for me, my planet, or my grandchildren's great-grandkids. In fact, the evidence of the past two-thousand plus years of salvationist, resurrectionist dogma is that it frequently promotes behavior antithetical to my ethical concerns.

Hallyx

"As it harms no man, do as thou wilt." ---Wiccan homily

-- (Hallyx@aol.com), April 04, 2000.



I have my own afterlife all arranged. I'll be attending medical school as a cadaver, in the hopes that some living people will receive more capable treatment than they would have otherwise.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 04, 2000.

Good for you Flint. It is nice to know that one may eventually serve some useful purpose .

I'm trying to arrange for my unembalmed remains to be buried in an organic shroud or non-toxic cardboard box, in a forest somewhere, preferably near a young tree that could use my nutrients. Just my little way of giving something back to the Earth which has nourished and supported me.

This, btw, is not an easy thing to do, given the laws and protocols of our culture. If anyone else has thought about it this way and knows of how this might be arranged, I'd appreciate hearing from you.

Hallyx

"Create no images of God. Accept the images that God has provided. They are everywhere, in everything. The universe is God's self-portrait." ---Octavia E. Butler (Parable of the Sower)

-- (Hallyx@aol.com), April 04, 2000.


Hallyx,

No, I hadn't seen Gilda's post, and yes, I knew about classical pantheism (and if you're really interested, I even knew what pantheism meant!). It is my contention that the New Agers and their ilk are the ones rehashing this stuff as it doesn't tie them to any specific moral code, but still allows them to "feel" ethical.

You said, "Unlike children, an ethical adult should not need "absolute" strictures in order to behave ethically."

Let's take an extreme example: Say a pedophile shows up at your pantheism convention and brings with him that study (quoted on a prior thread) "showing" that pedophilia isn't always bad, and in some cases may be beneficial. He also states that he sincerely believes he is working towards the greater good in praciticing pedophilia as part of his religion.

Would you find that acceptable? If not, on what moral grounds could you argue? After all, he has scientific research to back up his views, and sincerely believes he's helping his victims. A religion with an objective standard of right and wrong on the other hand would have no trouble dealing with his behavior.

You also said, "In fact, the evidence of the past two-thousand plus years of salvationist, resurrectionist dogma is that it frequently promotes behavior antithetical to my ethical concerns. "

Can you please provide me an example where Christianity (what I assume you're referring to, as you used "resurrectionist") is promoting a behavior "antithetical to your ethical concerns"?

Trying not to get ad hominem for the sake of discussion....

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 04, 2000.


Hallyx:

What laws are there against burying ashes? My dad is in a cardboard box in my mom's closet. Once my mom dies, she gets cremated and I take both boxes and mix the ashes. Originally, they wanted the ashes dumped into the fjords in Norway, but I don't know yet if that will be possible.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 04, 2000.


You bring up a good question about the laws here disposal/burying/dispensing of cremation ashes. Both my parents chose to be cremated but burried in the cemetary family plot.

I myself wanted to be dispersed through the air as from an airplane, so that I could roam the earth symbolically if not phisycally in my living life. But now I feel selfish after what Flint and Halyx said. Well, I did donate my organs on my driver's license, does that count?

My moral dilema with this concerns making the people who will pick up after my dead body happy. I'll be dead, but they'll have to deal with the funeral and their emotions. My husband does not hold my philosophy on life and death. So we're working on a compromise, and giving my body to medical science as was my original entent is out.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 05, 2000.


Agent Smith,

I loved your little story. Thanks for sharing that. =o)

-- cin (cinlooo@aol.corn), April 05, 2000.


Well, Anita, it's like this.

Reducing thirty pounds of dehydrated Hallyx to ashes requires more irreplaceable fossil fuel than I feel comfortable using, not to mention the CO2 released therefrom. And while there might a few pounds of nutritious minerals in my ashes, many elements essential to the biosphere, including phosphourus, potassium and nitrates go up the stack along with all the carbon that I borrowed over the years. The atmosphere just doesn't need me in it. The Earth does.

Besides nourishing my favorite tree (Of couse it's my favorite. I'll be part of it.), my decomposing corpus will also benefit a variety of "decomposers," soil micro-organisms and associated flora as well as more suitably sequester my carbon.

Hallyx

"A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise." --- Aldo Leopold (Sand County Almanac)

-- (Hallyx@aol.com), April 05, 2000.


Last things first, Frank,

[Trying not to get ad hominem for the sake of discussion....]

I'm mildly offended by this insinuation, sir. I've reread my post to you and, while it may have featured some subtle sarcasm and been construed as less than cordial, I could find nothing in it that could have been inferred as an ad hominem attack on you. By nothing you said could I have guessed that you were a monotheist. But if you strongly identify with the extraterrestrial-deity worshippers, that's your shoe to chose whether to wear.

[(...I even knew what pantheism meant!).]

Good for you; not everyone does. Still, I think you do not understand as much as you might think, as evidenced by your further declamation, to wit:

[It is my contention that the New Agers and their ilk are the ones rehashing this stuff as it doesn't tie them to any specific moral code, but still allows them to "feel" ethical.]

Because I do not identify with whatever "New Agers and their ilk" to whom you refer, I do not consider this Ad Hominem---merely vague, stereotypical and ingenuous. But I do find your tone of voice disrespectful and argumentative.

[Let's take an extreme example: Say a pedophile shows up at your pantheism convention....Would you find that acceptable?]

This is a rhetorical trap into which I decline to step. I cannot speak for Pantheists as a group anymore than you can authoritatively represent all theists. This is an unsportsmanlike gambit, sir, and quite unworthy of you.

[A religion with an objective standard of right and wrong on the other hand would have no trouble dealing with his behavior.]

A religious objective standard? I really enjoyed that oxymoron. Thank you.

[Can you please provide me an example where Christianity (what I assume you're referring to, as you used "resurrectionist") is promoting a behavior "antithetical to your ethical concerns"?]

Only one? Delighted.

Gen 22 says:God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth."

Seems a little presumptuous of believers to thwart this plan by usurping the habitats of those the Christian God created.

Further Gen 29: Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30: And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground--everything that has the breath of life in it--I give every green plant for food."

Does coopting 40% of the photosynthetic product for human needs sound like "going along with the plan?"

Gen 28: God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

What kind of ruler decimates his subjects as we have? A poor one? An arrogant one, filled with self-importance and hubris, who has no intention of following the dictates of his creator?

Btw, I chose the Christian creation myth because I thought it might be one to which you would relate---not because I find it the best or even most reasonable. And especially not the one I consider most likely to encourage a long and peaceful prospect for the cultural progeny of the author of the mythos, namely the early pre-Semitic culture who created the anthropomorphic deity model.

I've already spent too much time on this off-topic post, dear Frank. I was enjoying the discovery of other of my forum friends with pantheistic leanings when you intruded on our fanny-patting session. I consider debating religion with Christians about as stimulating as discussing philosophy with eight-graders. Further, I find dealing with contumelious contrarians enervating. So I will return to the topic of this thread.

If you absolutley must, you may write to me at the address given. There I will feel less constrained by the protocols of politeness to which I try to adhere when contributing to this forum.

Hallyx

"With or without religion you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."---Dr Steven Weinberg (Nobel Prize laureate)



-- (Hallyx@aol.com), April 05, 2000.


Thanks "cin" ;-)

-- Agent Smith (AgentSmith0110@aol.com), April 05, 2000.

Hallyx:

Sorry...I completely misunderstood. Yep...I did hear something about not being able to bury unembalmed folks. Of course I heard about that via one of those highly educational T.V. shows...X-files or Millennium, I believe. [grin]

Flint:

Does one need a will to have the cadaver given to a university, or would simply telling one's family suffice? I come from a long line of folks who avoid the whole wake, funeral, etc. ceremony, We had a memorial thing for my dad when he died [at which time the funeral director presented me with the cardboard box with dad's ashes.] I gave the box to mom who said, "This is heavy." I said, "It's dad." Even now when mom wants me to look for something in her closet, I find myself wondering "What's in THIS box? Oh yeah."

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 05, 2000.


Hallux,

You also said, "[Let's take an extreme example: Say a pedophile shows up at your pantheism convention....Would you find that acceptable?]

This is a rhetorical trap into which I decline to step. I cannot speak for Pantheists as a group anymore than you can authoritatively represent all theists. This is an unsportsmanlike gambit, sir, and quite unworthy of you. "

Baloney. That's the whole point. "Pantheists" say they have a moral code (the implication is in common), but in truth everyone gets to decide for themselves what that moral code is. I think that far from being an "unsportsmanlike gambit" an example of a pedophile who claims to be a pantheist is very applicable for discussion.

You also said, "[A religion with an objective standard of right and wrong on the other hand would have no trouble dealing with his behavior.]

A religious objective standard? I really enjoyed that oxymoron. Thank you. "

The point is I doubt if *any* monotheistic religion would have difficulty condemning a pedophile based on their belief system. Can you as a pantheist say the same, OR give an example of a major religion such as Judaism, Islam or Christianity that condones pedophilia or would find it acceptable in their belief system?

You also said, "Because I do not identify with whatever "New Agers and their ilk" to whom you refer, I do not consider this Ad Hominem---merely vague, stereotypical and ingenuous. But I do find your tone of voice disrespectful and argumentative."

Disrespectful? Yes, I guess so. Again, it bothers me that people claim to have a belief system, when in truth (to me) they don't. Other than saying "oh yeah, I want the best for everyone and everything", what real beliefs are there?

And the Genesis referrences? Please. The reason we have "decimated" the environment is due to our success with society. If people suddenly became hunter-gatherers "in harmony with the environment", BILLIONS of people would have to die before we obtained a sustainable population. Is that what you want? It's not what I would want, not wanting to risk starving to death personally. And being a good pantheist, my wants are an example of what is for the greatest good to the planet.

Also, I can't really e-mail you, as I don't wish to get mail in return. Please post here if you have anything to say.

Frank

P.S. you said, "I consider debating religion with Christians about as stimulating as discussing philosophy with eight-graders. Further, I find dealing with contumelious contrarians enervating."

It's been my experience in life that you get out of things what you put into them. If you are unwilling to debate things with people who disagree with you or with people you condsider "beneath" you, you will miss out on a lot of education. -F

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 05, 2000.


Frank, you aren't playing fair. You make cutting remarks about Pantheism without even having researched it thoroughly. Anyone can call themselves Christians and still go against the Christian teachings. The same applies for any religions, including Pantheism. Have you read anything in the Scientif Pantheism Movement website given above that would suggest that pedophilia would be considered acceptable? If so, please point it out to us.

"The point is I doubt if *any* monotheistic religion would have difficulty condemning a pedophile based on their belief system. Can you as a pantheist say the same, OR give an example of a major religion such as Judaism, Islam or Christianity that condones pedophilia or would find it acceptable in their belief system?" -- Frank

I know of one example. Roman Catholics. The clergy leaders did not publicly condone it, but pedophilia has been hushed and tolerated among themselves. For years it has been going on without public outcry, but in the recent past few years, especially since the AIDS epidemic, it has been exposed and discussed more and more in the media. So, if pedophilia is going on among Christian clergy, I would suspect that someone who calls himself a Pantheist could also be a pedophile. I for one, who call myself a Pantheist, would not condone it and would speack out against anyone trying to make a "scientific" argument that "pedophilia can be beneficial to children".

I am aware of a website that used to exist, don't know if it still does, that was a thinly veiled place for pedophiles to meet and to lure boys to them, proclaiming to be a type of big brother love for boys, it attracted a lot of young boys and men who had major difficulty with family and life in general. They were lavished with love and attention by the adult men on that site. (I know of these sites because I used to be part of Cyber Angels, a group that started out going after internet pedophiles and related crimes, and now has grown and more organized, also includes teaching internet safety for young people etc.) So anyway, I know for a fact that many of these men called themselves Christians and professed to hold Christian values.

So in conclusion I would say that one should judge a religion by the written ethics, guidelines and rules, not by its participants.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 05, 2000.


Frank, you're doing a great job. Ms. Hallyx, the best example for making Frank's point is for you to review any of the many threads with explicit Christian subjects. You will find virtually all of them contain the ravings of Ms. Scientific Pantheism; gilda. Her unprovoked attacks on and venomous intolerance for everything and everyone Christian are proof enough of the innate hypocrisy of her "faith."

Elbow

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), April 05, 2000.


You will find virtually all of them contain the ravings of Ms. Scientific Pantheism; gilda. Her unprovoked attacks on and venomous intolerance for everything and everyone Christian are proof enough of the innate hypocrisy of her "faith."

Sure wish you would have called INVAR on his hypocrisy a few months back,LBO Grise. But I guess you are seeing only what you want to see...

-- formerly anti-INVAR (hypocrites@RUS.com), April 05, 2000.


close

-- formerly anti-INVAR (hypocrites@RUS.com), April 05, 2000.

LBO Grise, where do you come from? Are you new to this forum? Never seen you post here before. Would you be known by any other name perhaps?

If Gilda disagrees with the Christian religion and philosophy in general, as I do, does that mean that she attacks people personaly? From what I've seen of Gilda, she attacks the philosophies mostly, not anyone perticular christian. Now if you attacked her personaly, I could understand that she would defend herself and maybe retaliate.

If you want to attack me and my character personaly, I'll do my best to ignore you. Only way not to be attacked by trolls and ignoranimus.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 05, 2000.


Wow! I didn't get on here until this evening, and discussions are jammin', and Paul has visited, and then I saw Elbow Grease had spewed onto the scene, with his stinger out. (Is this a mixed metaphor or what???) Hey, "formerly anti-INVAR, I can tell you've been there and heard that a few months ago. Thanks for shining a little light on dark corners.

Chris you remember Elbow Grease. He raised hell with us on the Big Picture post, eons ago. Obviously he wants to attack me instead of addressing the content of Pieter's interesting post. I too shall do my best to ignore him.

Brian, BTW, I forgot to tell you that I would have been delighted to give you $10.00 for your essay. I thought it was great. Boy, first place must have been a barn-burner!

Frank, all I can say is that I do not need a God giving me a code of-thou shalt nots- or as you say "absolute commands" to keep me from committing crimes or heinous acts, for I have never wanted to do them anyway. I've only wanted to really, physically hurt one thing in my life, and that is this damned computer, unfortunately it doesn't have feelings, so I doubt I would get much joy out of bashing a plastic box.

But adults should do right because they want to and it feels right, not because they are afraid of the wrath of an Almighty God.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), April 05, 2000.


Sorry, Frank,

I find your argumentation insipid, your sarcasm prosaic, your (il)logic infuriating and your reading comprehension deficient. However, there is one point that I would like to address because it is emblematic of a miscomprehension held by many people, not just by Christians.

You said, "If people suddenly became hunter-gatherers "in harmony with the environment", BILLIONS of people would have to die before we obtained a sustainable population. Is that what you want?"

In a word, YES.

Now, before you dissolve into a fit of apoplexy, allow me to explain. Whenever religionists, or others afflicted with mundane mindsets, think of population reduction, they immediately envision mass starvation, war or disease. When I (not speaking for anyone else) propose that billions of people die off---thereby allowing our life-support system to recover to a point at which it would be capable of supporting the remainder---I mean for them to die naturally, after having experienced long and satisfying lives.

In deference to your comprehension skills, allow me to repeat: Death squads, abortion, pestilence, famine, disease are the furthest things from my mind. Yet these comprise the instinctual petulant whinings of those who proclaim to hold the sanctity of life as the highest moral tenet. Whereas and in contrast, I would much prefer to see the population reduced through natural attrition, by enjoining reasonable people to objure procreation, to take their time, live their lives of quiet desperation or joyful celebration and then, when their time has come, to gracefully exit stage left, out of consideration for generations yet unborn.

Matthew 20:16--"And so it is, that many who are first now will be last then; and those who are last now will be first then."

As long as theists exalt humanity apart from and above the rest of creation, the likelihood of a catastrophic dieoff is intensified. A society which exercises a modicum of humility and restraint, placing the importance of their life support system above their own immediate gratification or imaginary salvation, has at least a reasonable chance of continuing a salutory existence well into the future.

Hallyx

"The world, we are told, was made especially for man--a presumption not supported by all the facts... Why should man value himself as more than a small part of the one great unit of creation?" ---John Muir, Naturalist and explorer (1838-1914)

-- (Hallyx@aol.com), April 05, 2000.


Halyx, you brought up again a very controversial subject which we discussed on old TB2K in a wild and long thread, that of population control (was started by Gilda). Not sure I want to rehash all of it again, it's clear that christians don't agree with that. But it was a very interesting discussion.

I'm surprised you're talking to Frank this way, I've never known you to lose your temper or be so forward with what you thought of someone (or maybe I just didn't happen to come across such posts from you) Surely you understand that all of us have different intellectual abilities and backgrounds, and faulting anyone for not being at our standard is um...condescendingly flaming? I'm not sugesting I'm above flaming myself, I'm just disapointed that you would engage in that, I'm holding you to higher standards ;-)

In truth, why I'm saying this is because now that y2k is over for me and I'm free of neurotic fears and a lot calmer, I'm seeing a lot more clearly how futil it is to try to explain one's view point to someone with an offensive or flaming stance. Puts the person on the defensive, closing their minds. Here's hoping you don't take this wrong.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 05, 2000.


gilda is right about one thing, O Chris-of-the-short-memory: Elbow has been around quite a while. You and I have dialogged before, and I've found your conversation to be reasonable even in disagreement. gilda is another story altogether. I'd like to respond to the fool calling itself "anti-INVAR" first: Point me to the post where you condemn gilda's deplorable behavior. I never liked INVAR's style, and as time passed, I passed over his posts. (As I passed over many threads) Failure to respond implies neither agreement nor disagreement.

As usual, gilda, who has shown herself to be overly sensitive to any criticism, accuses me of attacking her. Laughable. The attitude behind her words is clear, and serves as a real-life example. Furthermore, my intrusion into this thread was meant as another type of example. How easy it is for gilda to accuse me of not addressing the initial post, or the original topic, yet she has compulsively intruded on threads with Christian topics and began throwing mud with no provocation. Is there anyone here stupid enough to believe she is interested in discussing Christian issues? She repeats a standard ugly litany and feigns offense when she's called to account for her off-topic hate mail. If she stands by her words, she is the forum's best example of a hypocrite.

Elbow

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), April 05, 2000.


"O Chris-of-the-short-memory: Elbow has been around quite a while."

Is my swiss-cheese brain so obvious to everyone?

Elbow Grease, seriously it's not that I don't remember you, it's that I didn't -recognize- you under that new sig with LBO Grise@aol.com. You use to sign off as Elbow Grease.

As for Gilda intruding on Christian threads, that I wouldn't know because I simply skip them. But if someone comes into a non-christian thread already started and starts spouting off christian stuff to debate my expressed views, I will point out their erring logic ;-)

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 05, 2000.


Chris, I seem to recall that you "disappeared" for a while near the end of the year, when I changed to my real name and address.

>>As for Gilda intruding on Christian threads, that I wouldn't know because I simply skip them. <<

Isn't that my point too? However, many readers can attest that gilda almost never fails to "participate." Perhaps she would be willing to explain her compulsion.

Elbow

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), April 05, 2000.


Oh, Chris, BTW, I have no problem with discussing the differences between Christian and non-Christian attitudes/beliefs, regardless of which "side" starts the topic. That's beside the point. gilda's practice is the equivalent of my intruding on a Wiccan thread with the observation that the Bible commands "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Just another form of Flint's kicking the anthill.

Elbow

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), April 05, 2000.


To all contributing forum participants,
I've just cruised through this threat and followed a few links etc. Thanks for opening some gateways to making my brain work. It does function.
I wonder where Bill (MD) Schenker is hiding? He'd be apoplectic!

Regards from OZ

-- Pieter (zaadz@icisp.net.au), April 06, 2000.


"Oh, Chris, BTW, I have no problem with discussing the differences between Christian and non-Christian attitudes/beliefs, regardless of which "side" starts the topic. That's beside the point. gilda's practice is the equivalent of my intruding on a Wiccan thread with the observation that the Bible commands "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Just another form of Flint's kicking the anthill."

Here's that anthill kicking expression again. Elbow, if you did, I wouldn't view that as kicking anthills, I'd see it as your point of view! Wrong IMO ofcourse, but I'd be please to debate that with you too. If what you want is a thread where only christians agreeing with each other can post, you're out of luck. This is not a forum set up for that. This is a totally opened forum, no membership required, with people from all walks of life, all religions or no religion, from many different ethnic backgrounds, education and social class. Very much like the USA. You'll have conflicts of interests and views and barroom brawls. Accept this forum as it is if you want to keep your blood pressure healthy, or don't and don't visit and post here. But we'd be losing an interesting contributor.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 06, 2000.


Hallyx, you said,

"I find your argumentation insipid, your sarcasm prosaic, your (il)logic infuriating and your reading comprehension deficient. However, there is one point that I would like to address because it is emblematic of a miscomprehension held by many people, not just by Christians. "

I take it you wouldn't consider this ad hominem either? I think that what I write (sometimes regrettably in hindsight) is a reflection of myself.

Anyway, here's something to consider on the "nature boy" side of things. You want the ecosystem to be in harmony right? Well rabbits don't stop multiplying while they have food and a lack of predators, they KEEP multiplying until either starvation or increased predation keeps their numbers in check. Likewise predators' numbers are only kept in check by the amount of available prey.

What does this have to do with us? The point is no *animal* species stops reproducing until forced to do so. Man's concept of protecting the environment is *unique* to man. Therefore, if man should view himself as an animal and you really want a back-to-nature free-for-all, you're saying you want man to proliferate until there's not one more iota of room for further expansion on Earth, REGARDLESS of the consequences (including extermination) to other species. That my friend, is nature. If only man survives, that's natural selection, and the way YOU want it.

So what point are you trying to make?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 06, 2000.


Chris, you said,

"Frank, you aren't playing fair. You make cutting remarks about Pantheism without even having researched it thoroughly. Anyone can call themselves Christians and still go against the Christian teachings. The same applies for any religions, including Pantheism. Have you read anything in the Scientif Pantheism Movement website given above that would suggest that pedophilia would be considered acceptable? If so, please point it out to us. "

First, in reading through my posts, I realize that I have been more "cutting" or "an ass (my expression)" than usual, and for that I apologize. It stems from a real dislike of (what I would call) new-age movements that (and I know I'm sounding like a broken record here) purport to have a moral code, but in reality don't.

With your comment on Christianity and other monotheistic religions, the point is that people can (and do) go against against the teachings of their religion, but this is recognized as being WRONG. With pantheism, who's to say that a pedophile CAN'T practice their disease? In the pantheist's credo, #2 says,

"2. All matter, energy, and life are an interconnected unity of which we are an inseparable part. We rejoice in our existence and seek to participate ever more deeply in this unity through knowledge, celebration, meditation, empathy, love, ethical action and art."

Given some of the crackpot stuff some of the monotheistic religions have come up with, would you really say a pedo couldn't take something this vague and twist it to mean what they want? Again, where is the "don't do this" section of the credo like Sodom and Gomorrah?

You also said, "I know of one example. Roman Catholics. The clergy leaders did not publicly condone it, but pedophilia has been hushed and tolerated among themselves. For years it has been going on without public outcry, but in the recent past few years, especially since the AIDS epidemic, it has been exposed and discussed more and more in the media"

Again, with the Catholics, even if their organization "covered up" pedophiles (which in my opinion BTW ABSOLUTELY should have been punished more so than the general public due to the priests' role as shepherds), pedophilia in itself would be CONDEMNED by their religious beliefs.

You also said, "I for one, who call myself a Pantheist, would not condone it and would speack out against anyone trying to make a "scientific" argument that "pedophilia can be beneficial to children". "

I agree completely personally, and in no way meant to imply YOU were in support of these people. My point is that pantheism doesn't explicitly prohibit anything, if some rationalization can be found for it. This is not true of traditional monotheistic religions.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 06, 2000.


I am really losing patience with you, Frank.

You said, "I take it you wouldn't consider this ad hominem either?"

No, I would not.

ad [1] ho*mi*nem (adjective)

[New Latin, literally, to the person]

First appeared 1598

1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect

2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

Look up the rest of the words you don't know on your own time. What I was practicing was simple high-quality name calling---"flaming," in the patois of the internet. And, having read your response to my laboriously composed and well-considered post, I feel more than justified.

(Sorry, Chris. At least Decker was rational. I guess I should follow Dilbert's advice: "Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.")

Frank, dear demented dimwit, how could you have read my post and understood that I meant this: "Therefore, if man should view himself as an animal and you really want a back-to-nature free-for-all, you're saying you want man to proliferate until there's not one more iota of room for further expansion on Earth, REGARDLESS of the consequences (including extermination) to other species. That my friend, is nature. If only man survives, that's natural selection, and the way YOU want it."?

I must conclude that you are: 1) intellectually impaired, 2) seriously misguided, or 3) deliberately kicking my anthill. If the first case, you have my sympathy. If the second case, the world you inhabit gets my sympathy. Should the third case prove true, there is only one appropriate response.

FUCK YOU

Hallyx

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not even sure about the universe." ---Albert Einstein

-- (Hallyx@aol.com), April 06, 2000.


Ms. Hallyx,

If there are misconceptions, they exist on both sides of this discussion. Your loss of patience with Frank is especially telling. It would seem that your tolerance for those you might deem less enlightened than yourself is somewhat superficial. Perhaps you could help me with a small basic question: From your POV, how does monotheism (There is one God) differ from pantheism (All is God)? Both are "theist" at least in word structure, so how do you explain your broadbrush comments comdemning theist attitudes toward "nature"?

Elbow

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), April 06, 2000.


Gilda, thanks very much for calling this post to my attention. It's the most interesting exchange of ideas I've seen here in a long time.

I don't have any idea what death is. I realize that my body will die, unless recent genetic discoveries I've read about bring about a "cure" for what is apparently a breakdown in the body's ability to monitor its quality control.

After death, I have often pondered what will happen to my "soul", or "consciousness". Certainly this aspect of our existence is a mystery. On some levels I long for death, just so I'll be able to find out what's next, if anything. I certainly hope it doesn't involve sitting around on clouds all day, praying and listening to harp music, or, worse, Billy Graham sermons!

However, since there is a good chance that there will be "nothing" after death, I'll probably opt to hang around here as long as possible.

Another reason I relish a long life is because to die now (and this will probably be true at any point in the future, I suppose), would be like having a technical glitch in the middle of a good movie--one where the management is forced to tell you that, not only is the camera broken, but the movie itself melted down, and will NEVER be replaced.

I, like many others here, find the philosophy you present for scientific pantheism fascinating, and, yes, it does sound very much like it aligns with my own beliefs. I hope to visit their website when I get a bit of time.

Brian, I enjoyed your essay very much. It raises an interesting philosophical question which you seem to have sidestepped, though. You said, " Endless health and youth, I argued had never been possible, but, if it were, it would be at the cost of age and wisdom.

I don't understand why you think that endless health and youth cannot exist alongside age and wisdom. In fact, it seems to me that, if a person were able to live for a longer period of time, he would become more and more wise. Certainly, the older a person gets in our present reality, the wiser he gets, unless their are health problems. (Yes, I suppose I am being jingoistic, as I am 54 years old, and consider the young to be generally less wise than people my age--certainly a differnt belief than I had when I was younger! But I believe this HAS to be true, if you assume that one continues to learn throughout his life; he'd just about HAVE to become wiser, no?

I recently inherited a book written by my great great (great great great?) grandfather, titled "Pioneer Life In Kentucky" by Dr. Daniel Drake. He was born in 1786, and was the first doctor in Kentucky.

In the introduction to the book, Dr. Drake is quoted as saying, "The period of greatest usefulness, in the life of a physician, extends from 40 to 60-he is not a man of wisdom before the former, nor of energy, after the latter term"

And things haven't changed all that much over the last couple of hundred years, I don't think.

Frank, I don't see the term "scientific pantheism" oxymoronic at all! I am certainly no authority on this subject, but it seems reasonable that a person could accept the tenets listed in the original post:

"Pantheists do not believe in any separate paradise, heaven, hell or nirvana beyond this earth. Whether they believe in natural death and rejoining nature's cycles or in reincarnation, pantheists know there is only one home they will ever have. This earth is our only home. This is where we are born, live and die. This is where we belong.

This earth is the only place where we can find and make our paradise. It is not some temporary launch pad toward heave or a stop-gap until God violently destroys it and replaces it with a new heaven and a new earth. Pantheists believe this earth is indescribably beautiful, endlessly diverse, a clouded blue sapphire hanging in the deep black of space. Why should we need a new earth?

Yes, this is FAITH, but the scientific part may come to play by admitting that we don't KNOW very much about the universe, especially about the non material universe, and that we are willing to look at new data, and change our beliefs based on these data.

You also say, "What's the point of saying you have a belief system if that belief system is only to believe and do whatever you want as an individual? "

I don't believe this is the idea of scientific pantheism, from what I am reading here. It seems to me that the credo is that every plant and animal (including the human animal) has intrinsice value, and should be treated with respect. Another way of putting this might be, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

I personally have a hard time giving a rock, or a grain of sand, as much respect as I do a tree or a human. But on some levels, this is probably somewhat limited thinking on my part. I tend to give a dog, or a spotted owl, or a coho salmon, a lot more respect than a flea or a housefly. Yet, who am I to judge? I don't believe that I am alone in caring more about a Sequoia sempervirens than a carrot, yet they are both distinct individuals, and both are useful to me in one way or another.

For myself, I do my best not to damage ANY living organism (this does not include a piece of rock) unless there is a good reason. For instance, I make a conscious decision to eat plants. Sorry, plants, but I think you'd probably eat me, if you had to to survive. I haven't eaten animals for twenty-four years, except I have decided to eat fish once or twice a month--it seems to keep me a bit more alert, for some reason. I'd rather not eat the fish, and if someone can help me with my chronic exhaustion, I'll stop.

The whole idea, though, is to do YOUR BEST to be respectful and conservative with everything. This seems like a very fine credo to me.

Later Frank says, "My problem with these new-age revivals is their lack of absolutes. For example, I could ask a Muslim if "there is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet" is true, and they would say "yes". A Judeo/Christian person would agree that God said "you shall have no other God before me", and this was an absolute command."

First of all, Frank, I think that absolutes are for people who don't want to take the trouble to figure things out for themselves. I also think that the absolutes you cite above are part of the problem. They are the main reason I typically get disgusted trying to talk religion with christians. They keep falling back on "it's true because the bible says it's true." They don't want to look at any evidence which disagrees with their dogma. If that's what you want to do, fine, but believe me, this is totally alien to scientific thinking, which is why the "scientific" in pantheism.

You also have a problem with lack of "forbiddens". You say, "If there is a code, what, if anything, is forbidden under all circumstances? Is there anything absolutely necessary to do? If not, how is this different than saying "just do what you want and call it holy"? "

How about this, Frank? It is ABSOLUTELY necessary that you treat all things on the earth as sacred? It is ABSOLUTELY forbidden that you kill, wound, or harass any other passenger on earth without absolute need?

I would also point out, Frank, that there are no true absolutes in other religions. I'm sure if you think about it, you can think of a lot of them. I'll cite one to get you started: Thou shalt not kill. Except maybe if you have to kill someone who is about to kill or harm your wife/kids/mom/friend, etc, right? Or someone who has been convicted of a capital offense, maybe?

Agent smith, your story about the twins is just that--a story. No basis in reality, do you think? I think it's a fun idea to speculate on the herafter, but don't feel that the babies' experience gives me any encouragement about the existence of reincarnation or any other after life existence. But it's a fun story, and an interesting analogy.

Hallyx says, "I'm trying to arrange for my unembalmed remains to be buried in an organic shroud or non-toxic cardboard box, in a forest somewhere, preferably near a young tree that could use my nutrients. Just my little way of giving something back to the Earth which has nourished and supported me.

This, btw, is not an easy thing to do, given the laws and protocols of our culture. If anyone else has thought about it this way and knows of how this might be arranged, I'd appreciate hearing from you."

Hallyx, I am planning a similar path for my remains. I haven't yet made the arrangements--still in denial, I guess. I can tell you that there is at least one organization which will treat your remains in EXACTLY the way you describe. I heard about it on public radio a few weeks ago, and was in correspondence with them for a while. I wasn't trying to set up my own burial at the time, but rather trying to set up a cemetary in cooperation with their organization. They are looking for very special pieces of land for this purpose.

I have forty-three acres here in sw Oregon, and about fifteen acres of it are a beautiful virgin growth forest, with almost 2000 feet of a gorgeous Class I stream running through it.

If it would have worked out, this fifteen acres would have been made available for burials like you describe: no embalming fluids allowed, no lead lined coffins, only a pine box or a shroud are allowed. No headstones, only a small marker laid flat on the ground.

Once the land has had all the bodies buried there that it can hold without damaging the ambiance of the forest, it would become a nature preserve. Only a limited number of people would have access (basically, I believe, only relatives of those buried on the property, and maybe only on certain days, I'm not sure of this aspect of the set up)

Unfortunately, Hallyx, I can't remember the name of the organization, which is already operating as a for profit business. They were not interested in my property, since they consider 100 acres to be the smallest size which would enable them to turn a profit.

I believe they are locate in one of the Carolinas, though. You might be able to find them by doing a net search, or emailing National Public Radio. Sorry I don't have more info. But at least you know that this service is currently available.

By the way, I am in AWE of your reasoning ability and your writing style. I, unfortunately, don't understand everything you are saying (I'm a college dropout). You use a lot of words I don't think I've ever evern HEARD before, and use so many of them that I don't want to look them all up in the dictionary. I actually believe I can understand Spanish better than your English!

Are you a teacher of English Composition? A writer, perhaps? Do you speak the same way that you write? I hope you don't think I'm mocking you, because I am NOT! I am truly impressed.

Anita, my dad, who recently died, chose to be buried, without being embalmed, rather than being cremated. I'm glad he did; for one thing, I agree with others' belief that it's a waste of fuel nutrients, and a source of needless pollution. For another, I don't like it that the remains I would have received would have only been part of his remains, mixed with the residue of the last few people whose bodies were cremated in the same burner. I also feel a certain amount of revulsion to think that it would have been necessary to run his skeletal remains through a grinder in order to turn them into small enough pieces to put in a box. Yech.

Frank, I'm not surprised at your revulsion to pedophilia. I, too, am repulsed by this, in concept. However, I am also TOTALLY displeased that our federal government chose to step in and pass a resolution to not allow the publication of the scientific study which stated that SOMETIMES there is no apparent emotional damage to the child who has experienced pedophilia. Since when does the government have the right to declare which studies are and which aren't "ok" to publish?

Elbow grease, give us a break--just because Gilda has opinions which are different than your own, and has the ability to express them strongly and clearly, don't start personally attacking her. She's a valuable contributor to this forum; I admire her ability to think things through. I suspect that this is one reason she gets impatient with some religious types; some of them (most of them?) seem unwilliing or unable to think beyond the "word of god" of their choice.

Gilda, I envy you for only wanting to "really, physically hurt one thing in my life, and that is this damned computer," I grew up in Texas, years ago, and the modus operandi there, for young men, was to hurt anyone who "dissed" you. I confess that I still react this way when crossed, but have fortunately matured enough to stifle this reaction. I wish I didn't ever get this particular testosterone rush, though; it would be a lot easier to stay calm and thoughtful.

Regarding Franks tirade on overpopulating until we die off from lack of food, etc., I would HOPE that homo sapiens, having the alleged brainpower to make plans and educated guesses as to cause and effect, will eventually figure out that this IS a finite planet, and stop popping out babies like mad, and PREVENT destroying the environment totally.

Lastly: Elbow grease, I certainly agree that Hallyx's tolerance for Frank is wearing thin. But, hey, this has been a very long thread, and Frank keeps coming back with the same lame arguments. I think Hallyx remained remarkably restrained for a lot longer period of time than I would have.

-- jumpoff joe a.k.a. Al K. Lloyd (jumpoff@ekoweb.net), April 06, 2000.


Well Halyx, your frustration comes loud and clear through my screen. All I can respond to that is that in my own eyes, I was an idiot once, and the older I get the more I see I'm still an idiot in someone else's eyes, and I greatly appreciate those who have the patience to help me understand and see what I still don't.

May all the good teachers be blessed, in a Pantheist and Theist way.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 06, 2000.


Hallyx,

To ad hominem:

YOU say the meaning of ad hominem is :"marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made"

You also say about me " Frank, dear demented dimwit, " and "and your reading comprehension deficient."

These statements are ATTACKS AGAINST ME, AND HAVE NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH MY ARGUMENTS. That's what ad hominem *means*. Didn't you even take logic 101 in college?

I try not to lose MY patience, but your rudeness and condescending *attitude* truly mark you as an idiot.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 06, 2000.


Al K, pheww! You're long winded today.

A couple comments:

"I personally have a hard time giving a rock, or a grain of sand, as much respect as I do a tree or a human. But on some levels, this is probably somewhat limited thinking on my part. I tend to give a dog, or a spotted owl, or a coho salmon, a lot more respect than a flea or a housefly. Yet, who am I to judge?"

This is very much in synch with the Tebetan Monks philosophy, isn't not? I understand the gist of it, but I'm still selfish in relation to those who abide strickly by this tenet, and now anyway, have no intention of radically changing my lifestyle. I eat meat, I'm a full fledge omnivor, and in good health. I beleive we evolved into omnivors and our bodies are meant to function best as such.

You mentioned your problem with balancing your vegetarian diet and feel tired, that is very common with "vegans", those extreme vegetarians. May I suggest to you that the guilt you feel at eating fish more often could come from the same type of guilt the church count on to keep its lambs in check? I for example, only eat meat that is easily renewable, and that is not mistreated/mishandled, I refuse to eat veal in supermarkets for example, I'll only eat a veal that was raised on a free-ranging farm if I must (I tell you, I don't get to eat that often around here!) And for fish, I eat farmed fish only, no wild ones (much healthier also, no parasites/mercury etc.)

But, if this thought still turns your stomach, I would suggest you eat more protein-rich vegan stuff.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 06, 2000.


Joe,

Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion. I have a small problem with the manner in which gilda expresses hers. "strongly and clearly"? "impatience"? You'll break your back contorting yourself that way. Whenever she appears on a religious thread to snipe, it is not clear thinking that shows, but emotion; anger and bitterness.

>>. I think Hallyx remained remarkably restrained for a lot longer period of time than I would have. <<

Hallyx responded four times to Frank. That hardly constitutes a reason for impatience, if she is sincerely trying to explain her beliefs. I can only guess that they have butted heads on this same subject in another thread somewhere. The virtue of patience is in very short supply among the pantheists who have expressed themselves here.

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), April 06, 2000.


"Whenever she appears on a religious thread to snipe, it is not clear thinking that shows, but emotion; anger and bitterness."

So Elbow Grease, whenever you appeared suddenly out of nowhere-- probably from EZ Board where you were no doubt Bored-- you seem to have come on this "thread to snipe; it is not clear thinking that shows, but emotion; anger and bitterness." Obviously you are very bitter or you wouldn't be here ranting about how venomous, intolerant and hypocritical I am.

I *have* been critical of the Christian religion and I make no apologies for that. I was raised by Christians and grew up going to a Chritian church, so I know whereof I speak. If your experience was wonderful and spiritually edifying, that's fine. I'm glad for you. But I as a rational thinking human being, I prefer a oneness with the universe that doesn't demand "Believe in me, or die. Or, don't believe in me and I'll send you to the everlasting, burning lake of Hell fire for sinners. I do not consider Christianity a thinking persons religion, so I rejected it and have been happy with my decision.

However, I will admit that the hatefulness of Christians and doomers I encountered on the old board, brought out all the worst in me, and I don't apologize for that either. Oh, and BTW, those who moved to this board are the same people that were nice to me on the old board.

So if it makes you feel better to come on here and snipe at Hallyx and me, then carry on. If I remember right, you're the dolt who argued with my house sitter, and did a fine job of bashing me, Al and anyone else who didn't agree with you.. Aren't you the one who feels it is everyone's God given right to breed off as many children as they want, without any conscience about their well-being, or overpopulation? Of course there were several of those.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), April 06, 2000.


Chris, if Joe is eating fish, he isn't a vegan. I'm a vegetarian too, and I eat sardines and tuna, but no milk. I don't think his tiredness is from being a vegetarian. I think he's just doing too much. I'm older than he is and I feel fine, and am fairly energetic.

I'm glad you don't eat mean from factory farms. It's full of bad stuff and the inhumane treatment of the animals is horrible. Silly me, I know you know all that. BTW, I met the nicest woman through the Sci-Pan website which you provided the link for a long time ago. She lives in my state and we chat on email quite often.

Any way I buy my eggs from a friend who treats her hen's like royalty. They are fed only organic chicken feed, and get to run and catch bugs and frolic with the rooster. When they get too old to produce, she just takes good care of them and lets them die naturally. She said, "That's the least I can do after all the good eggs they provide for me." One of her hens broke its leg, and she took it to the vet, had the leg set and kept it in the kitchen until it recovered. Now it's a big old pet. My friend is a wonderful person.

BTW Elbow Grease, she's, a Christian and we have never had a cross word. I respect her beliefs, which she does not force on me, and she respects mine, which I do not force on anyone. If I've picked the wrong belief, too bad. It bothers me not at all.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), April 06, 2000.


Gilda, you misunderstood what I said to Al. I didn't say he was a vegan, only that tiredness is very common among extreme vegetarians (vegetables/grains only, i.e. vegans). I was infering that his tiredness could come from not eating enough proteins, but that is speculation on my part. He could have enough protein in his diet, but missing something else that fish provides. Healthy diets are very hard to achieve when you go on an extreme one (by extreme I mean not in the usual omnivor kind humans have had during evolution.) So it is very important that Al research his diet more fully, and find out what he's missing. He could experiment in eating fish once or twice a week and see what happens.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 06, 2000.

BTW Gilda, if you eat fish, you're not really a vegetarian, but simply one who eats more vegetables, and doesn't include meat or milk in her diet. All of us have our own eating habits and preferences, and usually it evolves with the demands of our bodies, but some make conscious decisions to avoid certain things such as you with meat and milk, Al with his more strict philosophy, and me with trying to pay attention to what's healthy for myself/family and the environment. (And Vegan is more than being a vegetarian, it's a whole philosophy that includes not wearing or buying any animal skins/leather etc. and other things.)

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 06, 2000.

Chris:

Leather is another weakness of mine that I hadn't even considered when I posted about eating meat and killing tree roaches. I want shoes that "breathe", and shoes of man-made products don't. Of course I suppose I could wear cotton shoes, or shoes made from hemp, but some hemp sandals we all had around here got dirty and stinky too soon [not to mention the scratchiness.] Anyone know how to wash hemp without destroying it?.........or would this be a question for the Prep forum? [grin]

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 06, 2000.


gilda,

>>So Elbow Grease, whenever you appeared suddenly out of nowhere-- probably from EZ Board where you were no doubt Bored-- you seem to have come on this "thread to snipe; it is not clear thinking that shows, but emotion; anger and bitterness." Obviously you are very bitter or you wouldn't be here ranting about how venomous, intolerant and hypocritical I am. <<

Don't say things that make you appear even more foolish, gilda. Go search EZB - you won't find me there. Even though I believe that Flint was playing a game with the EZB folks, I object to their policy banning him. The truth is, I like Flint. And Hallyx. And JOJ aka Al. Though there's hardly much we agree on. And I could like you if you'd tone down your inflammatory rhetoric and work on that immaturity problem.

But, yes, I am here to snipe. Like Flint; like you. If you can't take it, don't be so liberal about dishing it out. There are some serious holes in pantheist philosophy, such as there is, and it will be my pleasure to point them out. Hallyx was asked a simple question; would you care to try to answer, or are insults your only trick?

>>I was raised by Christians and grew up going to a Chritian church, so I know whereof I speak. <<

How odd. And yet, so much of what you've stated about Christianity is blatantly and patently false...! But I'm not surprised; most non- Christians think they know better what Christianity is about than Christians do. Then to top it off, they have the arrogance to call Christians arrogant! Rather than accusing you of dishonesty, I prefer to believe you are just ignorant and are unaware of it.

>>I do not consider Christianity a thinking persons religion, so I rejected it and have been happy with my decision. <<

You certainly don't sound happy. Your propensity for pooping in every Christian sandbox you find will never make you a poster child for the "ideals" of your so-called faith. One might conclude that you're not happy *unless* you can constantly tear down Christianity. Isn't about time you got over that?

Lastly, (and I'm sure you will correct me if I am mistaken) didn't you say you rejected Christianity as a child? I guess that was way back when you knew everything, right?

Elbow

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), April 06, 2000.


Elbow and Gilda, I truly believe you have it in you both to swallow your egos and start respecting each other, and stop using inflamatory stances back and forth. Elbow you have demonstrated respect with those you disagree with on religion on several occasions on old TB2K, and so have you Gilda, as you yourself stated that you have a christian friend whom you respect. The difficult part here is because we get to discuss such subject so much more in depth than we do with our "real life" friends of different religion, we stand to take things a lot more personal and also say things that sometimes without realizing it we hurt the other's feelings, religion/spirituality being such a fundamental need and personal to all of us. Gilda, I don't view Elbow as an ignorant closed mind in general, and Elbow, I don't view Gilda as an inflamatory hypocrite person either. You both see each other in such negative light because you're caught into your catch 22 of back and forth flamings. But me being an outsider to your personal conflicts, I find you both interesting and intelligent people who could enjoy each other's input. But perhaps on another subject than religion. You could say to each other we'll agree to disagree and move on to other topics.

Just my nosy .2 cents

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 06, 2000.


I nominate Chris as the most respected mediator of the year.

Seconds, anyone?

-- (2000@is.here), April 06, 2000.


Chris/peace maker, I will say this. I *did not* go onto a forum where Elbow was posting and start attacking him about ancient history on the old forum, or any other forum where he has posted. He was the one who came on ranting about "the ravings of Ms. Scientific Pantheism" and calling me a hypocrite.

Chris, you didn't even remember him from posting on the old TBK forum, much less what he said. Well I did, for the very good reason that I was the one being attacked. Don't believe it? Ask JO-Joe; he was under fire too.

In your post to Elbow Grease you said if *you* were attacked, by him personally..., " I will do my best to ignore you. Only way not to be attacked by trolls and ignoranimus." I did not accuse you of your ego showing, but in the post that followed yours, I took my cue from you and said, "I too shall do my best to ignore him." CHECK it out.

But Elbow Grease couldn't drop it and started slinging mud at me and anti-Invar, and continues with his poor me, persecuted Christian, routine again.

Further down he badgers Hallyx, then attacks Joe for defending me, and criticizes him for his treatment of Frank, and has the nerve to say, "The virtue of patience is in very short supply among pantheists who have expressed themselves here"

OK, I did my best to ignore him but he just kept up his gouging, fine Christian that he is. So I finally got tired of it and said my piece, and he continues to bitch, badger and whine.

Frankly, I'm insulted that you thought this was an ego thing with me. I was defending myself. I *Did Not* start this shit, and I was perfectly willing to let it drop. Apparently you didn't notice that.

And Elbow Grease, you say I certainly don't sound happy. Well, just listen to yourself. I'm very happy until pounced on by some pseudo-Christian jerk like you. I especially liked your phrase about me "pooping in every Christian sandbox."

So I'll end this conversation in your scatological style; my LAST word to you is this: just rave on cat shit, and someday someone will come along and cover you up.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), April 07, 2000.


**Does one need a will to have the cadaver given to a university, or would simply telling one's family suffice?

In Michigan and Ohio, we have to do the paperwork ahead of time. (Six months to a year is highly recommended, and they *don't* accept everyone). Here, we have to contact the specific university (calling the general switchboard at the med school will get one started).

Also, schools that have a mortuary science program ( e.g., Michigan State) need donations.

I agree with Flint: this is a good way to go because it saves the survivors tons of money and puts your remains to work for a good cause.

Organ donation programs at some hospitals may also pay for cremation. Worth checking into if you are of that mind. Make sure that your nearest and dearest will respect your wishes: this stuff should be written down in your will, as well as discussed. There is nothing worst than buttinsky shirt-tail relations showing up at the last minute to object.

We went through that with my mom: she willed her body to MSU, but her sisters objected at the last minute. They didn't get their way, but that was one scene that I wish we could've avoided.

TGIF, everyone.

-- (kb8um8@yahoo.com), April 07, 2000.


Sorry Chris. You're right; I was a bit long winded. It must have been the espresso, or the fact that I haven't been able to get on line for a while, and haven't kept up with this thread more gradually.

I don't know if my philosophy vis a vis not killing things is similar to Tibeten Monks; I don't know much about them. I did reread my post (whew, that WAS long, wasn't it?), and noticed that I forgot to mention one pertinent point about my feelings about fleas, flies, etc. (Gee, I could have made it even longer!)

My sympathy stops at some point, for some creatures. If there's a tick attached to my dog, I don't get the vet to surgically remove the tick, and try to rehabilitate it. I pull the tick off the dog, and step on it. Same with mosquitoes. I pull weeds, too. But if there's an insect crawling about, minding its own business, and it's not one that is a known plant pest, I just "tip my hat" and keep on keeping on.

Thanks for your concern about my energy level. I've actually had this problem for at least 34 years, when I broke a couple of cervical vertebrae, tho I don't know if there's a connection or not. I've only been a veggie (and not a particularly rabid one, and certainly not a vegan. As one of my formerly vegan friends once told me--oh, so you don't eat animals; you just exloit them. Said freind is now a carnivor, by the way.) I went to a sleep clinic a couple of weeks ago, hoping they could find a sleep disorder, since I rarely feel rested after a full night's sleep. But no such "luck".

I also got a blood test for lead poisoning, after hearing about the horror that was allegedly perpetrated on us by Dupont and General Motors for almost seventy years. Haven't gotten the results back

My chiropractor tells me that a couple of the arteries in my neck are calcified, caused by my broken neck all those years ago, but my doctor says they are fine. Grr.

By the way, if I weren't so concerned about animals and their feelings, I would probably have a diet similar to yours. I'm quite happy with my current eating style, though, and my doctor always raves about my blood pressure, which is usually around 115 over 75. Not bad for an old fart, eh?

Elbow grease, I was about to try to rebut your statements about Gilda, but I honestly don't think I can add anything to what she's already said. I think that sometimes it is simply impossible to come to agreement on certain issues, and religion and politics are the main two.

If I were you, though, I'd try not to let her style give you a "problem with the manner in which gilda expresses hers" (opinions) Life's too short. You guys are different; nobody's forcing you to even read each other's posts. Maybe try reading her posts with the idea of learning something, rather than possibly having a predetermined idea that she's wrong, bad, or whatnot. (Yeah, like that's always what I do, right?)

Anita, most the folks I know never wash hemp; they BURN it!

Gilda! Don't let this guy get you riled up; it's not worth it. I have to agree that I've had my fill of self righteous Christers, but I can't say that I don't act self righteous myself sometimes. (Even I am not perfect!

Why dontcha come over and sit on my patio with me and enjoy the view, the cool breeze, the sunshine, and all the new buds bursting? I'd love it, were we able to actually do that, and discuss pantheism.

As far as whether or not Elbow Grise attacked you on the population discussion, I kind of think so, but can't swear to it. Lots of folks attacked you, and yes, even Sitter, the sweet young thing, and me, and everyone else who expressed concernt about the health of our environment. Lots of them labelled us as baby killers euthanasiaists (?) and worse.

The problem is that my memory isn't what it used to be.

I've gotta find me some of that new hermbal stuff--ginkgo viagra. You know, the one which helps you remember what the fuck you're doing?

Im actually pretty pleased with the way most of us have managed to be at least somewhat civil, most of the time. Thanks

Jumpoff Joe

PS. Dang, I guess I got long winded AGAIN! Or should it be "long fingered"?

-- jumpoff joe a.k.a. Al K. Lloyd (jumpoff@ekoweb.net), April 07, 2000.


Jumpoff,

The thread has died down, and I should really let it pass peacefully, BUT, you said,

" I think that sometimes it is simply impossible to come to agreement on certain issues, and religion and politics are the main two. "

Again, my trouble with these people is that I'd bet you couldn't make a statement that a Sci-Pan follower COULDN'T at least possibly agree with (if a hypothetical situation was made for it).

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 07, 2000.


Ah heck Frank, why should we let this thread die down? Do you see threads more interesting today? ;-)

Gilda, "Chris/peace maker, I will say this. I *did not* go onto a forum where Elbow was posting and start attacking him about ancient history on the old forum, or any other forum where he has posted. He was the one who came on ranting about "the ravings of Ms. Scientific Pantheism" and calling me a hypocrite."

I understand Gilda, I have the same feelings and reactions when someone comes along and contradicts everything I say, and calls me all sorts of names. (Heck, didn't you catch the thread where Hawk calls me a frustrated bitch?.) What I'm trying to say though, is that, we all should try not to put our feelings and reactions onto posts. Believe me Gilda, things I think in my head aren't pretty and a lot more self-righteous sounding when someone attacks me! But, if I can say this without sounding too self-righteous, I've come onto this forum with a new attitude. Old TB2K is the past, Y2K is over and whatever argument and personal feelings I had about anyone, I left them behind.

" Chris, you didn't even remember him from posting on the old TBK forum, much less what he said. Well I did,"

If you read up after I first made that comment to LBO, you'll see I came back telling him I didn't recognize him with his new handle. I remember that thread Gilda, well enough.

" In your post to Elbow Grease you said if *you* were attacked, by him personally..., " I will do my best to ignore you. Only way not to be attacked by trolls and ignoranimus." I did not accuse you of your ego showing, but in the post that followed yours, I took my cue from you and said, "I too shall do my best to ignore him." CHECK it out."

Yes, I read what you said too. But then I thought LBO was a completely new name, someone hiding under a fake name. Elbow came back civilized explaining he had switched his name when I was gone in december, and did not attack my character, I had no reason to ignore him.

"Frankly, I'm insulted that you thought this was an ego thing with me. I was defending myself."

I used the wrong expression. By "swallowing your egos" I meant "swallowing your pride". I don't mean one bit that either of you have big disfunctional egos. But we all have our pride, and making truce demands a huge gulp that goes down hard at times.

Gilda, you know very well I disagree with Elbow's christian's beliefs, and when Frank made sweeping comments about Pantheists I pointed that out to him and set him straight on his misconceptions (and I'm not done, as I see he came back with something else), but what I'm trying to get at is that I don't want to make an enemy of Frand or Elbow just because we disagree on religion. We also disagree on environment and population, but that's part of ethics, and ethics are big part of religion, so we'll butt heads there too. But both have a lot to contribute on other interesting less emotionaly charged topics, and I think if we all just say lets agree to disagree when an argument is getting so inflamatory, that shows respect and we all stand to learn something from each other. Off my self-righteous soapbox.

Al, ROTFL on the ginseng-viagra quip! Husband started to drink ginseng fortified green-tea coolers (the kind at the convenience store), I'll have to slip that quip in somewhere with him :-D And oh, long winded posts are only allowd when I'm bored and/or have time to read them, and you're not allowd to past up my long-winded ones ;-)

Frank, "Again, my trouble with these people is that I'd bet you couldn't make a statement that a Sci-Pan follower COULDN'T at least possibly agree with (if a hypothetical situation was made for it)."

Listen to yourself! "with THESE people." Al and I are THESE people. And perhaps many more that post here and you're not aware of it. Sci-Pan is a *philosophy*, not a cult, not an organized religion, it's a movement. There could very well be Sci-Pan cults out there, but heck, there are christian cults too! Didn't 900+ such cult followers commit suicide (or were murdered by their leaders, investigation still going on) last month in Uganda?

I could turn around your comment and say "My problem with these (Christian) people is that I bet that there isn't a christian cult or faction that they wouldn't follow and agree with if they liked the leader" But, that's not what I believe Frank, because NOT ALL christians are alike, some are dumber than others, some more educated than others, and some were tought ethics better than others. The same goes for people who follow the Sci-Pan philosophy (or try or say they do.)



-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 07, 2000.


OK Chris, point taken. Sorry I bit back, but the idea of being compared to EG, made my hair stand on end. Yes, I agree that we will never agree on religion, and I'll not reply to him again no matter what he says. In fact, I'm annoyed at myself because I let him get to me. I shouldn't even have dignified his carping with a reply

Take Frank for instance; he says things with which I disagree, but he doesn't attack me personally, he attacks pantheism and that is what the point of discussion is all about.

You're right, JOJoe, I should have been above the fray. Hey that sounds like a good idea, sitting on your patio, in the breeze discussing pantheism, or any other ' ism that sounds interesting.

I've been planting Rosemary and Mexican Heather this afternoon, and if it weren't for the forest fires raging, it would have been a great day. We have an arsonist on the loose. I think I'll have a glass of wine and listen to a New Age tape I have.

Frank, really, some of the New Age music is very soothing. What was the bizarre name of that new age song someone mentioned?

Chris, this has been a far more pleasant forum than the old Time Bomb and that's why I got so mad at the unprovoked attack from EG. I too have tried to disagree more pleasantly and forget those like Spidey, EG, INVAR and PotKettleBlack. Here's to interesting discussions, spirited disagreement and to addressing issues not personalities. Cheers!

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), April 07, 2000.


KB8:

Thanks for the information. I wonder about the criteria for rejection. Do they reject you BEFORE you're a cadaver, or AFTER? If it's BEFORE, that's about as humiliating as being fired from my volunteer job. I wonder if they pick-up, or if one must be delivered. If the latter, I wonder who pays the "postage." I'll check into the situation in Texas, but who knows if I'll be in Texas when I die? I could be road-kill any minute, or could die hiding from the responsibilities of grandparenting somewhere deep in a rain forest.

Regarding anyone contesting, I don't think we have to worry about that. My kids already know that I want what I want. My SO is aware of that as well. My brothers don't care enough to get involved. This doesn't mean they don't love me. It simply means that they've considered me a bit odd since birth and never cared. As I said previously, my family has never held death rituals in high esteem.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 07, 2000.


**I wonder about the criteria for rejection. Do they reject you BEFORE you're a cadaver, or AFTER?

Basically, they can't take people who have certain diseases because of the health risks, so, yes, I guess that one could have his or her body rejected after death.

At MSU, there's a ton of forms one has to fill out, and their criteria is fairly specific. I don't how it is elsewhere.

As for "postage," we were told that the institution takes care of it as long as the body is in the state. I didn't look into what would happen if one needed to bring a body from another state. Another relative said that a funeral home was going to charge them around $700 to transport her grandmother from Toledo to U of Mich. She got a "permit" from somewhere and carried the body in her station wagon, or so she said. I don't know whether this is a fish tale or something she actually got away with. It was winter and she did work for the hospital, so perhaps she was telling the truth or several colleagues may have engineered the heist. This is one of those matters that I've never wanted to pursue in great depth.

Anyway, good luck with your research. Wish that I had more info to share.

-- (kb8um8@yahoo.com), April 07, 2000.


Chris, you said,

"Listen to yourself! "with THESE people." Al and I are THESE people."

(laughing good-naturedly) I see your point, it is sort of derogatory, but well, what can I say? What I have written, I have written. I don't harbor any ill will towards any practitioners of pantheism here (well, now with one obvious exception who seems to have some grudge against me), but with people CALLING themselves "Pantheists" when to me the term means nothing.

I understand what you are saying about Christian cults, but the point is they are CALLED a cult because they come up with some definition of their faith that is grossly at odds with what defines the faith for most practioners. The same cannot be said for Sci-Pan, because there are no hard and fixed beliefs to be at odds WITH. There is no "standard" or "norm" from which to judge, as each person defines "Pantheism" in their own way.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 07, 2000.


On the subject of making your remains useful,

One other thing you could do would be to tell your family *and especially your doctor* that you would like an autopsy done on yourself after death BEFORE you die. Most hospital pathologists could use the information (and experience), but many times the patient's physician does not wish to look like a ghoul asking the family at the time of death.

Just 2 more cents,

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 07, 2000.


" understand what you are saying about Christian cults, but the point is they are CALLED a cult because they come up with some definition of their faith that is grossly at odds with what defines the faith for most practioners. The same cannot be said for Sci-Pan, because there are no hard and fixed beliefs to be at odds WITH. There is no "standard" or "norm" from which to judge, as each person defines "Pantheism" in their own way."

Frank, have you read the Sci-Pan website? What do you call that if not hard fixed rules and ethics to follow?

Frank, perhaps you need very hard and strict rules to guide your life, especially ones like "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", because here you show a weakness in your restraint from attacking people's character, and I'm sure you don't like or want them to attack yours. But I, personally, don't need to be hammered on the head with 10 commendments-like laws, "thou shalt not kill", because killing anything has been outrageous to me since birth. Except for bugs, and fishing. Some of us Frank, have been born and raised into functional families that teach this kind of stuff by example, so being hammered at church and school with this guilt inducing stuff is really redundant to us. The people attracted to Sci-Pan are the same kind of people. People looking for something else than Rules by Guilt and Iron Fist religions, looking for something more than our own ponderings in life, that which made us want to participate in society in a healthy and meaningful ways, to validate our beliefs and find other people of like minds. Note also Frank, that I am not saying ALL those who call themselves Sci-Pan followers are so conscious and ethical, just like not all those that call themselves Christians are either.

Take a look at the website. Don't worry, it won't force you to convert and Satan or a witch is not going to cast a spell on you. It will show you the kind of character it can build into people, and it will show the kind of ethics that are taught (ethics are another name for rules like in the bible, the bible teaches ethics in an old fashion fancy way with complicated paraboles and language to understand and/or interpret. Sci-Pan ethics are clear cut language.)

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 07, 2000.


I'd like to say "Thank You" to Joe and Chris for your efforts at mediation. One thing I'd like to clarify: My complaint is not with gilda's beliefs, but with her demonstrated *animosity* toward Christians and the Christian faith. Her oft-repeated statements are bigoted and prejudiced and I seriously want to know if she can rationalize that behavior as acceptable by the standards of her own faith.

Ok, gilda, it sounds as if you're letting me have the last word. How kind of you. I can only shake my head and say you're quite a piece of work. From your responses, one might easily conclude that you read only half of what is written, and understand only half of what you read. I stated my purpose for jumping in here. Can't you "get it" that when you dropped your "I hate Christians" bombs you were doing the same thing. Isn't there a glimmer of understanding in your head? If you condemn me here, you are admitting your own guilt *there.* Perhaps some remedial reading is in order. Your hypersensitivity (or poor reading skills?) has caused you to unjustly turn on your own buddies. I *said* I *like* Hallyx, Chris, Flint, JOJ, and I could like *you* as well. In contrast, you even turn and bite those defending you. Is that one of the tenets of the pantheist philosophy? Keep up the good work; you may turn them to Christianity yet.

And, gilda, I'm truly sorry for what happened to you as a child.

Elbow

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), April 07, 2000.


Chris, I hope Frank understood you, but your last post certainly confused me! Immediately after pointing to the "hard and fixed rules and ethics" on the Sci-Pan web-site, you admonish Frank for his "need" of "hard and strict rules to guide his life." What gives here?

You say that killing anything has been outrageous to you. Then surely you are Pro-life, yes?

You referred to "Rules by Guilt and Iron Fist religions" by which I assume you think you mean Christianity or more generally monotheism? Can I ask: by your beliefs, what are the consequences of violating your beliefs?

TIA, Elbow

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), April 07, 2000.


Elbow, since you yourself assigned me the epithet of mediator, I'm taking the responsibility to have the last word on this.

Whoever doesn't get the last word wins.

And you lost a pointing score, because you asked questions to Gilda when she wasn't supposed to have the last word. That's cheating.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 07, 2000.


We posted at the same time Elbow. I was going to bed, it's 11:30. I'll reply to your questions when I'm less tired, maybe sometime tomorrow. I get easily frustrated when I am tired, and especially when I had wine ;-)

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 07, 2000.

Wait, as I click on send, I got a notification sound from my email program, and this email notification came in. This is the right thread to post it I believe.

I am informed by my friend Henry Allen at the Washington Post that there was a great loss recently in the entertainment world. Larry LaPrise, the Detroit native who wrote the song "The Hokey Pokey," died last week at age 83.

It was especially difficult for the family to keep him in the casket. They'd put his left leg in and.... well, you know the rest.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 07, 2000.


Chris,

ROFL! When I read your post I FOMC! (Fell off my chair.)

My calling you a "mediator" was not meant to be an epithet.

As for your point system, I object on two counts: (1)you can't set the rules ex post facto, and (2) my questions were rhetorical.

Say "Good Night" Elbow. Ok, Good Night, Elbow.

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), April 07, 2000.


Chris? you said,

"because here you show a weakness in your restraint from attacking people's character, and I'm sure you don't like or want them to attack yours"

What got you so irritated? I looked at my post & can't figure it out??? ?

Puzzled Frank

Anyway, assuming we have some miscommunication, you said "Frank, have you read the Sci-Pan website? What do you call that if not hard fixed rules and ethics to follow?"

I went *back* to the Sci-Pan website, (and you're right, Satan didn't grab me ;-) ) and copied off the credo, reproduced below:

"1. We revere and celebrate the Universe as the totality of being, past, present and future. It is self-organizing, ever-evolving and inexhaustibly diverse. Its overwhelming power, beauty and fundamental mystery compel the deepest human reverence and wonder."

This is a nice theory but I think the jury's still out on the *ever evolving* part (meaning we'll have to see what the physicists say about the "big crunch" as this theory may not be true ((kind of a bummer in a credo BTW))), and it's not "rules and ethics".

"2. All matter, energy, and life are an interconnected unity of which we are an inseparable part. We rejoice in our existence and seek to participate ever more deeply in this unity through knowledge, celebration, meditation, empathy, love, ethical action and art."

My take is we're part of the universe, we're happy to be alive, and we do whatever we feel is good. "3. We are an integral part of Nature, which we should cherish, revere and preserve in all its magnificent beauty and diversity. We should strive to live in harmony with Nature locally and globally. We acknowledge the inherent value of all life, human and non-human, and strive to treat all living beings with compassion and respect. "

Now these are hard and fast rules oops, those have "should"s in front. And as I posted early on in the thread, while the credo may "acknowledge" the value of all life, this doesn't impose any RULES on you such as being anti-abortion. And Jerry Rubin would especially like this part "We acknowledge the inherent value of all life, human and non-human, and strive to treat all living beings with compassion and respect. " (his a rat is a cat is a boy thing). It doesn't really matter what you save from a burning building, the pet or the master according to the Pantheist's credo.

"4. All humans are equal centers of awareness of the Universe and nature, and all deserve a life of equal dignity and mutual respect. To this end we support and work towards freedom, democracy, justice, and non-discrimination, and a world community based on peace, sustainable ways of life, full respect for human rights and an end to poverty."

It says, " All humans are equal centers of awareness of the Universe and nature, and all deserve a life of equal dignity and mutual respect" But as #3 above, they DON'T deserve any MORE respect than the mosquito you smush. Hitler would love this.

I like this part. You MUST work towards democracy to call yourself a pantheist. Right? Can a democracy vote away their democracy and still be pantheists? Who defines what "justice" is? Each individual? Ed Yourdon? And as far as "sustainable ways of life" what does that mean? Who decides what's sustainable and what isn't? Again, does everyone come up with their own definition? (not a rule) or is there some "priesthood" to tell you what's good? ( a rule but in violation of #8). "5. There is a single kind of substance, energy/matter, which is vibrant and infinitely creative in all its forms. Body and mind are indivisibly united. I hope this isn't a rule, it sure isn't "scientific". If body and mind are indivisibly united, they must be distinct entities (as opposed to the mind is a PART of the body, which could be expected to die with the body). See below.

"6. We see death as the return to nature of our elements, and the end of our existence as individuals. The forms of "afterlife" available to humans are natural ones, in the natural world. Our actions, our ideas and memories of us live on, according to what we do in our lives. Our genes live on in our families, and our elements are endlessly recycled in nature.

Now this I understand. When you die, your body decomposes, and your mind joins the cosmic group consciousness which permeates the natural world. Or if you want, your body and mind can be recycled to come back in another life. Nothing more natural than that. 7. We honor reality, and keep our minds open to the evidence of the senses and of science's unending quest for deeper understanding. These are our best means of coming to know the Universe, and on them we base our aesthetic and religious feelings about reality."

"We honor reality"? What for? How do you honor it? " 8. Every individual has direct access through perception, emotion and meditation to ultimate reality, which is the Universe and Nature. There is no need for mediation by priests, gurus or revealed scriptures."

Now this does say something. There's nothing in nature than you can't perceive, emote :) , or meditate on. But does this also mean you have direct access to the knowledge of the Group Consciousness, or do you not get this until you die? My vote is you DO.

"9. We uphold the separation of religion and state, and the universal human right of freedom of religion. We recognize the freedom of all pantheists to express and celebrate their beliefs, as individuals or in groups, in any non-harmful ritual, symbol or vocabulary that is meaningful to them."

Now of course I suppose you think I'd bring up the pedophile argument again, but I won't ;-) .

Now Chris, as you can see, I'm getting tired. If this religion works for you, I am glad.

Frank

P.S. Please put in a good word for me with the Group Concsiousness. -F

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 08, 2000.


And please be patient with the formatting that SOMEHOW got screwed up.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 08, 2000.


I find it humorous that Frank somewhat rejects the pan philosophy because it lacks hard and fast rules, yet I reject it because the rules are too hard and fast.

I wanted to interject one more thought into why I didn't get "moved" by the pantheism site. Under the "Are You a Pantheist?" section [which was my whole point in going to the site], it's stated, "Yet do you feel an emotional need for religion, for a recognition of something greater than your own self or than the human race?"

This statement struck me in the same way as other religions when they suggest that I am "lost" until/unless I follow the "light." I don't feel an emotional need for religion.

I now return you to the pointless bickering.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 08, 2000.


Anita, I too don't feel the need for religion. Especially religion that injects fear in your life if you don't conform to certain commandments. But I did not take the pantheist statement as promoting a "religion" per se.

However I do recognize that the statement is open to interpretation. I took the statement this way: when I look up into the night sky, I'm filled with awe and wonder at the beauty of this small portion of the universe that I can see. When I see all my flowers coming up in spring, and the birds and peepers are busy, singing and peeping and bees are checking out all my flowers, I am aboslutely delighted with this wonderful way of pollination, and I marvel at how all the life forms are so integrated and dependent on each other, and we on them.

I think some pantheists think of these feelings as religious. I don't, but I am no less moved by the beauty and inter-connectedness of the earth. Maybe there is something greater than ourselves or the human race; maybe not. But I do not accept the Chritian religion as having all the answers. Pantheism doesn't claim to have all the answers, but it does include the love of the whole earth and all its various life forms, and it isn't as exclusionary as many traditional religions.

I would like to mention though, that there is no suggestion whatsoever in Pantheism, that one is "lost" or must follow "the light" or "be saved", or "born again" or any of the other edicts that many religions have. The rules, if you want to call them that, in pantheism are simply to respect all life and that includes other species and life forms that are nonhuman.

Also, pantheism does not shout that "We are the only true religion." And as Paul said in the book, some people are vegetarians and some not. But no one says you *should* be, nor is it considered a sin not to be, nor are you required to accept a savior or feel guilty and frightened.

What appealed to me is the sense of joy and wonder at what we have here on this earth instead of living in the future when one may or may not be whisked off to a heaven which is supposed to be so superior. It emphasizes having concern for the earth, which is the only home we really know, rather than worrying about our soul, and living for eternity.

Believe me, if I had felt coerced in the slightest degree to join, or to recognize some unseen god, I would have never read one more word. But I freely admit whem I outdoors in my garden, or in the woods behind my house, or watching the birds at the feeders, or the squirrels sampling the bird feed, or the sun set over the lake, I genuinely feel something greater than myself, and that is the amazing works of the universe. I feel the same when listening to classical music or other music that touches me.

If people want to call these feeling religion, or awe of god, that's fine with me. And, *if* there is a "God," then IMHO, he is not this wrathful god of the everlasting burning lake of hell fire, who will judge you, and maybe find you wanting. but rather a nice one who loves "the least of these," meaning other life forms, and overlooks our human frailties and follies.

Frankly I too hate ticks, mosquitoes and fleas, but they do provide tasty snacks for birds, and other bugs.

I guess Hallyx, Joe and I got the same sort of pleasure when we read the website. And I love the beautiful pictures of the sky that are made possible by the Hubble telescope.

We are putting up a martin house this year to help lower our mosquito population. They are great fun to watch while wheeling and diving in the twilight catching those blood suckers.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), April 08, 2000.


I agree with all the wonder you feel when you observe nature. I've always felt this a function of a "naturalist."

I've enjoyed the readings of various native American cultures simply because I appreciated the approach they took in preserving mother earth. There was no onus on killing animals because it was felt that the spirit of the animal would live on in those who ate the meat, wore the clothing, shoes, etc. provided by the animal's hide. Killing was not for sport.

I understand more now about Scientific Pantheism than I did before, but my preference would still be to remain "unlabeled." I feel quite happy with this choice. I enjoy nature, do the best I can to not pollute the earth, and passed on those values to my children. I enjoy the diversity of the people on earth and I suspect I'd enjoy the diversity of beings from somewhere else [if actually presented an opportunity.]

I don't ENJOY the judgments placed on others by some religions, but I understand that part of these religions INCLUDE evangelism. This inclusion of evangelism doesn't allow for non-emotionally charged debates with folks who don't share the same religious beliefs, but we CAN do our best to find common ground in the hopes of better understanding.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 08, 2000.


(Warning, long reply with cut/paste. Get your coffee.)

LBO, an epithet is synonim of adjective. "A term or phrase used to characterize the nature of a person or thing." Contrast with Epitaph, on which mine someday perhaps will read: "She died at her keyboard, forever futily trying to enlighten the masses" ;-)

Frank (get ready, all the rest is for you! ;-) )

"Chris? you said,

"because here you show a weakness in your restraint from attacking people's character, and I'm sure you don't like or want them to attack yours"

What got you so irritated? I looked at my post & can't figure it out??? ?

Puzzled Frank "

You're right, I looked at some of your posts again and couldn't find examples of character attacks on one person, even to Halyx. I guess that shows my own feelings and emotions at your attacking the character of pantheists in general. I'm guilty as charged. I apologize.

But my example of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is still a valid one and I will use a different angle; The Pantheist's way of interpreting this ethic is by saying "All life form deserve respect, not just us humans." So you see, we practice the "do unto others...", but take it one step further, we include all living things as being "others".

"Anyway, assuming we have some miscommunication, you said "Frank, have you read the Sci-Pan website? What do you call that if not hard fixed rules and ethics to follow?""

(Miscommunication is the plague of emotional humans)

"I went *back* to the Sci-Pan website, (and you're right, Satan didn't grab me ;-) ) and copied off the credo, reproduced below:

["1. We revere and celebrate the Universe as the totality of being, past, present and future. It is self-organizing, ever-evolving and inexhaustibly diverse. Its overwhelming power, beauty and fundamental mystery compel the deepest human reverence and wonder."]

This is a nice theory but I think the jury's still out on the *ever evolving* part (meaning we'll have to see what the physicists say about the "big crunch" as this theory may not be true ((kind of a bummer in a credo BTW))), and it's not "rules and ethics"."

I agree, this is not an example of rules and ethics in the credo. And I also agree that the jury is still out on the "big crunch" (if it's what you mean by "big bang). But, this part is an introduction to the credo, and you don't understand it the same way I do. By "It is self-organizing, ever-evolving and inexhaustibly diverse." I take it to mean what it says literaly, I infer nothing else. The universe IS self-organizing to me (you on the other hand believe a god organizes it), it IS ever-evolving (stars come and go, evolution on earth etc.) and it IS inexhaustibly diverse (our human minds can't comprehend the size and diversity of the universe, so we call it inexhaustible.)

[ "2. All matter, energy, and life are an interconnected unity of which we are an inseparable part. We rejoice in our existence and seek to participate ever more deeply in this unity through knowledge, celebration, meditation, empathy, love, ethical action and art."]

" My take is we're part of the universe, we're happy to be alive, and we do whatever we feel is good."

That is a most narrow-minded interpretation, and which to me reeks of sarcasm, and I don't believe you have a narrow mind, only that your negative stance (and emotions) against pantheism subjects you to define this part as such. I object specifically to "and we do whatever we feel is good." If said without sarcasm and/or inuendoes, then literaly (if narrowly) it is right. I would use the words "think and feel is good". How do we decide what is good? By meditation, pondering and learning. That's what christians do at bible studies and church.

["3. We are an integral part of Nature, which we should cherish, revere and preserve in all its magnificent beauty and diversity. We should strive to live in harmony with Nature locally and globally. We acknowledge the inherent value of all life, human and non-human, and strive to treat all living beings with compassion and respect. " ]

" Now these are hard and fast rules oops, those have "should"s in front. And as I posted early on in the thread, while the credo may "acknowledge" the value of all life, this doesn't impose any RULES on you such as being anti-abortion."

Those ARE hard and fast rules, IF you want to call yourself a pantheist, and agree to the pantheist philosophy. If you don't agree to this philosophy, call yourself something else. Simple.

As for abortion, Sci-Pan philosophy encouraging the pursuit of *science* and being much less narrow-minded, leaves the thinker with the liberty to think for him/herself and to scientists what is right and what is wrong with population control, it leaves us pondering the shades of grey in life. Believe me, not all Sci-Panners will agree on all abortion issues. The same as they won't all agree as to what diet one should eat. Sci-Pan philosophy *respects* the human mind; it acknowledges that some people are more intelligent and can think more than others, and think logically to make good and healthy decisions. As opposed to the Christian religion that treats everyone on same level, deciding for everyone what is good and what is bad. That in my book, is dictatorship. The bible was written and reinterpretted by the same few "leaders", giving the rest of humanity NO voice as to what is right and what is wrong. The bible rules, which were most likely fine for centuries after they were written as a guide for humanity and society, are now directly on a head colligion course with the well being of this planet, and us human beings by concequence. The bible and Christianity is too immovable and changing too slowly in today's fast changing world.

"And Jerry Rubin would especially like this part "We acknowledge the inherent value of all life, human and non-human, and strive to treat all living beings with compassion and respect. " (his a rat is a cat is a boy thing). It doesn't really matter what you save from a burning building, the pet or the master according to the Pantheist's credo. "

Another sarcastic narrow-minded interpretation. We eat, therefore we do have to "kill" some living form. It is all a matter of priorities and "saving" or "killing" selectively, thinking long and hard what our actions will have on the environment and the planet. AND developing the discipline to APPLY what we know/think is good for the environment. That is why JOJ is a lot more advanced in that regard than I am. He's applying into actions the results of his ponderings and meditation a lot more than I am. I know I do some things that are not always in harmony with nature, but I try with the best of my ability given my own perticular circumstances, and results of my own ponderings. I do not automaticly do something because it is acceptable by society, such as sport hunting for example. I will do fishing, but selectively in certain areas (like stocked ponds and or rivers) and eat what I catch. I would certainly hunt if I had to for my survival, but since I don't need to, I don't. Again, priorities.

[ "4. All humans are equal centers of awareness of the Universe and nature, and all deserve a life of equal dignity and mutual respect. To this end we support and work towards freedom, democracy, justice, and non-discrimination, and a world community based on peace, sustainable ways of life, full respect for human rights and an end to poverty." ]

"It says, " All humans are equal centers of awareness of the Universe and nature, and all deserve a life of equal dignity and mutual respect" But as #3 above, they DON'T deserve any MORE respect than the mosquito you smush. Hitler would love this. "

(You lose a point, you called me a mush! ) Frank, you really understand what you WANT to understand, not what is being presented. I won't call you a mush, but I will point out to you that you let your emotions and own beliefs close your mind to an idea. That is the result of years of brainwashing by a dictatorship religion. You say "But as #3 above, they DON'T deserve any MORE respect than the mosquito" Because you didn't get #3 above right, it makes sense that you would misunderstand here too. I've explained to you the priorities already, and a mosquito is definitely at the bottom of the totem pole! However, like JOJ explained to you, if a bug is not hurting me, you or the environment, there is no need to kill it. It has a part in nature. For example, my own lawn. Neighbores spray their lawns to have it look like a golf course, in the process killing all sorts of bugs, and poluting the underground water table, as well as causing allergic reactions to some susceptible people. I don't do anything to my lawn, other than cut the grass short enough to make it look like an even green carpet and blend in with the neighborhood. Many of my yuppie neighbors do the same, doctors and lawyers alike. We have weeds and bugs in our lawn, and have learned to appreciate it. It looks great in the spring when all the buttercups and other purplish weeds bloom! The worms aerate our lawns. Cicadas make a nice sound at night that puts me to sleep. But then you have the diehards who must have a golf-course lawn. Who/why are they trying to impress now? Not me.

"I like this part. You MUST work towards democracy to call yourself a pantheist. Right? Can a democracy vote away their democracy and still be pantheists? Who defines what "justice" is? Each individual? Ed Yourdon? And as far as "sustainable ways of life" what does that mean? Who decides what's sustainable and what isn't? Again, does everyone come up with their own definition? (not a rule) or is there some "priesthood" to tell you what's good? ( a rule but in violation of #8).

I believe I've answered you on this already. You must stop looking at Sci-Pan in terms of a religion and contrast it with Christianity. You'll never understand what red is if all you know to compare it with is blue.

["5. There is a single kind of substance, energy/matter, which is vibrant and infinitely creative in all its forms. Body and mind are indivisibly united.]

" I hope this isn't a rule, it sure isn't "scientific". If body and mind are indivisibly united, they must be distinct entities (as opposed to the mind is a PART of the body, which could be expected to die with the body). See below."

The mind and body being a whole is indeed scientific. Had you learned medical science, you would not contest that. You simply misinterpret again what this is supposed to mean. The mind is the brain, a distinct entitity from the rest of the body. You think in terms of "soul" in christian terms, but in our terms, the "soul" is the character/personality that developes from that electrical brain.

[ "6. We see death as the return to nature of our elements, and the end of our existence as individuals. The forms of "afterlife" available to humans are natural ones, in the natural world. Our actions, our ideas and memories of us live on, according to what we do in our lives. Our genes live on in our families, and our elements are endlessly recycled in nature. ]

" Now this I understand. When you die, your body decomposes, and your mind joins the cosmic group consciousness which permeates the natural world. Or if you want, your body and mind can be recycled to come back in another life. Nothing more natural than that."

Good, now go back and read #5 again with my explanation.

[7. We honor reality, and keep our minds open to the evidence of the senses and of science's unending quest for deeper understanding. These are our best means of coming to know the Universe, and on them we base our aesthetic and religious feelings about reality." ]

"We honor reality"? What for? How do you honor it? "

It is a form of expression, meaning that we put emphasis on reality, as opposed to unprovable fairy tales, hence the epithet "scientic" in Sci-Pan

[8. Every individual has direct access through perception, emotion and meditation to ultimate reality, which is the Universe and Nature. There is no need for mediation by priests, gurus or revealed scriptures." ]

"Now this does say something. There's nothing in nature than you can't perceive, emote :) , or meditate on. But does this also mean you have direct access to the knowledge of the Group Consciousness, or do you not get this until you die? My vote is you DO. "

Not sure at all what you mean here. But I've explained #8 with my earlier replies about hard and long ponderings and meditation, and the difference with Christianity's dictatorship to tell us what's right and wrong or good or bad for the planet/humanity/society. This is where Sci-Pan tells you that it respects your intelligence, if you have one.

["9. We uphold the separation of religion and state, and the universal human right of freedom of religion. We recognize the freedom of all pantheists to express and celebrate their beliefs, as individuals or in groups, in any non-harmful ritual, symbol or vocabulary that is meaningful to them." ]

" Now of course I suppose you think I'd bring up the pedophile argument again, but I won't ;-)."

But since you did anyway, let me point out here that you've missed the most important keyword in #9: non-harmful. If pedophilia is proved to be harmful (and I believe it is and has), then it won't be accepted by Sci-Pan followers of this here credo. Now, we could start a new argument of "what IS pedophilia", just like the argument I had concerning pornography and what it was. Care to debate that? ;-)

" Now Chris, as you can see, I'm getting tired. If this religion works for you, I am glad. "

Frank, I echo your feelings. I'm also getting tired of this debate, but I had to do my best to dispel your misconceptions for my own benefit as well as those of the happenstance readers. And because a good civilized debate is always mind enriching. I completely respect your choice of religion, as explained in #9

" P.S. Please put in a good word for me with the Group Concsiousness. -F "

<<<<>>> there, I've inserted it ;-)



-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 08, 2000.


Oops...the brackets were taken as html tags and made my good word disapear!

(((((Good Word)))))

There ;-)

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 08, 2000.


Elbow, just realized I forgot to address your question:

"Chris, I hope Frank understood you, but your last post certainly confused me! Immediately after pointing to the "hard and fixed rules and ethics" on the Sci-Pan web-site, you admonish Frank for his "need" of "hard and strict rules to guide his life." What gives here?"

What gives is the different conotations in my utilization of "hard rules" for Franks' needs (as in being dictated "do or else"), and "hard rules" used to say that Sci-Pan as written down in print by Harrison's definitions of ethics to follow. It is the fine conotation that you missed, but both definition still have something in common; that of ethics to follow. In that regard, they both are hard rules.

" You say that killing anything has been outrageous to you. Then surely you are Pro-life, yes?"

Depends on what you view as pro-life, it is a complex issue that we tried to discuss in that infamous thread on old TB2K that you and me took part of and that Gilda mentioned above. I tend to see you as seeing that issue as black and white, i.e. one is either pro-life or is not. I don't see it that way, and although I don't want to sound vague and evade your question, I must tell you that discussing it here would be rehashing that old thread, it would need a thread of it's own. If you want to start one, I'd probably participate and explain my views there in more detail. Or, you could dig out that old thread on TB2K and read it again ;-)

"You referred to "Rules by Guilt and Iron Fist religions" by which I assume you think you mean Christianity or more generally monotheism? Can I ask: by your beliefs, what are the consequences of violating your beliefs? "

Yes that's what I mean, as I've explained to Frank already; the dictatorship vs freedom to evolve and adapt in our society for a better way/philosophy to preserve our human species and the planet in general. And the concequences of violating my beliefs (standards) are a sense of shame and guilt, and a knowledge that I am fooling myself. It all has to do with self-improvement as we mature.

Note Elbow, that there is no leaders of Sci-Pan (Harrison is not a leader, merely someone who had the intellectual ability to put into a neat and well organized fashion the beliefs of Sci-Pan philosophy. It is important that you understand what the word "philosophy" means, to understand Sci-Pan in general. Sci-Pan is not a religion in the Christian/Jewish/Muslem sense, although in each religion there is a philosophy. Sci-Pan is a philosophy, without the restrictions of religion. So it can't be called a religion in the way you understand religion to mean.

I hope we can leave this topic at that, because like I said to Frank, I too am tired of debating it. And I should be outside weeding my garden right now, it's so beautiful outside! I'm out the door.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 08, 2000.


Chris, you said,

"And I also agree that the jury is still out on the "big crunch" (if it's what you mean by "big bang)"

Well, sort of. I believe the physicists are currently having a debate (assuming the big bang happened as commonly believed). There are three camps: 1. there is enough matter in the universe to keep it expanding forever, 2. there is just enough mass in the universe to keep it stable at some point, and 3. (the big crunch people) there is NOT enough mass in the universe, and so at some point it will start CONTRACTING and eventually destroy itself.

#3 is what I was referring to when I said the jury was still out on "ever evolving", as if true, everything will come to an end at some point.

You also say "The universe IS self-organizing to me " but isn't this just as much a statement of faith as saying God created everything? What "proofs" are there for this assertion if not?

You also said, "(You lose a point, you called me a mush! )"

Chris, as you don't have a ":-)" around this I'll assume you're serious. Please read the sentance again. I meant this in the sense of "the mosquito you squish (or kill) because it's bothering you. Can I have my "point" back?

You also said, "You must stop looking at Sci-Pan in terms of a religion and contrast it with Christianity."

If you'll look at my first posts in the thread, you'll note I used examples from Islam, Judaism and Christianity. My reference to Christianity was *in reply to* Hallyx who used the term "resurrectionist" which to my mind doesn't apply to any main stream religion except Christianity.

You also said (in reply to LBO) "Sci-Pan is a philosophy, without the restrictions of religion. So it can't be called a religion in the way you understand religion to mean. "

This was supposed to be MY point. Oh well. Anyway, I was really TRYING to misinterpret what I think the *intent* of the credo was to show what someone could make of it if they wanted to, which I still believe is anything. I didn't use my final argument which was to say that since one doesn't have to follow any one set of teachings to be called Sci-Pan, you really could say you disagree with the ENTIRETY of the credo and STILL call yourself Sci-Pan. Again, what does it mean?

I also realize that for YOU you are probably attempting to live in the SPIRIT of the credo, and I have no problem with that. Just be careful to define the beliefs of someone else who CALLS themselves Sci-Pan before you assume you believe in the same things.

Of course my final argument against Sci-Pan would have to be the lack of Holidays...

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 08, 2000.


Frank, really, this is my last reply on this Sci-Pan vs monothiestic religions issue (not neccessarily death.)

1. I did forget to put the ;-) smiley, you didn't really lose a point, only 1/2 because it is still directed at me and not impersonal, and because you're a nice guy in general, I'll let it go ;-) ;-) ;-)

2. When I said you must stop looking at Sci-Pan in terms of Christianity, I meant it to include include all monotheistic big religions. My bad, I wasn't precise enough.

3. "Anyway, I was really TRYING to misinterpret what I think the *intent* of the credo was to show what someone could make of it if they wanted to, which I still believe is anything. I didn't use my final argument which was to say that since one doesn't have to follow any one set of teachings to be called Sci-Pan, you really could say you disagree with the ENTIRETY of the credo and STILL call yourself Sci-Pan. Again, what does it mean?"

Frank, one sentence: Hitler called himself a Christian, Clinton calls himself a Christian, do you agree that they were/are? Do you agree with Clinton's past actions with Lewinsky and whatever else he's been acused of doing? (alright I lied, 2 sentences.)

4. "I also realize that for YOU you are probably attempting to live in the SPIRIT of the credo, and I have no problem with that. Just be careful to define the beliefs of someone else who CALLS themselves Sci-Pan before you assume you believe in the same things."

Aren't you defining the beliefs of someone else who calls themselves a Christian yourself? Are you the only righteous Christian? I don't think I'm the only "righteous" Sci-Pan follower.

5. I maybe celebrating more holidays than you, actually. I have a sister married to a Jew, we party at Hanucka, she invites me for Passover delicious meal, and her family celebrates Christmas and Easter with us. I'm married to a Christian who calls himself that and not Sci-Pan believer. I'm not going to get into my personal relationship with hubby or family any more than that if you don't mind.)

6. Please don't reply me back on this, I really would like a closure :-)

Peace

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 09, 2000.


I promised myself to not return to this thread out of respect for my tendinitis and blood-pressure. But I want to thank Chris, gilda, Joe and Anita for carrying the flag.

I found myself in the ironic position of defending a worldview with which I only partially identify. All I know about Scientific Pantheism is what I understand from reading Paul Harrison's website some four years ago. I was surprised and delighted that so much of which he so eloquently expressed was congruent with what I felt and how I saw things---much but not all, just as with Anita. In fact, because I had formed the foundation of my worldview long before reading Harrison, it might fairly be said that pantheists agree with me. Maybe they should be called Hallyxians.

And that's the point: A worldview derived with humility from personal experience, carefully crafted from patient observation, study and meditation, judiciously modified as one intellectually learns, emotionally grows and spiritually evolves---an organic, living, breathing philosphy---holds more appeal and value for me than heirarchical epistemologies and "belief" systems.

Those philosophies which cannot change and grow as an individual or society matures are moribund and will soon be consigned to the metaphorical grave (hopefully without embalming).

Hallyx

And this our life, exempt from public haunt,

Finds tongues in trees,

Books in running brooks,

Sermons in stones and good in everything.

---'As you like it' 2:1 William Shakespeare

-- (Hallyx@aol.com), April 09, 2000.


Gilda, Anita, Hallyx, Chris, thanks for all the words of wisdom. Not to single anybody out, but Chris, you are "totally awesome". I appreciate all the time you took to answer Franks often repetitive and combative posts.

Frank, I'm also glad everyone became more civil towards the end, if the end is where we are. Gives me hope for Christians :) Actually, my mom is a Christian, and is nevertheless openminded. Fortunately, we never get into any deep discussions of religion with each other.

This post is getting so long that it takes my old clunker of a computer two or three minutes to load! (My aren't we getting spoiled? Five or six years ago, when this old thing was a young thing, I thought it was incredibly fast. Spoiled are I.)

Can't say I'm a blue blooded Sci/pan, but I'm glad I learned a bit about its tenets; it's a way cool concept. I always thought I was a skeptical deist, before. Now I guess I'm a skeptical scientific pantheist deist?

-- Jumpoff Joe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), April 12, 2000.


Hallyx, I think I mentioned above that I found that Pantheism agreed with everything I'd ever felt and thought anyway, long before I discovered it. And while there are some areas I'm not interested in, I still find the basic tenents suit my philosophy of life on earth.

Of course, I find it hard to argue with someone like LBO Grise and keep my cool. I tried, but failed.

JOJ, I know what you mean about your computer loading so slow. I have one like that too, but when I got it, I really thougth I was jammin'.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), April 12, 2000.


"I found that Pantheism agreed with everything I'd ever felt and thought anyway, long before I discovered it."

kEwL...does that make me a 'gildasian'?

Hallyx

"You're only lost when you don't know where you're going."

-- (Hallyx@aol.com), April 12, 2000.


Gilda,

You said, "I think I mentioned above that I found that Pantheism agreed with everything "

That was my point from the beginning! God it sad when the best way to make a point is to NOT post something.

Lengthening the thread,

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 13, 2000.


Why the subject of death is taboo- the George Carlin theory :

"The most unfair thing about life is the way it ends. I mean, life is tough. It takes up a lot of your time. What do you get at the end of it? A Death! What's that, a bonus? I think the life cycle is all backwards. You should die first, get it out of the way. Then you live in an old age home. You get kicked out when you're too young, you get a gold watch, you go to work. You work forty years until you're young enough to enjoy your retirement. You do drugs, alcohol, you party, you get ready for high school. You go to grade school, you become a kid, you play, you have no responsibilities, you become a little baby, you go back into the womb, you spend your last nine months floating... you finish off [in ecstasy]."

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), April 21, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ