The enemies of festivity have argued for centuries that festivities and ecstatic rituals are incompatible with civilization. In our own time, the incompatibility of festivity with industrialization, market economies and a complex division of labor is usually simply assumed, in the same way that Freud assumed—or posited—the incompatibility of civilization and unbridled sexual activity. In other words, if you want antibiotics… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (191)Well, Barbara, I can’t take congress seriously in suits and ties, so maybe their painted faces and dancing up and down the aisles would help.
Naaa
:-)
Posted by whattheheck on Mar 9, 2007 at 2:35 PM WTH,
It couldn’t hurt.
I can’t help but think of New Orleans as the cultural center of US ecstatic and improvisational expression and its synthetic ties to indigenous, African, Carribean and Latin American popular culture and the apparent indifference with which the current political elite has treated the communities central to that tradition in the wake of Katrina.
Posted by luminous beauty on Mar 9, 2007 at 5:00 PM I never realized how much damage drugs do until I read your postings, LB. But don’t worry, as a total libertarian I will champion your right to destroy yourself any way that you desire. Now in regard to your silly comment about so-called people of color, there are some good things about New Orleans and its Afro-centric jazz culture. But the crime rate was and still is out of sight. Much very valuable real estate was being squatted on by untermenschen who have now turned Houston into a crime-ridden hellhole and the rest of us do not have a responsibility to
bail people out for natural disasters. You talk about this as if it is some
kind of right but I don’t see it. The fact that large segments of New Orleans used the natural disaster as an opportunity to commit crimes gives any honest person an indication of the actual culture dominant in
New Orleans. Let’s salvage the Quarter and the beautiful northwest section with its lovely mansions but plow under the ninth ward and the poverty flats areas. Give Nagin a one way ticket to Mongolia. We need much less of the sentimental gushy mushy touchy feely no-mind anti-thought liberal screwups. Bush needs to end all educational spending and put it into either expatriation for large numbers or prisons. Though
prisons are another failed socialist institution so maybe exile would work. The Spaceship Earth is too crowded and many of the passengers will have to disembark, scheduled stop or not. Maybe Chavez and Fidel will take them in.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 9, 2007 at 5:39 PM Well, he certainly wants people to believe that he’s a fascist, which isn’t quite the same as being a fascist.
Posted by Major Major on Mar 12, 2007 at 2:14 AM Curious you should mention N’awlinians going to Venezuela, Mikey. Although THIS is primarily a P2P effort by a bunch of POCs working directly with the Venezeulan people, I’m sure if anything comes of it, it will be because the Venezuelan government supports it and Nagin and the rest of NO’s city council don’t stand in the way.
Since it is such a bottom up, self-help organization, I’m sure, as a ‘true’ libertarian, you’ll find it admirable and courageous. That is, unless you really are the racist you claim not to be.
Posted by luminous beauty on Mar 12, 2007 at 3:25 AM “...the growing size of human societies [can’t] explain the long hostility of elites to their people’s festivities and ecstatic rituals—a hostility that goes back at least to the city-states of ancient Greece, which contained only a few tens of thousands of people each. No, the repression of festivities and ecstatic rituals over the centuries was the conscious work of men, and occasionally women, who saw in them a real and urgent threat. The aspect of ‘civilization’ that is most hostile to festivity is not capitalism or industrialism—both of which are fairly recent innovations—but social hierarchy, which is far more ancient. When one class, or ethnic group or gender, rules over a population of subordinates, it comes to fear the empowering rituals of the subordinates as a threat to civil order.”
It’s a C-O-Nspiracy for C-O-Ntrol, all on behalf of their intimidation. When they see us dancing, hugging, kissing, moshing, clasping hands and gyrating as we abandon polite society’s sit-up-straightjacket, they can’t stand it. It scares them.
Ecstasy is even more your right (and mine!) than is privacy (another right I claim for myself and uphold for all of you). You’re born for joy. You’re built to know ecstasy, and I’m not talkin’ about some f’n meth-derived scorcher of synapses, but the happiness-unbridled that you were born with the capacity for. Organs and nerves for delight that God evolved for you, right inside all your gentle-scented skins.
Doesn’t have to be earned or learned. It’s right there in you, right under the surface, just below and to the side of all those rules daddy taught you to obey.
You’ll know the joy-bashers on sight. They’re the ones who frown while you laugh, whose furrowed brows bespeak the encrustedness of their minds and their blood vessels. They need a hug, but they may not accept one from you.
Maybe you’ll be lucky and can just avoid them and their cramped, unhappy, proscribed world. But, if they start to pass laws against ya, make rules to bust you with, put a collar and leash upon ya to make you mind, mebbe you gotta bite… hard and deep!
Rock on, me hearties.
Posted by Kuya on Mar 12, 2007 at 6:46 AM LB, I was being ironic, didn’t know any Orleanians were going to Venezuela. Thought it mostly Houston and Baton Rouge. I really don’t need to be lectured by anyone on true libertarianism. Trying to extort someone’s agreement in advance by threatening to mislabel them is not a tactic that works with me.
Major, I once had a lengthy letter published in The Progressive defending Chomsky’s right to question the Pol Pot atrocity figures. Does that make me a Communist ?
Kuya, I met one of these joyless Christian nuts yesterday when I made a large book donation to the local library. She looked at a bio of Richard Burton and started on about awful he & all actors were…...I demurred.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 12, 2007 at 2:56 PM O, Mikey was being ironic.
That explains everything.
Posted by luminous beauty on Mar 12, 2007 at 3:28 PM Christ, LB, is the Alzheimers setting in early…......................
Posted by blondemike on Mar 12, 2007 at 8:09 PM ...a joyless Christian… way sad…
Some folks want to Critique more than they want to Enjoy. I can’t relate.
Posted by Kuya on Mar 13, 2007 at 8:58 AM Kuya, she did not look like a person who enjoyed life at all. I think she was mad that I wasn’t donating Christian books, she specifically inquired about that, so I assume she’s a Christ-Culter. God, these people are a pain, thank god I’m an atheist….......
Ok, LB, no more Mister Nice Guy…..
Posted by blondemike on Mar 13, 2007 at 2:44 PM “Ok, LB, no more Mister Nice Guy…..”
I surrender, Mikey. Your instinctive talent for irony is… well… it’s… just… sublime!
Posted by luminous beauty on Mar 13, 2007 at 5:14 PM “joyless Christian”
“thank god I’m an atheist”I met a joyless atheist recently.
Thank God I’m a believer.All the joyless people
Where do they all come from ?
All the joyless people
Where do they all belong ?
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Mar 13, 2007 at 9:14 PM “God is a concept
By which we measure
Our… Pain…
I’ll say it again…
___ __ _ _______
__ _____ __ _______
___… ____…”
——J. Lennon
Believe or disbelieve what you will… it’s true.
Posted by luminous beauty on Mar 14, 2007 at 4:16 PM LB, lay off that LSD before you start sounding like one of the LDS’ers.
WHAT’s true ?
Posted by blondemike on Mar 14, 2007 at 5:34 PM God is like your favorite color. Some have a very strong opinion on which color is best, others don’t care much. Facts are useless in resolving the “dispute”.
To each their own. One of the great things about the west is that we can all live side by side, regardless of religious belief. In stark contrast to most of the Middle East. . .
Posted by wolf on Mar 14, 2007 at 7:54 PM Oh come on, Wolf ! The arguments are not of equal intellectual worthiness. By the way, for many centuries we in the west did not live together peacefully thanks to the demented Jewish ChristCult. The Germans almost wiped themselves out during the 30 years protestant-catholic wars. The friggin European Christers only stopped killing each other in 1945. Not exacty ancient history. Islam is nutty but it has plenty of company. Ok, Wolfie, sorry to disturb your intellectual slumber, go back to your lattes and NPR.
PS Light blue is the BEST color.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 14, 2007 at 8:07 PM Light blue is good but I like a dirty green.
God is what?
Exactly!
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Mar 14, 2007 at 8:38 PM God is exactly what God will be.
Sure, I like a dirty color. Clean colors are fine but dirty colors need love too.
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Mar 15, 2007 at 6:21 PM You must be another wooly headed liberal, David ? Damn ! Only Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates and Chicago Cabbie With Crabs comes close.
And what exactly IS God ?
Posted by blondemike on Mar 15, 2007 at 6:28 PM Mike, I already answered that God question. If you want to see the answers again please start reading at Posted by David in Canuckistan on Mar 14, 2007 at 1:22 PM on this thread.
If an Abbot and Costello “Who’s On First?” effect was what we were attempting with that line of discussion then I think we have succeeded. But I think you looped back to soon. Your next question should have been “What will God be?” and then my answer would be “God will be what God wills to be.”
“wooly headed liberal”
While I do have a full head of hair I would not characterize myself as liberal or conservative.
I defy definition and classification.
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Mar 15, 2007 at 9:05 PM No, you never answered the question and no believer ever has given an intelligble explanation of god. Since you never answered the question as to what is god, why go any further. Give a concrete physical description. Is he 5’11 with eyes of blue, is he a white male, can he create a boulder that he can’t lift up ? Did he have a crazed Hebe son who was born of a virgin mother ? Whence comes evil ? Does heaven look like a housing project in Hong Kong or an overdeveloped Houston suburb ? Does he screw the angels or anyone else ? Is he hetero ? Why does he allow babies to be born blind ? Is he circumsized ? Why did he allow Bush’s election ? Is he a Jew or a Christ Culter or a Muslim ? How old is he ? Does he smoke ? Drink ? Or have a penile deformity like Bill Clinton ? What is hell ? If you can these questions we’d all be in your debt. BTW, no one defies definition and classification, David. Your narcissism is getting a little extreme.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 15, 2007 at 9:24 PM Yes, I did answer the question. If you don’t like my answer that is your problem, not mine.
But, as always, I am ready to help you.“no one defies definition and classification”
Except maybe God. (and that is answer enough for the rest of your thoughtful questions)
Upon further consideration I will rephrase my statement;
I resist definition and classification.“Your narcissism is getting a little extreme.”
Coming from you, Mike, that is the dull old pot calling the shiny new kettle black. But that’s okay. I forgive you. Eventually I may be as you are but I will continue to resist and try to shine.
VIVE LA RESISTANCE!
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Mar 15, 2007 at 9:56 PM David, YOU HAVE NEVER SHINED INTELLECTUALLY. You have yet to bring forth one INTELLIGIBLE argument for “god.”
Your “resistance” is to Objective Reality. You will always lose.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 16, 2007 at 4:04 PM Mike, I never claimed to shine intellectually but thank you for the input.
As I have mentioned before, I neither desire nor require proof of God. Faith is enough.
Just as the last shall be first, and the first last: to lose is to win.
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Mar 16, 2007 at 7:38 PM Oh, faith is enough ? ! Omigod, Marxism-Leninism and ChristerHucksterism in one package plus nonArisotelian logic….
you win, I can’t deal with this.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 16, 2007 at 8:14 PM As usual, I’m with you Mike-the Socrates of ITT.
David and LB-can god create an object so large that she cant lift it? Or put another way, can she make those of us who dont shine reflect her light? With faith there is no hope. Shall we just agree that what you call god is merely the sum of all we cant explain? Nothing personal.
Posted by recursive prophet on Mar 17, 2007 at 3:08 AM Arpie,
It’s Saturday,
Today, I’m of the opinion god is a verb. Not the creator, but the creating.
We all shine. Everything above 0 Kelvin shines (except dark matter/energy and black holes?) We also absorb. That which is reflected is first absorbed, then re-emitted in a somewhat altered condition (novel re-creation). No heavy lifting necessary.
Faith is beyond (gate, gate, paragate, parasamgate) hope and hopelessness. Faith is focused in the present. It can be certain (or certainly ascertained). Hope, and it’s alternative, are projections of our past and present uncertainties into the uncertain future. It’s like gambler’s disease. So, yes, the stronger one’s faith, the less dependent one is on hope (or vulnerable to hopelessness). It’s not a simple binary switch, though, usually.
I dare point out, irregardless the distance you wish to give yourself from that declaration, YOU called god (it’s merely a useful term, don’t you see?) ‘the sum of all we can’t explain’. I agree. I would extend the definition to include that which we can explain, the explanations, the inherent inaccuracies and incompletenesses of our explanations, and the implicate difference between our explanations and the reality of that which is explained. Or, in the light of my saturday opinion, the on-going, integrated and inter-active, creative process of all these things considered as a unity. Not dependent on our personal (or culturally inherited) understanding (or imagination and creativity), but not excluding it (them), either.
Posted by luminous beauty on Mar 17, 2007 at 3:05 PM Interesting post, Luminous one. I would argue however that in fact there is ample evidence that 95% of religious belief IS in fact a cultural inheritance given about that percentage adopt the religion of their ancestors. You and David are just 2 more examples, or were your parents perhaps Buddhists? Religion is basically a contagious disease of the mind. ‘Go forth and multiply’ may have been good advice 2 thousand years ago but today leads us down the road of devolution and self destruction; a cancer cell ideology if you will.
Bet Im the joyless atheist David refers to. Try Googling the sadder but wiser effect. Those of faith share the false joy of denial, and if only so many didnt think themselves capable of communicating with her omnipotence I would see it as harmless. However, on the point of humor, can any cite me one passage from the bible that makes any reference to people laughing? Or a picture of Jesus or his disciples laughing? Christians particularly have NO sense of humor. Why I bet most cant even perceive the incredible threads of irony Mike ingeniously weaves into his dialectic. But then, who could laugh facing eternal consciousness when after less than 100 years of it they have so often been bored? Imagine 10 million years from now. No laughing matter, to be sure.
Posted by recursive prophet on Mar 17, 2007 at 10:15 PM It being Sunday, I was going to mount a spirited defence of polytheism. Maybe later.
Funny story about laughing children from the OT: 2 Kings 2:23-24. Well, maybe not so funny.
Humorous Christian. He’s not exactly Mel Brooks, but consider if <u> Spaceballs </u> was the only evidence we had of Jewish humor.
And may the Schwartz be with you, too.
capable communications with her omnipotence. Tip o’ the hat to Spider Robinson. I don’t see what you find so harmful, Arpie. Awareness of the Divine Presence is normally construed as individually recognizing the unavoidable nature of the moral consequences of our actions.
“Everybody’s got something to hide, except for me and my monkey.”
People declaring their own personal omnipotence is scary (or laughable).
You want excruciating boredom, try sitting zazen for 12 hrs/day, 7 days/wk. for x weeks. However, you may discover the secret to never ever having to suffer boredom again.
Why do atheists insist on making the same literal interpretations of scripture that only the most extreme Fundamentalists make?
Posted by luminous beauty on Mar 18, 2007 at 11:01 PM Mike, thanks for the victory. I know I am not playing fair , sometimes, but it was fun.
Next time I will let you win but I wish you had asked me how the last can be first.Arpie, we have the ability to laugh and being created in God’s image I think that God enjoys a good laugh too. Hmmm ... a bible passage with a reference to people laughing. I seem to remember Sarah laughing but here are 3 verses and there are more.
If a wise man contendeth with a foolish man, whether he rage or laugh, there is no rest.
Proverbs 29:9A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
Ecclesiastes 3:4Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled.
Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh.
Luke 6:21Jesus had a sense of humor and used irony often. For a good example see Matthew 15:22-28 ... A Canaanite woman is asking Jesus for help. The disciples tell Jesus to send her away, after all, she’s not even an Israelite (Jesus even goes so far as to agree). And yet when the Canaanite woman asks for help for her sick daughter Jesus speaks to her. I can imagine Jesus giving her a wink when he says “It is not fair to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.” She bravely answers that “even dogs may eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” And Jesus repiles “Woman, great is your faith and it shall be as you will” and her daughter was healed.
Good story. So there you are, Arpie. Enjoy. And speaking of joy, it was not you I was referring to.
And sorry for the Sunday homily but you asked for it ;-)You asked other questions and Luminous Beauty (hi LB) provided excellent answers (Posted by luminous beauty on Mar 17, 2007 at 10:05 AM ) and I would be happy to say “ditto”.
Luminous Beauty, you asked “Why do atheists insist on making the same literal interpretations of scripture that only the most extreme Fundamentalists make?” and that is a good question.
And with Mike and Arpie here I expect we will get good answers. And I have more questions ...Mike and Arpie, did you inherit your atheism?
Luminous Beauty, did you inherit a religion?
I seem to remember you mentioning repressed Catholicism?Arpie, my answer to your interesting question about inheriting a religion “or were your parents perhaps Buddhists?” ; I started with the religion of my parents and recent ancestors, Mennonite , but have since studied and personally applied teachings from buddhism and taoism (and studied christian {and judaic} sects and cults - sort of a hobby) among many other more personal influences.
So, what I believe is not what I learned in Sunday School.
What I believe is a new wine and needs a new wineskin.
What I believe and what I am spiritually, changes from day to day as I will it.
I am a Church of One. Everyone is. The Church of Every One.Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
I Corinthians 3:16... and that is what makes me human ... mostly.
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Mar 18, 2007 at 11:47 PM David, you still don’t get it, whomever wins this debate is certifiably insane. Congragulations again on your victory. First prize is two weeks in North Philly, second prize is set of steak knifes, third prize is you get to bone LB.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 19, 2007 at 7:47 PM WE HAVE A WINNER!! And theres Mike waxing ironic again, like he doesnt know we are ALL here because we arent all THERE! Boning LB THIRD prize? Guess Mike hasn’t seen her Myspace profile.
Great post David, and while Christians may lack a sense of humor I never imagined you as a Sunday school believer and your reply cracked me up. Even with that great site you sent me a link for to find references in the Bible, go back and look at how little you were able to come up with. It truly is funny. All you could find was where the word laugh was used; nothing about people laughing or something actually funny being said. This said, your attempt to make it look like Joshua Bar_Joseph was in fact being sarcastic in that quote is so sad it IS funny. Your proofs of humor are so stretched they make my point better than I ever could.
LB-WOW. DOUBLE WOW!! I just looked up that story in Kings wondering after what you said about it not being so funny if it really was one of my personal favorites. If you did this as a joke I refuse to believe you are really Catholic. No way!
Ok, I can breathe again in gasps between gags of laughter. You have truly just won my personal award for the funniest comment ever made on ITT. I have mentioned this little episode many times in questioning the eternal love and forgiveness of the Christian God. It is the story of 42 children laughing at Elisha’s baldness. He cursed them in the name of this God of Love, who promptly sent 2 bears to slaughter the insolent little turds. Guess this explains why there are so many bald Christians. Spare the claw and spoil the child, LB? It is such a riot you would send in this as an example of laughter in the Bible you must be doing stand up here.
Regarding why we atheist make literal interpretations of the Bible, it is because you enlightened Christians have allowed the fundamentalist to become the spokesmutants for your faith, and further I would argue the vast majority-like 98%-have never even read the entire book as have I. They therefore have nothing with which to refute the definitions put forth by the more fervent. I think karma is all we need to see the consequences of our actions. Omnipotence has much baggage; good versus evil become absolutes rather than subjective observations. The Golden Rule is thus fatally flawed. What I might wish done unto me may be worlds apart from your preferences. -Arpie
Posted by recursive prophet on Mar 19, 2007 at 11:13 PM Is a candle brought to be put under a bushel, or under a bed? and not to be set on a candlestick?
Mark 4:21Funny and appropriate to this discussion, I think.
Arpie, that your understanding of the story of the Canaanite woman is different than mine does not surprise (or discourage) me. You are not alone in your belief and you have every right to it. You asked about humor in the bible and I pointed to a story that made me laugh (and you laugh at me). If it does not work for you, that’s okay. I will not kill you or excommunicate you. Okay? Peace!
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Mar 20, 2007 at 12:49 AM spokesmutants for your faith
They are not speaking for my faith.
They are blind guides who strain at a gnat and yet swallow a camel.
(that’s more biblical humor - Matthew 23:24).Only I speak for my faith.
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Mar 20, 2007 at 1:01 AM Now were talking funny David. That Matt was such a card; laugh riot. I especially enjoyed his shtick about how man should not question his faith too carefully, relying on fallible human wisdom to analyze the actions of God. What a hoot, and it ties in so nicely with the whole Genesis theme-the tree of KNOWLEDGE. Don’t even take a byte, or you shall be voted immediately off the island. A true Theocracy; 1 God, 1 vote.
Trust me, my friend, if all who embraced a paranormal spirituality in the same way you and LB do I would have no antagonism toward it. Your life; your choice. But it would be quite disingenuous for a bright lad like you to deny you are part of a very small minority within the faith community. Fundamentalist far outnumber you, and the Bible Belt is so red you see green after looking at it on a map. What percentage of the Atheist vote do you imagine Bush got? Or how many are among those who would prevent stem cell research or a woman’s right to abortion? Better hold a cross up to your screen before reading on.
Religion in general is far worse than an opiate of the masses. It provides absolution for any and all actions as long as one adheres to the submission of said god. You wont find any laughter in the good book, but there is plenty of spite and smite. This is well reflected in the vast majority of believers. Your faith is unique and atypical, as was my level of education traveling through Europe in my youth, as weve discussed. I would have not argued that my awareness of the world was proof they were wrong in their general perception of American ignorance. You should acknowledge-along with other intelligent believers such as LB-that religion overall has become a very negative force in the world. What can not be justified if god is on your side? Im not talking ideas here-what faith should be-Im referring to what is the larger reality. When the Pope apologizes for showing Galileo the instruments of torture, for me it will be like when they change the name of the FBI headquarters; a sign. More on this for sure.—Arpie
Posted by recursive prophet on Mar 20, 2007 at 3:38 AM RP, where can I look up and see LB’s photo ? Is it a guaranteed wood stiffener ?
Posted by blondemike on Mar 20, 2007 at 5:13 PM Arpie,
Old YHWH is a very funny guy. It’s just that His sense of humor makes Quentin Tarantino look like Red Skelton and we’re the butt of His jokes. Or, as Will Rogers put it, “Everything is funny… as long as it’s not happening to you.”
My people were Methodists. I have an ancestor who was instrumental in the founding of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. He split in a dispute with Joseph Smith over polygamy, as the family history has it, and was later anathemized. I was heretic and agnostic to the extreme in my youth, like you, Arpie, after reading the bible. I even droned through all the knews and begats. I don’t know why. I guess so’s I could boast I’d read the whole dang thing. It is only after years of comparative religious study and semi-regular mindfulness practice, that I have learned to see Wesleyan Pastoralism as not too bad a spiritual practice after all. I can also make a case for Shamanism, Vodoun, Santeria and Obeah, et al. I can also sympathize with trans-post-modernists like Ken Wilbur who call for a diminishment of traditional surrounds in favor of a more scientific approach. I guess I am a sucker for poetic color and metaphoric variety.
My present level of spirituality is very natural and practical, and in no way dependent on supervenience. It is more of a subtle shift in consciousness than anything else. Allowing (or, submitting to, if you will) natural healing of the apparent split between my self and the rest of existence unconsciously engendered and reinforced by cognitive discursiveness. I suppose I could explain it in neurophysiological terms, but what good is that? It’s the doing that is the main thing, not explaining it. Whatever theory or belief that gets one motivated in the right direction is a good one.
Parapsychology is another can of worms, entirely.
I would submit that the vast majority of religious people have always been beggars at the gates, and only a very tiny minority have ever penetrated the divine mystery beyond the Sunday morning ecstatic release of laying down their burdens in a ritualized social context. The fact they may be ignorant about everything under the sun and hold to absurd and long expired theologies doesn’t belie the genuineness of their experience. Their ignorance may make them vulnerable to being politically manipulated for a while by spiritual impostors, false prophets and megalomanic authority figures (when has that not been true?), but karma will out, eventually. I don’t see what is to be done except remain as open, friendly and non-judgemental as possible. Insulting their beliefs and faith seems to be a non-starter. That kind of thing just makes people defensive. Not all Fundies voted for Bush, I’m sure. I’m just as sure there are atheists who did. In particular, those whose religion is Free Market Fundamentalism. Then there are the Log Cabin Republicans. Go figure.
I’m much more pissed at the Catholic Church over Bruno than Galileo. Still, the Church produced Francis of Assisi, Bartolome de las Casas, Teilhard de Chardin, Mary Day and Thomas Merton. Lots of Catholics I know are anything but in lock step with Pope Rat.
Posted by luminous beauty on Mar 20, 2007 at 10:36 PM I know, everybody funny, now you funny too.
(George Thorogood - One Bourbon, One Scotch, One Beer)Funny and appropriate to this discussion.
(I think George and Will Rogers would have gotten along.)Luminous Beauty, It’s YHVH (not ‘yhwh’) ... you die now, infidel !!!
Just kidding! I like the V because there is a vav in my name ... DVD.
And thanks for my new word of the day; supervenience. Tricky!It’s the doing that is the main thing, not explaining it.
Exactly ... doing is being and that is what matters ... mostly.Arpie, you said “Religion in general is far worse than an opiate of the masses.”
I might say ... Atheism in general is far worse than an analeptic of the minorities.
(my apologies for twisting your words to another generalization - I am not sure what it means:)There is laughter in the good book but I agree when you say there is plenty of spite and smite.
Of course there is ... the bible is stories about humans.
No different than you and me and the rest of us (stranded here in objective reality).
And when I read a bible story I learn from it as I do any story.
Some people learn love ... others do not.
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Mar 21, 2007 at 3:10 AM David and LB-blown away by your replies; GREAT writing!! You two should be immediately stuffed and mounted; thoughtful, articulate, men of faith. Oh that I have lived long enough to make the acquaintance of such!! Really hope we will have the opportunity to carry this dialogue much further.
Other obligations prevent me from replying in full until the weekend, but one point I’d like to leave you with. Neither of you responded to my charge that ‘tearing’ 42 children with a couple bears for laughing at Elisha’s baldness hardly seems like the act of a loving god. Having read the book LB, you know there are countless examples of the Christian god’s wrath and vengeance but little that’s in any way funny. That should be a red flag.
“when you say there is plenty of spite and smite. Of course there is ... the bible is stories about humans. No different than you and me and the rest of us.”—But David, we have laughter and irony too! And nearly a third of the Bible, and all that separates it from the Torah, is the New Testament, which is not about mortals but the son of god. And for both of you, what about that old tree of knowledge? Do a search on that Bible site for limitations human knowledge. That is one of many things all spiritual faith has in common. Don’t ask too many questions. You wouldn’t understand anyway.
Posted by recursive prophet on Mar 21, 2007 at 3:41 AM As I said “There IS laughter in the good book ” (emphasis added).
The story of Elisha and the children and the bears made us all laugh, by our own admissions.
It is funny and ironic. Not necessarily literally true but perhaps having a lesson that is figuratively true.The story of the Tree Of Knowledge of Good and Evil is an interesting story.
“Don’t ask too many questions. You wouldn’t understand anyway”
But ask and understand they did. And YHWH killed them for it.
We are asking the questions right now and trying to understand.
Atheist or agnostic or believer or gnostic. Or a combination of all.
God have mercy on us!
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Mar 21, 2007 at 4:34 AM Ok, time to end the tendentious mindfuck wordsalads. Now where can I look up the pix of LB ?
Posted by blondemike on Mar 21, 2007 at 10:57 PM Only for you would I do this Mike. Heres the link to LB’s MySpace profile, which I learned about from Eric. This was posted in the In You more than yourself thread. But if you just Google Luminous Beauty, this is first hit so she must be ringing somebodys bells.
Not my type really, and the only thing I can keep stiff these days is my upper lip. Im hardly the one to ask about wood stiffening unless youre talking carpentry. But if you are talking biology, Ive heard the new liquid Viagra with Mydixadril is quite effective. Why not just pour yourself a stiff one?
Posted by recursive prophet on Mar 23, 2007 at 6:48 PM Speaking of Google, check out “blondemike oakland white men dating”.
Posted by Major Major on Mar 25, 2007 at 6:26 PM Thanks, RP. I’ll check it out.
Major, eat shit and slowly die.
Ok, just checked it out. Not exactly my type but she’s hot !
Posted by blondemike on Mar 26, 2007 at 4:49 PM Not exactly my type but she’s hot !
Just so long as she is a Woman aged 18 - 99 you are happy, eh, Mike?
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Mar 27, 2007 at 3:28 PM God is the anthropomorphized, projected interpretation of that which is the source of all that is, was, or can be. It is derived from the human cerebrum’s attempt to understand the cosmic grounding of its existence and ability to be conscious. It is not limited to the constraints that bind the living, nor is it dead. It does not have a single form of consciousness but is the foundation of all incarnations that can be conscious, as well as being the foundation of everything else that cannot wake into consciousness. It has no gender but makes possible the sexual polarity that we, as gene-mixing quick-evolvers, think is a universal property even of the non-living.
It makes possible the miracle-producing attraction and connection that we call LOVE, which is the heart of worship and is the only form of religion that doesn’t victimize. When love is implemented, the perennial law of the jungle is surpassed, and miracles (i.e. extraordinarily improbable events that change the lives or minds of brainy, machine-making primates) take place in the lives of people.
It helps if you think of priesthoods, scriptures, and all that stuff as steps in the effort to understand, rather than as literal truths with any kind of permanence.
Posted by Kuya on Mar 29, 2007 at 6:22 AM And then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind; “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up your loins like a man, I will question you, and you shall declare to me.” “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me if you have understanding. Who determined it’s measurements-surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were it’s bases sunk, or who laid it’s cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Job 38: 1-4
Posted by texasindependent on Mar 29, 2007 at 3:21 PM It helps if you think of priesthoods, scriptures, and all that stuff as steps in the effort to understand, rather than as literal truths with any kind of permanence.
Exactly ... good post, Kuya.
When love is implemented, the perennial law of the jungle is surpassed, and miracles take place in the lives of people.
Thanks, Kuya, for proof once again that “all we need is LOVE”.
(and a basic understanding of “how many angels can dance on the point of a needle”)Tell me if you have understanding.
Thanks Tex. I will let you know ;)
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Mar 29, 2007 at 8:31 PM
Posted by luminous beauty on Mar 29, 2007 at 8:47 PM Good Google:
l’origine du monde
”...and all the gods shouted for joy!”
Posted by luminous beauty on Mar 29, 2007 at 9:22 PM The origin of the world ”... joy!”
(full frontal nudity usually is - and the ‘fig leaf’ door was a nice touch)
I do declare!
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Mar 29, 2007 at 10:28 PM Interesting post, Kuya. Hope to hear more from you in this thread. I’ll give my thoughts on some of your ideas soon. Love is supposed to be be the heart of worship, but would propose that fear and superstition are far more common among those of faith.
Sad is the atheist who must seek sanctuary among believers, for they are not his conjectural kin. Yet in this home of the literary ‘rough trade’ this is one of the last peaceful forums left. LB, your picture reminded me of one I found to demonstrate visually the E8 problem, solved by a team of physicists and mathematicians on March 20. For an explanation-lite on E8 and to see the picture I speak of, just go to Pentangle Prologue and scroll down one page.
Good post David. But I think we are in fact laughing AT the good book, not WITH it. And who is to say what is literal there? My take on the Tree of Knowledge is its a good way to discourage the faithful from asking any questions. Eat hay and pray-there will be pie in the sky when you die. Remember? As you said, may god-whatever that may be-have mercy on us all. Bet he wont though. Watch out for the bears.
LB-where you been? Miss your inspired diatribes.
Posted by recursive prophet on Mar 30, 2007 at 5:55 AM Eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was the first sin. Questioning God was not the sin, the sin was disobedience. The questioning of God is a recurring theme in the Bible. Abraham debated God over the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Moses argued with God in the desert. Ezekiel, Elijah, Jeremiah, and even Jesus questioned God. So the argument that the Bible is designed to discourage the asking of questions is not valid. Do not confuse faith with religion. Religion is man made. Faith is not. When a person has an abundance of one they usually lack the other.
Posted by texasindependent on Mar 30, 2007 at 3:39 PM Thank you, TexMex, this is profundity beyond words. But the only problemo is that faith too is man made. In fact, everything that is not nature made is man made, though man IS a part of nature. Hope I didn’t get your leetle brain swirling too fast…....By the way, I hear a lot of your brownish peepul are leaving the RC Church to become Pentos and speak in tongues like yo’ Uncle Alberto in DC. Is that true ? I perform discount baptisms and in real water too ! Not the same disgusting way yo’ Pappa filled yo’ rubber duckee “pool.” I want you to know that I am not in the least “prejudiced” against your peepul (pre-judgment) but I AM very postjudiced (long, sad experience.)
LB, your picture reminds me that even at my advanced age, one can get wooden.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 30, 2007 at 8:47 PM 22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
24So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
There are a number of traditional interpretations of this text and many more resonant with mythopoetic recursion.
Consider sweet Persephone.
Posted by luminous beauty on Mar 31, 2007 at 12:25 AM Arpie,
After spending a good part of the day thinking about lie algebra and quantum geometry, my brain feels a lot like THIS!
Thanx a lot.
I don’t know what picture you were refering to, but the shot of Jessica Alba at the top of the page sure is hot. Definitely my type.
Posted by luminous beauty on Mar 31, 2007 at 12:32 AM to know good and evil
Knowing good and evil is easy.
Knowing which is which can be harder.
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Mar 31, 2007 at 2:11 AM Tex-turn the other cheek, vato. Ignore him and he will stop. Del lobo un pelo es bastante, simon? Este cabron solamente busca un novio aqui, ¿consigues mi significado? Diga nada y vamos a tener no mas de esta vina. Ya Basta!
Mike- PLEASE dont start up here. Im getting a real sense of deja-moo; Ive read this BS before. Go back to the economy thread where everyone has already left because of it. And do keep on your meds. If there cant be just a few topics where rational discussions can be held without the inane ad homenums, you will be left alone with only those you seem to despise to communicate with.
Conversely, if you wish to join the discourse in an intelligent manner-and I have seen you do this often-I could use another devout atheist as Im outnumbered big time. Dont make me have to re-examine my faith.
LB-you and me both. Thats from Sin City, and if you havent seen it rent the video-she is hotter than hot in that movie-my type for sure-doubt Im hers.—Arpie
Posted by recursive prophet on Mar 31, 2007 at 2:12 AM “outnumbered”
Naaah ... you are one of us, Arpie.
Devout atheist, indeed! I think you are backsliding on your faith.“Sad is the atheist who must seek sanctuary among believers”
One of us! One of us! One of us! Sanctuary you shall have, if you are one of us or not.
And you should be happy! Remember ... I won’t excommunicate or kill you!
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Mar 31, 2007 at 2:43 AM Yeah, “Sin City” was good. Beyond the political subtext portraying the existential struggle between left-libertarian and right-libertarian coalitions in the power vacuum of a civil authority paralyzed by corruption, it put a new spin on the concept of graphic violence.
I recently saw “300”. Though it has a few moments of graphic transcendence, I thought the theme of Hellenic exceptionalism kind of musty and ahistoric.
There is, I understand, a “Sin City 2” in production with a reprise of the role of Ms. ‘Soul’.
I was perusing this thread, looking for some coherent motiv upon which to elaborate and I noticed your reference to Mydixadril. I just got it. 5 groans.
You should know, outside the community of the terminally nerdish, that puns are not strictly a form of humor. They are, indeed, (dare I say it) a form of punishment.
“Humor is a serious business.”
——-William Claude Dukenfield
Posted by luminous beauty on Mar 31, 2007 at 7:00 PM “noticed your reference to Mydixadril. I just got it. 5 groans.”
That was a good one, Arpie!
Thanks for noticing, Luminous Beauty, it went right by me and I never gave it a second glance. And I saw mention of Mydixadril today on another thread so I guess 5 groans is a good score.
I am looking for inspiration here too. I want to elaborate on In the Garden and the tree of knowledge of good and evil and may have a few questions for Tex, but I have to get dinner started now.
So long, fare thee well.
Pip! Pip! Cheerio!
I’ll be back soon.
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Mar 31, 2007 at 10:40 PM Do not confuse faith with religion. Religion is man made. Faith is not. When a person has an abundance of one they usually lack the other.
texasindependent on Mar 30, 2007 at 10:39 AM
Excuse my confusion, but my understanding of the covenant of God is faith is what humans produce and grace is what God produces in kind. Can you clear this up for me?
While particular religions (or religious faiths?) are the production of human culture, generically speaking, religion, in its etymological meaning as ‘that which re-connects’, is something that the religious minded person does (or, at least, attempts), not something that he or she creates. The connectivity of the spirit is eternal and never actually severed except in the limited understanding of the human mind, i.e., knowledge of good and evil. This falling short of perfect understanding (sin, or in the original Greek, hamartia) is overcome by faith, or in a metaphorical sense, by eating of the fruit of the Tree of Life, symbolized in Christian terms as Jesus on the Cross and embodied in the ritual of the Eucharist.
Please forgive me if I have this wrong. I am not a Christian, but am trying to understand Christianity in a sympathetic manner consistent with my own, and necessarily less than perfect, spiritual practice, experience and understanding.
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 1, 2007 at 4:49 PM Blessed Be Who says Truth is God.
Today I was in town for a celebration at the old, but new and improved, Gur Sikh Temple (despite sadly being reported as a road closure) for a reopening ceremony today. May it stand for another 90 some years. Good friends, good people and a good time!
Luminous Beauty, good questions for Tex. I would also ask Tex’s opinion as to why the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and subsequently the tree of life, was forbidden fruit?
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Apr 2, 2007 at 1:02 AM And the people said, Amen. Been a while since Ive checked in ITT, and this seems to be one of the more peaceful forums so I figured I could say hi without getting flamed.
David and LB-either of you ever read ‘Ceremonial Chemistry’ by Thomas Szasz? He makes many great points in this book, including the fact that ‘holy water’ should not be viewed as in any way a distinct class of water such as ‘heavy’ or ‘distilled.’ It is only the ceremony that distinguishes it. I see this as a sort of meta4 for all faith. Some very interesting posts as always guys; hope I have time to add some thoughts of my own on this soon. For now I’ll defer to Jean Paul.
Life has no meaning the moment you lose the illusion of being eternal.-Sartre
Arpie-I heard of Mydixadril before, but ‘liquid viagra’- pour yourself a ‘stiff’’ one still has me cracking up. Can’t believe nobody mentioned it. I’m more an agnostic, as I can somewhat accept an unknown force, as long as it doesn’t-rare-become personal.
Posted by Eric Blair on Apr 2, 2007 at 5:13 AM David
I believe the fruit was forbidden because knowledge of good and evil implies a choice man is ill equipped to make. Adam was without this knowledge because he knew only God. With the introduction of Eve and the serpent, Adam was tempted with his first decision and chose disobedience. Disobedience was the first “sin” and the penalty for sin before Christ was physical death and spiritual exile from the presence of God. Having chosen disobedience in acquiring the knowledge of good and evil man would be undeserving in partaking of the Tree of Life. The interesting thing to note is God was not concerned with the Tree of Life until after the original sin. Having failed the simple commandment “Do not eat of this tree” man would use the power of eternal life and the knowledge of good and evil for his own designs without the wisdom of God to temper his choices.LB
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:”
Ephesians 2:8Faith is a gift from God. Religion is created by man as an expression of faith. The tenets of each religion were created by man. Man by nature is fallible and a sinner. So it is possible to fulfill those tenets to the letter without faith.
Hebrews has a far better explanation than I could ever give.
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. ”
” Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”” But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Hebrews 11:1, 3, 6
Posted by texasindependent on Apr 2, 2007 at 5:49 AM TexMexASS, all those beeble bullshit stories are recycled Arabian legends, the not too bright Hebrews simply stole them from other tribes. You look, read and sound like a lunatic in your posting above.
Get a grip ! Going to talk in tongues next ?
Posted by blondemike on Apr 2, 2007 at 3:47 PM Hi Tex, thanks for your response to my question.
Your answer the fruit was forbidden because knowledge of good and evil implies a choice man is ill equipped to make reminded me of what I wrote earlier upthread; ... to know good and evil ... Knowing good and evil is easy. Knowing which is which can be harder.
You gave a fair answer but I would like to clarify a couple things and ask you another question or two about your understanding of this amazing story In the Garden.
My original question, why the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and subsequently the tree if life, was forbidden fruit? , could have perhaps been clearer if I asked specifically for your opinion on what was God’s motive in forbidding the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?
And, if it’s not jumping too far ahead, why were the trees there at all?
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Apr 2, 2007 at 10:31 PM How about nature ? Existence ? Why do we have to posit a superconsciousness ?
Posted by blondemike on Apr 2, 2007 at 11:41 PM Nature? The world? or some state of being? Because it is our nature to?
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Apr 3, 2007 at 1:02 AM TI,
The ephesians passage is a bit ambiguous, but it seems likely ‘that’ refers to grace rather than faith. The Young’s Literal Translation of the original Greek is even more vague.
The hebrews quote seems to imply that faith is equivalent to man’s diligence and not something that comes from God, which would seem to agree with my understanding that God’s grace is given in measure to human faith generated by devotional practice.
Though, as I say, I am not a professing Christian, this seems to accord with my own experience, although slightly different in that it is experience not predicated on belief, but instead on diligent and abiding objectless faith.
I realize this might be difficult to grasp, but if you have questions, I will gladly try to respond.
I would be interested in what you make of the two definitions of religion I offered, tambien. Do they make any sense to you?
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 3, 2007 at 1:08 AM To be literal I believe Christ is the Son of God. He was born in human flesh. Lived as a man among us. Was crucified and was raised from the dead after three days. Belief in his sacrifice grants salvation and eternal life… And yet I despise organized religion. Is that somehow contradictory? I don’t believe it really is. The only message Christ proclaimed was love your enemies as yourself and to pass this message on to whoever wants to hear the good word. I am a horrible Christian but I have great faith.
“The transliterated Greek text of Eph 2:8 is as follows: te gar chariti este sesosmenoi dia tes pisteos; kai touto ouk ex hymon, Theou to doron”
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God (King James Version; italics in original).
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God (New International Version).
Because of his kindness, you have been saved through trusting Christ. And even trusting is not of yourselves; it too is a gift from God (Living Bible).
The main theological argument over this passage is divided along your questions. Is faith a gift from God or the delivery method of the gift of salvation. The evangelical side believes as you stated, grace is god’s part, faith is ours allowing all to be saved. The conservative side believes faith is a gift which allows us to accept grace allowing only the predetermined salvation. It really depends on the dogma of the particular denomination.Hebrews chapter 11 verse 13 actually supports the conservative viewpoint. ...
“These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.”
This refers to the people that lived and died before Christ but still proclaimed him as the savior. If faith was created by man through hearing the word how could these people have knowledge of Christ to develop faith?
Faith is difficult to understand.David
This debate is timeless and divided. Was it forbidden as the first test of man’s obedience or was it forbidden out of love. Is God a cold remote dictator or a benevolent creator? I believe it was forbidden from love. If you consider Adam lived in paradise with the first naked female until he ate the fruit. Eve was ashamed and put clothes on and we have been trying to get women to take them off ever since.
Posted by texasindependent on Apr 3, 2007 at 5:02 AM TI,
I agree, Tex, faith, particularily in the biblical context, is difficult to understand. Grace, too.
I think it is safe to say your particular religion is Christianity. Apparently, you’re just dissatisfied with the various denominations. What does communion mean to you?
Can you imagine having faith without clinging to a singular and particular religious belief?
My good friend, Dan, a devoted Christian, has cited Hebrews 11:13 as meaning non-Christians can be saved by living in the spirit of love. I don’t think he is a conservative. He is working for Dennis Kucinich.
I confess that I understand faith to be an intrinsic characterisic of being human, which, I suppose, could mean it was originally given by God, but not a ‘special’ gift, like grace, for believing in Christ.
Unadorned by religious belief, I understand faith to mean something like the will to persist against all obstacles, or not being turned aside by distraction, or, even perhaps, letting things be what they are without prior judgement.
It is through the diligent cultivation of that intrinsic faith, applied to simply and quietly observing our natural mind, that our intrinsic potential for compassionate wisdom (love) and mental clarity (grace) arises naturally of itself.
No belief, no words, no cleaving to any particular religion, no Divine Intervention required.
Is that too difficult to understand?
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 3, 2007 at 1:44 PM TexASS, you believe in the Resurrection, eh ? I have a great deal on five Bay bridges for you, just 10% down and easy financing.
Loony, how does one observe one’s own mind ? I mean short of losing it ..........................
I believe in a much greater God named Ayn Rand and a real Bible called Atlas Shrugged.
Posted by blondemike on Apr 3, 2007 at 3:19 PM Hi Tex, thanks again for responding. I am not a very good Christian either. Sometimes I worry about a lightning bolt from the heavens to strike me down for my heresies. And that this doesn’t happen is further proof of a loving and forgiving God.
It seems you get what I am driving at when you ask Was it forbidden as the first test of man’s obedience or was it forbidden out of love? Is God a cold remote dictator or a benevolent creator?
I believe God loves us and forbid the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil because it is deadly (in the same way that a parent tells their child not to drink any of the stuff under the sink). But, eat of the fruit Adam and Eve did and they were changed and hid themselves. Before they knew only life but after eatting the forbidden fruit they knew good and evil (and just like the poison under the sink this knowledge made them sick). This, in my opinion, was the sin; knowledge of good and evil.
Consider the poison under the sink; if your child drank some poison would you want to make them well again or punish them for disobedience? While disobedience may have led to the child being sick it was not disobedience which made them sick ... it was the poison itself. Punishing the child for the disobedience does not make the sick child well again.
So Adam and Eve were banned from the Garden of Eden, not as punishment, but because if they were to now eat from the tree of life they would be sinful and sick forever. So out into the world they go with pain and hardship to guide them while God worked on the antidote for the sin.
That antidote is Jesus Christ.
And in another garden, the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus made us well.
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Apr 3, 2007 at 4:37 PM I agree completely David. Beautifully spoken. Thank God for the antidote.
LB
I would be considered a diest as I don’t share the Word unless interest is shown and dont have a religious sect that I endorse. Evangelical refers “winning” which implies a wide range of active conversion efforts. Your friend Dan’s politics and religious beliefs are in harmony. Despite the belief that evangelical Christianity is somehow tied to politics the term simply means a Christian who actively seeks to covert others to Christ.“What does communion mean to you?” I commune with God constantly. I don’t need a particular place or time to feel his presence and love. I love to hunt and to be in the wild. I look at his glorious creation and cannot help but be amazed and humbled at the infinite complexity of it. Communion is communication with our creator and it requires no intervention or assistance.
“No belief, no words, no cleaving to any particular religion, no Divine Intervention required.”
I understand the concept as you describe it but without Divine intervention it is a creation of man and flawed. I would point out that grace is given by God for the freely given sacrifice of Christ. Man cannot offer himself salvation for his sins. Only the fulfiller of the Law, Christ can offer forgiveness and salvation. Love in and of itself cannot offer mankind redemption. It requires faith in Christ first. Peace constructed by man is not possible. We are in a spiritual war and that reflects in the physical world. Yin and Yang, good and evil these are true and valid concepts that affect the physical world we live in. The only path to peace lies in the Divine. I hope we find that path. My sword is ready to be beaten into a plowshare.
I hope I don’t offend as that is not my intention. I respect the beliefs or disbelief of others as I expect the same respect. I pray you find the truth you seek.
Posted by texasindependent on Apr 3, 2007 at 6:31 PM TI,
The truth is in the seeking. It truly is cultivating an open and seeking mind.
“I understand the concept as you describe it but without Divine intervention it is a creation of man and flawed.”
Undivided mindfulness arises naturally without effort, so it cannot be manmade. It is not made at all. It has neither beginning nor end. If you believe in Nature’s God then it comes from God, but one need not believe in God nor Christ nor cleave to any system of belief for it to arise in one’s mind.
Understanding the concept is not sufficient. Concepts are an obstacle whose seeming solidity and tangibility one must first overcome and ultimately abandon. When one gets the message, one hangs up the phone. One must experience undivided mindfulness directly and put it into practice, repeatedly, to have genuine understanding.
Undivided mindfulness is divine and flawless. A gem of unsurpassable value. Although, in the limited human understanding it is redemptive, its real value is not salvation, but liberation. The original nature of the mind has neither physical nor conceptual boundaries.
This seems to me to be in perfect accord with Jesus’ injunction to “Seek the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
I appreciate your notion of communion with God, and with Nature most assuredly, but what I was getting at is communion with one’s fellow ordinary suffering mortal beings, spiritually speaking.
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 3, 2007 at 7:49 PM Wow-I havent had time to add to this great discussion here but hopefully soon will. In the meantime have really enjoyed reading it. Hope it continues. Some interesting insights.-Arpie
Posted by recursive prophet on Apr 3, 2007 at 8:05 PM Yeah, man, virtual heavyosity…............outside of a lunatic asylum where could you go to read such a conglomeration of epistemological no-mindism ? HHHEEEAAAVVYYY…..............
Posted by blondemike on Apr 3, 2007 at 11:35 PM Well, Mike, your last was better than your previous comments.
It is nice to see you try to be friendly (and funny).
That was a good effort (I laughed).What makes you human, Mike?
Seriouslyositly.
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Apr 4, 2007 at 12:57 AM All my previous comments WHERE ? I don’t think so, David. But glad you enjoyed it. Loony boony to borrow a ScorpyDoobieAKAMasterBatism is enough to give an aspirin a headache. Your rhetorical question isn’t registering with me. I don’t SEEM anything, I am human.
Posted by blondemike on Apr 4, 2007 at 7:59 PM Mike, not all , just better than your recent previous comments here on this thread. I think so at least but understand if you disagree. Some of your previous comments lack the respect that I feel they should show for others and their beliefs. But I digress ... you already know how I feel about respect.
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Apr 4, 2007 at 10:10 PM Ok, David. I was resorting to the lowest form of humor, sarcasm, earlier.
Posted by blondemike on Apr 4, 2007 at 11:11 PM Yes, Mike. Low.
Have a good weekend, everyone.
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Apr 5, 2007 at 5:03 PM LB
I had dinner with my younger brother who is a member of the Unitarian Church. I showed him your posts and he thinks you might like the teachings of the Unitarians.” Working for justice in our world is a principal way for Unitarian Universalists to express faith. Many people undertake social justice work to show their gratitude for life’s gifts and their commitment to making our world the best place for all.
Depending on their theologies—Jewish, Humanistic, earth-centered, Jesus-centered, Buddhist—individual Unitarian Universalists have different ways of verbalizing their motivations. However, the preciousness of life on earth, as opposed to future life in a far-away paradise, and the inherent worth and dignity of every person with whom we share the planet, emerge as common themes for undertaking social justice work. ”
http://www.uua.org
I have a question for you David. Job was a pawn in a cruel wager between God and Satan, or Job was never in danger of damnation as God knew he would never deny his creator?
Posted by texasindependent on Apr 6, 2007 at 1:48 AM The Unitarians are atheists, my Jewish wife has been a longtime member and in Berkeley alone the membership is 80% Jewish atheists. Tex, I thought your peepul were converting from RCism to
Evangelism a la your Uncle Alberto ? They have Unitarians in TexASS ? Wonders never cease. To answer your last question to David, God, Satan and Job never existed so don’t worry about any “creator” as we were never created. Hatched in your particular case. Your peepul just LOVE their roosters.
Posted by blondemike on Apr 6, 2007 at 3:49 PM Tex, both or neither.
... for God maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
—Matthew 5: 45Job is a great example of faith.
The story of Job also has a parallel with the story we see in the Garden of Eden. Just as Adam and Eve were “good” and walked with God - so Job was a godly man. But as Adam and Eve were tempted and failed to overcome the temptation with faith and were changed by it conversely we see Job tempted but triumphant through his faith and changed by his experience as well.
We were previously talking about Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. Jesus was praying to God and he said “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.” (Matthew 26:39). Temptation overcome by faith in God.
So we see the same lesson in Job. He suffers and wonders at his plight but in his most helpless state he still has faith in God. Ah ... suffering. We are all content to see people suffer for things they do wrong but are not so happy when we are the wrongdoers suffering.
More importantly the story of Job reminds us again of the suffering of Jesus, not because Jesus was a wrongdoer, but because by suffering and having faith it reveals that God is true and Satan is a liar. This is the primary lesson in the story of Job. Satan stood before God and accused Job (and other men) of only loving God because of God’s blessing in their life. And just as Job suffered and proved Satan wrong so Jesus did the same and vindicated God.
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Apr 6, 2007 at 6:17 PM David, you are talking about fictional people. The beeble is genocidal, pornographic crap and mostly recycled Arabian legends as Engels noted. Jesus never existed, never had a virgin mama, never performed miracles and in the unlikely event he was crucified never resurrected from the dead. What you and TacoCon are talking about is pure fantasy and even inferior fiction. If I wrote about widgets it would make as much sense. I know that LSD is great but you gotta come down or you’ll end in the LDS speaking in tongues as the unluminous antibeauty is now doing in the dialogue of the insane that she is having with wicky woo. We live in the 21st century and we can’t be getting our epistemology and ethics from a bareassed stinky Hebe tribe of 2,000 years ago steeped in ignorance. No god, no satan, no heaven, no hell. Be a mensch and face it, David.
Posted by blondemike on Apr 6, 2007 at 10:43 PM David
Job also speaks to the question of faith from hearing the word versus faith as a gift. Job in Chapter 19 verse 22….......“Oh that my words were written! Oh that they were inscribed in a book! Oh that with an iron pen and lead that they were graven in the rock forever! For I know my Redeemer lives and at last he will stand upon the earth; and after my skin has been thus destroyed, then from my flesh I shall see God.”
As Job walked long before the prophets he could not have heard the Word.
I had never considered the parallels between Job and Christ until you pointed them out. It brings to mind another question. In Job God asks Satan where he had been and he said ” From going to and fro on the earth, and walking up and down on it.” and in Matthew chapter 4 when Christ is tempted in the wilderness Satan takes him to a mountaintop and shows him all the kingdoms of Earth and he said to him “All these I will give you if you will fall down and worship me.”
The question this leads me to is…Does this world belong to Satan? How is it possible to “give” anything to Christ unless it was owned by the Deciever. And in Job he is walking the Earth. How could he walk the Earth unless granted dispensation from the Creator?
BM
You will find out soon enough you old geezer. But look on the bright side you will get to smoke turds in hell with Adolf.
Posted by texasindependent on Apr 7, 2007 at 7:07 PM Tex, indeed, Satan may have God’s dispensation to go to and fro on the earth but ...
The earth is the LORD’s, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.
—Psalm 24:1Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?
—Isaiah 66:1... the world belongs to God, not Satan.
When Satan tempted Jesus and offered the kingdoms of the world in return for worship from Jesus it was a deception with a cunning lie posed as truth. Satan was hoping for a redux of the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve and expected Jesus to be another son of man he could once again tempt into spiritual corruption.
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Apr 8, 2007 at 6:07 PM Right, TexASS, ooooohhhhh I’m sooooo afraid….............
David, I thought you much more intelligerent than your Christer Culter Jumping JEEZEZ horsepuckey above indicates…........
Posted by blondemike on Apr 9, 2007 at 5:28 PM Hello All… interesting conversation. The use of the word “Religion” caught my eye.
“Religion” is a Western concept and to apply to a Dharma or Dhamma is not apt. Whereas Religion requires belief, a Dharma is intitatory so as to enable a “seeing for oneself”, unencumbered by belief. Faith is definitely not part of a Dharma.
Pan-Indian approaches to “seeing for oneself” understand and acknowledge the limitations of thought/word. It is considered that Meditation is a closer approach than thought/word. However, “Meditation” is not an Eastern word and is not really apt when describing the methods of Yoga, Vedanta and Buddha’s Teaching.
“Dhyana” and “Samadhi” are the words which are usually translated as Meditation. As the root of “Meditation” is ‘measure’, this is not quite what Yoga, Vedanta and Buddha are pointing to. Objective measurement is an illusion, and the subject-object duality must ultimately be transcended (Samadhi).
Pan-Indian approaches to “seeng for oneself” regard merely intellectual approaches to knowledge as deficient. The emphasis is on the practise of “Meditation”; that is, Dhyana and Samadhi.
What does it take to see to one’s own depths… deeper than thought, deeper than memory, deeper than dreams… to the very end of possibility. Its true that what’s seen depends on the viewer and that the viewer changes as s/he moves into the deep. What might be seen at the deep and who would be watching then? And when this turns towards the world, what would be seen?
The above paragraph is an approximation of the orientation of Pan-Indian approaches to “seeing for oneself”. And when the subject-object duality is transcended then to describe the “vision” in common terms is definitely an Art. How could it be otherwise?
Posted by sandalwood on Apr 10, 2007 at 1:30 AM Sandalwood, welcome!
... seeing for oneself ...
I like it and live it. I am a congregation of one.
Some people see the same yet be differently.
Some people be differently yet see the same.
I don’t know how it could be otherwise either.
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Apr 10, 2007 at 2:13 AM Welcome indeed. I have been meaning to write a long reply to this thread but alas, time flies. Your observations are intriguing, Sandalwood. Hope to hear more from you. Have you ever done the exercise with the candle and the mirror? To see you ‘real’ face? Tried that both on and off acid years ago. It was quite trippy either way. I positioned the candle so all I could see was my face. I was in a very isolated spot in the Florida Everglades, yet still use white noise to nullify any audio shifts.
After staring without blinking-this is crucial and easier than it sounds-for one half hour at your own face one foot away in a totally dark room wearing a black turtleneck, some interesting illusions occur. What I remember most vividly was the out of body experience where I was in the mirror looking at my 3 dimensional self.
Tex I have wanted-reading this thread-to express kudos for not responding to your personal Dr. Moriarty’s jibes. Now if he were to show up and use his substantial wit to add constructively to this topic, Ill consider this thread truly miraculous.
David-another succinct gem. But it is interesting to be reminded that there are far more intellectual approaches to spirituality than are on offer in Christianity and Islam. I once told my daughter that in a room full of people all wearing the same clothes I could convince even a well informed Christian that I was a pastor in the Methodist Church. But I couldnt claim to be a Yogi master, for they can display physical attainments that I lack.
I remember this as I consider it one of the few undeniable benefits I have observed to be gained from faith in the transcendental. Heidegger was a major influence. Only to the degree that you can realize your potential for non-being can you actualize your potential for being in the world. Life is a trip; travel light. Anticipation of an eternity to figure it all out and what your life meant means you can just kick back and be entertained by it all in the here-and-now. Hmm. Not a bad plan. Me, Im not a gambler. I want to garner as many answers as I can now, cause it is my fondest wish I have a very limited amount of time to do so. 70 years arent enough; eternity is WAY too long. That might be the real pay-off with meditation. You could just check out for a few million years.
Read The Last Answer by Asimov. One of his many great short stories. Part of it concerns an atheist who finds himself still conscious after dying. It makes the point about thinking eternal thoughts-all his focus was on how to end it.
Posted by recursive prophet on Apr 10, 2007 at 4:19 AM “But it is interesting to be reminded that there are far more intellectual approaches to spirituality than are on offer in Christianity and Islam.”
Arpie, the intellect and spirituality rests within the individual.
(I+you=we) is who (I+you=we) are and (I+you=we) will be who (I+you=we) will to be.
Adding + him or + her is what makes it more complicated than a broad stroke with a paint brush.I was born into a Mennonite family yet I can make a claim to being a yogi too (not a master by any definition). And I study, meditate, chant and pray too. All of these different influences in my life make me who I am (and different influences make you who you are and everyone else too). I am quite certain that just like fingerprints or DNA there is no one else quite like me or you or anyone else.
“Only to the degree that you can realize your potential for non-being can you actualize your potential for being in the world.”
Certainly, remember the story of Adam and Eve? When they ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil they learned the difference between non-being and being. Before they ate the fruit they were being and didn’t even know it!
Just like breathing in and breathing out ... the breath of life.
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Apr 10, 2007 at 5:26 AM Hi again gang, been incommunicado a while. Looks like I missed a lot of cool blab.
I wonder, when you dig right down to the core (which ain’t easy, with all the history and culture accreting over the centuries, all the translating and intellectualizing and editing we obsess over), are you not left with the spotlight focused upon how your life is lived as the central issue? I mean by that, the real-life thoughts, words, and actions that come forth from you, as well as their effects upon other people?
I can’t help but feel that that’s what Yeshua was really concerned with, more so than whether one’s “take” on the scriptures was perfectly correct, or whether all the various forms and rituals were carried out in precisely the right fashion. Seems like he relativized aspects of Jewish worship that had been considered cosmicly strict, in favor of pushing generosity, kindness, forgiveness, and harmlessness as evidence of alignment with God. Not to say he thought ritualistic propriety was all crap, that would be going way too far (like confirming the use of “Son of God” in reference to himself was considered by the religious authorities of Jerusalem as going WAY too far!). But, it does seem to me that such things would have been rather back-burner for him, compared to more concrete issues, like how you treat people in the day-to-day.
Seems like even an atheist could get a handle on that. It would surely be “seeing for oneself” too, reflecting off of Sandalwood’s post, since you can see clearly enough the effects of how you speak and act, how you do business, or regulate your kids, or cope with frustrations, etc. If you don’t choose not to, I guess.
Posted by Kuya on Apr 10, 2007 at 7:56 AM Guys, no one is making sense here. How could one be conscious after death ? It doesn’t matter that you don’t call it “religion” it’s the same old mystical no-mind crap.
David, you are still a Mennonite. It’s like being a Mormon. Or not wearing underwear. Strange, dude. This thread is starting to make as much sense as a George W. Bush speech.
Posted by blondemike on Apr 10, 2007 at 3:09 PM Kuya, how your life is lived is very important. For me, Yeshua is a subject to follow as much as he is an object for veneration.
Mike, yes, I am still a Mennonite but as I grow from day to day I become new things too.
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Apr 10, 2007 at 3:53 PM Thanks for the welcome… there are some very well considered points of view on this thread. Its heartening to see that.
Barbara, your article is very, very good. I intend to pass it along to many others.
As for Yoga, I like what Joseph Campbell once said: “In the broadest sense of the word, Yoga is any technique which serves to link consciousness to the absolute truth.”
Words can point to, but never define absolutely.
David Bohm once wrote: “If thought is only part of the whole, can it ever contain the whole?”
Even though self/world will always lie beyond the grasp of thought and word, its still very easy to know how one must be in this world, how one must live life. The process of uncovering self and world continues as long as one has not become caught in some mental map of self/world.
“No-Mind” is a horrible translation of what Patanjali is getting at in the Yoga Sutra. This phrase is indeed very odd and repulsive, sounding like some zombie like state. Its not the stopping of thought which is required, but its utter transcendence. Once David Bohm’s point is understood, then transcending thought is seen as a way.
All these words: mysticism, no-mind, religion, faith, meditation are not apt if one wishes to understand what Yoga, Vedanta and Buddha are pointing out.
Posted by sandalwood on Apr 10, 2007 at 4:00 PM This conversation is getting more and more interesting. A decidedly positive departure from the norm.
I’d like to elaborate on sandalwood’s point about no-mind, and Mikey’s inability to comprehend consciousness as anything more than self-awareness, plus Arpie’s nervous apprehension of eternal life.
Consiousness is more than me experiencing me. It is a continuum of one’s sensate, perceptual and cognitive experience of the world as well as a one’s interactive communication with others. Our discriminating knowledge of the world is not solipistically founded on our individual identities, but predicated on the collective growth of such knowledge reaching back to the beginnings of human linguistic capability and even beyond and within to the fauna, flora and chemical and physical interactions of mineral existence. There is no bright line as to where consciousness begins in time or in space as there is no bright line between conceptual thought and pure sensate experience in our individual brains. This process of developing consciousness, arising like the pure lotus from the mud of unconsciousness, is continuous beyond the participation of each of us in our limited mortal existence. What we contribute, in the least fashion, continues even though we as individuals cease to exist. “Life goes on, within you, and without you.”
By exercizing and developing our natural capabilities of mindful concentration, we can begin to experience the natural momentary gaps in the internal dialogue of thought that we each rely on to re-assert the illusory belief in the separate nature of our individuated consciousness, and in those moments will natuarally arise the unblemished awareness of our innate connectedness to all that is, was, or will be. This connection to the eternal happens not in a conceptual projection of ourselves existing beyond our mortal lives, but entirely in the here and now.
In the end, this does not depend on belief or non-belief in its metaphysical truth or falsehood, but on praxis. To commit to such rigorous praxis, in the beginning, at least, does require a certain dedication of faith. Paradoxically, in order to progress past the many obstacles that naturally arise in one’s praxis and one’s life, one must be willing and able to re-discover over and over, that non-certain faith of beginner’s mind.
Please excuse the didactive character of this post. If I had more time, I’d like to restate it as a series of evocative questions.
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 10, 2007 at 6:29 PM And a shout out to Kaya, for some very perceptive posts.
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 10, 2007 at 6:31 PM It’s KUYA. But don’t worry, there is no way to illuminate your wordsalads so don’t bother trying.
David, cancer can grow from day to day too….....besides I thought you lefties were against growth.
Posted by blondemike on Apr 10, 2007 at 7:13 PM LB: Another of your really great posts. May I quote you in Pentangle? Consciousness is one of the five points in this topic. Ceupraxia and dyspraxia are often hard to distinguish though, are they not? Likely why the Chinese symbol is the same for both.
I sure hope this thread continues the points made so far. So very hard to maintain continuity in forums such as this. As they about getting info on message boards; the odds are often good, but the goods are often odd.—Arpie
Posted by recursive prophet on Apr 10, 2007 at 7:18 PM Mike, don’t be so hard on yourself. You have grown on me and it wouldn’t be the same without you. I have learned so much from you and am forever thankful ... and either hand works for me.
Luminous Beauty, excellent ... you can be didactive anytime you want to. Praxis makes perfect! And, indeed, if one never tries something new, and begins it anew, how will perfection be made better? I hope you find the time to ask some evocative questions (you know how I like questionnaires).
Arpie, distinguishing between eupraxia and dyspraxia can be difficult. What seems a blessing may be a curse but in my experience even curses might have golden linings. I am happy you are enjoying this discussion, as odd as it is at times. It is my hope it continues to grow as well and from my experience, and as Luminous Beauty pointed out, it will be eternal beyond the participation of each of us in our limited mortal existence and arising like the pure lotus from the mud.
(I knew that muddy water was good for something!)
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Apr 11, 2007 at 4:19 AM Arpie,
Quote away. I was wondering which part of that Chinese symbol you would associate with eupraxia and which with dyspraxia. Rather than enter into such dangerous territory, I suppose we should admit there is a goodly part of each in both. Ah, the wonders of recursiveness.
Mikey,
Thank you for your correction. My apologies, Kuya. Mikey, you are the pinch of salt that gives this stew its flavor.
Which provides a neat segue for this quote from Matthew Fox about praxis (thanx to David):
“Wisdom is always taste—in both Latin and Hebrew, the word for wisdom comes from the word for taste—so it’s something to taste, not something to theorize about. “Taste and see that God is good,” the psalm says; and that’s wisdom: tasting life. No one can do it for us. The mystical tradition is very much a Sophia tradition. It is about tasting and trusting experience, before institution or dogma.”
David,
Ditto, what you said about eupraxia and dyspraxia. If we didn’t sometimes stumble, we’d never have much reason to lift ourselves up. How else should we understand the old toast, ‘Here’s to mud in your eye’?
What amazes me about this thread is how it is all pretty much on topic.
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 11, 2007 at 3:13 PM And so it goes ... Kurt Vonnegut was promoted to glory today.
Everything was beautiful, and nothing hurt.
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Apr 12, 2007 at 4:22 AM Even I agree he is likely better off now David, though for very different reasons. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Of all the many writers I have read completely-every book written-he was one of the best. Easily the most Humane. I have just recently turned the son of a close friend onto ole Kurt, and he has become his favorite writer. He will live on, through all the great work he left us and future generations. Farewell Kurt, and thanks for so many enjoyable hours and memories. You will be missed and remembered. And so it goes.
Posted by recursive prophet on Apr 12, 2007 at 4:44 AM “Heaven” ????????????? He’s either cremated or buried in the earth.
Posted by blondemike on Apr 12, 2007 at 8:04 PM Anybody want to explain the joke to poor Mikey? I really haven’t the appetite but to savor the deliciousness of the irony.
Mikey must eat a lot of spinach… in his dreams.
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 13, 2007 at 1:20 AM The irony is delicious but I have the appetite for the explanation as well.
“I am, incidentally, Honorary President of the American Humanist Association, having succeeded the late, great science fiction writer Isaac Asimov in that totally functionless capacity. We had a memorial service for Isaac a few years back, and I spoke and said at one point, ‘Isaac is up in heaven now.’ It was the funniest thing I could have said to an audience of humanists. I rolled them in the aisles. It was several minutes before order could be restored. And if I should ever die, God forbid, I hope you will say, ‘Kurt is up in heaven now.’ That’s my favorite joke.
“How do humanists feel about Jesus? I say of Jesus, as all humanists do, ‘If what he said is good, and so much of it is absolutely beautiful, what does it matter if he was God or not?’
“But if Christ hadn’t delivered the Sermon on the Mount, with its message of mercy and pity, I wouldn’t want to be a human being.
“I’d just as soon be a rattlesnake.”
—Kurt Vonnegut
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Apr 13, 2007 at 2:43 PM No, no, no, no. Please don’t explain your wordsalads, LB ! I can’t really deal with this anymore….....sorry.
Posted by blondemike on Apr 13, 2007 at 4:02 PM Wordsalad for the day:
“Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something.”
—- Plato
Tasty, and full of spinach.
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 13, 2007 at 4:47 PM For TI:
Where was I, Lord, when the foundations of the world were laid? I was a disparate clutch of molecular dust, scattered and unaware, until by machinations so marvelous and arcane that I may never fully grasp them, I am incarnated through a power wholly beyond me. In my groping, halting fashion, I attempt to understand. And although history is unclear and scripture is edited, although religion is by turns inspirational and drenched in the blood of the innocent, I remain humbly thankful for, indeed in awe of, the fact of my minimally significant life and the mysteries I have had the great good fortune to be exposed to, which continue to fascinate me today and always.
Posted by Kuya on Apr 16, 2007 at 6:29 AM LB, it’s apppropriate that an avowed mystic should reference dear Plato, he was a mystic and a totalitarian statist-collectivist like Uncle Noam and your unlovable self. Even David hates you now, he’s just too polite to say so. Kuya, your an intelligent person, KNOCK OFF THIS SPEAKING IN TONGUES CRAP.
Posted by blondemike on Apr 16, 2007 at 7:43 PM Even David hates you now
Not true, Mike.
he’s just too polite to say so.
But you, Mike, are stretching the limits of my politeness.
PS - to Kuya - Posted by Kuya on Apr 16, 2007 at 1:29 AM - great post.
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Apr 16, 2007 at 8:32 PM You just had to say something, didn’t you, Mikey?
Though I have serious reservations about Plato’s philosophy, particularly in respect to his dualistic mystical idealism and the grievous totalitarianism of “The Republic”, the old fart could excrete a decent bon mot occasionally.
Here’s another just for you, Mikey:
“The unexamined life is not worth living.”
—-(attributed to Socrates)
“The secret of love is not in being greatly loved, but in becoming a little more loving.”
—-That’s me.
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 16, 2007 at 8:57 PM Kuya
We were all there when the Master Engineer laid the foundations. We were amazed when he formed order from chaos. We all sang for joy at the creation and for the Creator. Our spirit is, will always be, and always was. Our physical bodies were dust then and to dust they will surely return.The assumption of this physical body separates the spiritual from the flesh and we begin our journey for knowledge. But the more we learn the less we know. The Word is unchangeable. Our understanding and practice of the Word is flawed, edited, and human.
Posted by texasindependent on Apr 16, 2007 at 9:17 PM Oh,Chist, that unexamined quote was tiresome half a century ago as the leftist author Robert Heilbroner admitted in a 1976 interview with Heywood Hale Broun, a fellow pinko.
WHO said you are lovable ????????????
Hey, David, you are starting to annoy me now ! You know what I wrote is true. Let’s cut this bony old narcissist loose, you mind will feel so much better once you get this mental midget fuckup out of it.
Romans:27:23
Posted by blondemike on Apr 16, 2007 at 9:21 PM You know what I wrote is true.
Mike, what you wrote is not true.
And I say Luminous Beauty is lovable - so there.
Even you are lovable, Mike, though it is not as easy to love you.Mike, were you trying to reference something from Romans? It only has 16 chapters. If those numbers are verses they may be backwards and you will have to let us in on which chapter you are referring to.
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Apr 16, 2007 at 10:12 PM David, stop lying, you know very well what I wrote about the unluminous anti-beauty is quite true. You can’t even get your beeble refs straight.
Posted by blondemike on Apr 16, 2007 at 10:40 PM Mike, I am not lying. You are lovable despite your efforts to be unlovable. I love you, so does Jesus and I suspect that Luminous Beauty loves you too (the way a cat loves a mouse).
PS - still waiting for the clarification of your bible reference and if I have made any errors in my references I would appreciate specific instances so I may correct the record.
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Apr 16, 2007 at 11:40 PM David, it’s more complimentary to you to say that your lying but if you REALLY believe the unluminous antibeauty is lovable or that it plays with me the way a cat does a mouse then it’s your sanity I have to question. Seriously.
Posted by blondemike on Apr 16, 2007 at 11:43 PM Okay, Mike, the joke is up.
You gave it away when you questioned my sanity (knowing that you do not believe in mental illness).
But your effort to be complimentary almost brought a tear to my eye (I laughed so hard).
Seriously!
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Apr 17, 2007 at 12:44 AM Belief in “god” makes you human ? I don’t think so. You ARE human, nothing makes you. David, I meant sanity in the sense of reasoned judgment, not in any spurious alleged medical sense as in “mental illness.” Sorry I failed to make that clearer.
Posted by blondemike on Apr 17, 2007 at 4:41 PM Even I love you BM*
” *Offer not valid in conjunction with racist comments and/or hyperbolous nonsensical conspiracy theories. Offer is non-binding and asexual. Offer not valid in the state of confusion associated with mental instability or failure to properly medicate. Offer is not an offer of friendship,admiration, respect, mutual admiration, support, or any associated hugging, touching, or emotional support. Offer may contain carcinogenic material as determined by the State of California. Offer is not an offer but a concerted effort to be a better human. Offer may be returned if the contents of the offer have not been consumed and are returned with a reciept and the UPC seal from the packaging.”
Posted by texasindependent on Apr 17, 2007 at 5:44 PM I don’t read ebonics so can you translate yo’ rap into de english, TexASS beaner boy ?
Posted by blondemike on Apr 17, 2007 at 8:48 PM Hehe-You must be getiin nervous with all this love directed toward you Mike. But don’t worry-I still don’t love you. However, this said I am still in awe of your hutzpa. They turn the other cheek only to get dope-slapped. How very cheeky. You really must know the difference between ebonics and pidgin English. It’s only because Tex knows how you love to write he calls you ‘essay,’ right Tex?
Posted by recursive prophet on Apr 17, 2007 at 10:48 PM He he he thats a good one…...
Mikey is afraid of us. 40 milllion proud, strong, brown and growing. And we still have our cousins that haven’t shown up for the party.
No me llames frijolero,
Pinche gringo puñetero.
Chingado!!
Posted by texasindependent on Apr 18, 2007 at 1:41 AM Mikey,
Don’t ever stop being what you are. You may not be much of a good sport, but you are such a fun sport.
Es un milagro.
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 18, 2007 at 11:01 AM 40 million in your wet dreams, leetle beanerboy ! 40% of the hispanics are out here are whiter than I am. They only check the category box to be considered for quota benefits. RP, can yo’ hinepos translate de ebonics of TexASS ? Otherwise, having trouble with yo’ wordsalad too.
Sorry, unluminous antibeauty, can’t decipher a word yo’ saying. Yo’ bony old tarty assss ain’t be makin’ sense for as long as I can remember…....
Posted by blondemike on Apr 18, 2007 at 3:07 PM ”...can’t decipher a word yo’ saying.”
That’s why I love you, Mikey. It’s your transcendent obliviousness. There are really no words to describe it.
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 18, 2007 at 5:31 PM No, I haven’t begun to reach yo’ permanent state of unconsciousness, o tarty one.
Posted by blondemike on Apr 18, 2007 at 9:28 PM Mikey consults the dictionary and still fails to comprehend.
Delicious with an undefinable tarty kick. What a banquet!
I love it! I love it! I love it!
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 18, 2007 at 10:51 PM Smellin’ yo’ own farts, again ? You love THAT ????????????
Posted by blondemike on Apr 18, 2007 at 11:03 PM Hey! My farts smell much sweeter than the stench exuding from your mouth, little mousie.
Just keep on flaming. I’ve got lots of wieners and marshmallows. Plenty for everybody.
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 18, 2007 at 11:30 PM -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Barbara Ehrenreich
- Reclaiming What Makes Us Human
Through the ages, the killjoys of governing elites have been threatened by public expressions of collective joy - A Lifelong Debt
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1977 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2007 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
