Holy apparition

[Sabrina]

This is truly amazing! You will all become believers now! (this is about a pet)

I must probably put this on another thread as well.

https://getbehindjesus.net/

[Warning: Some people may find the above website offensive. A discussion follows. - Barry]

[Sabrina]

Well, it was against the guidelines to put this on another thread as well, but I sure wanted the "sacred butt waxers" to see this, they would really become believers. I just didn't know what catagorie to put it in....


This is truley amazing! You will all become believers now! (this is about a pet)

I must probably put this on another thread as well.

https://getbehindjesus.net/

[joyfulliving]

This is extremely offensive. Please take this post off of this site! Put it on another thread? Please don't. Elaine


This is truley amazing! You will all become believers now! (this is about a pet)

I must probably put this on another thread as well.

https://getbehindjesus.net/

[wildflower]

I think it is funny!


This is extremely offensive. Please take this post off of this site! Put it on another thread? Please don't. Elaine

[joyfulliving]

Since Barry supports people being HIGHLY DISRESPECTFUL in this way to Jesus I told him that Elaine-Barbara: Neiswender and LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and JOYFUL LIVING CALIFORNIA will not participate on WACCO AT ALL. So if you wonder where our listings went it is because of this post that we withdraw and because Barry supports this utter disrespect for Jesus that I bow out completely! I will not let anyone be THIS DISRESPECTFUL to Jesus and align myself with a site that does this! Nor can I pretend that I did not notice. Also, Barry: Walter Chek asked me to take his name completely off this site as well since his heart belongs to Jesus and will not support either a site that allows disrespect to Jesus. He does not want to be on the Digest or post on here again also. And also Jim Watson wants to be taken off this site as well. No more digests and no more posts for all three of us. Happy Thanksgiving. We are thankful to Jesus on this day. Glad that this disrespect was shown clearly so we could all make it a clear call and remove ourselves. Freedom of religion is a given right. NO ONE on WACCO should ever have any right to be disrespectful of someone elses spiritual path or God! Elaine




This is extremely offensive. Please take this post off of this site! Put it on another thread? Please don't. Elaine

[joyfulliving]

NOT funny at ALL!


I think it is funny!

[bill shearer]

it APPEARS to me that this whole apparition thing is Really funny

[petermargolies]

NOT funny at ALL!

Our virtual community is gonna be that much poorer without the contributions of Elaine. She is a entraordinary person and she and her husband, Jim offer a valuable service to the real community of Graton.
On the other hand, I can't fault Barry for making a difficult call in favor of the First Amendment. The First Amendment, after all, would not be needed if all it was meant to do was to protect those ideas, thoughts and expressions that we all agree on. It exists to protect the right of people to say what others may find offensive in the extreme so that we are free to speak of all those things that fall between these two parameters.
I hope Elaine will reconsider her position under the threory that more can be accomplished by staying with the group and continuing to object rather than leaving the group and becoming silent.

[Barry]

On the other hand, I can't fault Barry for making a difficult call in favor of the First Amendment. The First Amendment, after all, would not be needed if all it was meant to do was to protect those ideas, thoughts and expressions that we all agree on. It exists to protect the right of people to say what others may find offensive in the extreme so that we are free to speak of all those things that fall between these two parameters.It wasn't difficult at all! I thought it was funny too! And my sense is that the bulk of the membership would appreciate the site as well. I thought it was quite tasteful and even respectful, if a gentle poke at the whole apparition thing. :Jesus:

Are you saying Jesus loves everybody, sinner and saint, and is the embodiment of divine Love, but that isn't extended to the rear of one of God's more loving creations? Or as mentioned on the site: "The Lord really is EVERYWHERE!" It's all One!

I should point out that the First Amendment is not the standard I try to uphold here, but rather treating each other with respect as well as a general alignment with progressive values. A sense of humor is also required as well as tolerance/acceptance of all paths to spirit and points of view (including from the rear!)

[rnichols]

What is wrong with a little satire? I'm sure Jesus the man would enjoy the spoof. If you recall, he did get mad as hell at all the phonies in the temple because they were making religion a business. Jesus would have a freaking fit if he could see what has been done under his name. The spoof is not about the "Prince of Peace", the man who taught people to love on another, but it is about the various rackets and scams (such as the apparition game) that various snake oil salesmen (such as Ralph Reed) perpetrate on the innocent. People who are insulted by this should redirect to the nut cases giving Jesus a bad name.

Speaking of poking fun, a very funny man named Alan Clements has a dvd out called Spiritually Incorrect. He is a former Buddhist monk who in a devastatingly funny (and four letter word filled) stand up routine takes on phony forms on Buddism and environmentalism, and the Bush war machine and human rights issues. Check it out unless you are offended by this behind the scenes satire.




It wasn't difficult at all! I thought it was funny too! And my sense is that the bulk of the membership would appreciate the site as well. I thought it was quite tasteful and even respectful, if a gentle poke at the whole apparition thing. :Jesus:

Are you saying Jesus loves everybody, sinner and saint, and is the embodiment of divine Love, but that isn't extended to the rear of one of God's more loving creations? Or as mentioned on the site: "The Lord really is EVERYWHERE!" It's all One!

I should point out that the First Amendment is not the standard I try to uphold here, but rather treating each other with respect as well as a general alignment with progressive values. A sense of humor is also required as well as tolerance/acceptance of all paths to spirit and points of view (including from the rear!)

[cotatikid]

How embarrassing to expose oneself, let alone include others, as so narrow minded, humorless and existing (sort of) as an all around stick-in-the-mud. Keep your blinders on tight. Your being so so sensitive, supposedly, there is no telling what sort of "disrespectful" info you might be contaminated by/with.

Your (and every other) religious faith is built on such a flimsy foundation of fairy tales and hypocrisy, leavened, but contaminated, with greed and intolerance, that it can not bear any dissension, or what you euphemistically call disrespect. You more precisely meant blasphemous or sacrilegious. That is your atavistic opinion and with your primitive mindset, who cares? Ignorance is hugely popular, but defending it is so difficult to countenance and supporting it is impossible.

Anyone can see what they want to see in the dogs anus area. It would be entirely appropriate for the head of Jesus to be represented by the asshole of a mutt, and very artistic also in a remarkably naive way.

[tomcat]

That is one of the funniest things I have seen in a long time!
Truely, I never thought of looking for Jesus THERE!
I guess it's true...he IS everywhere.
I wonder how my dog feels about this...
Tom

[psaltz]

Not disrespectful to me! I loved it, and forwarded it to all of my friends, none of whom objected - far from it, they found it as cute as I did. Some people's belief systems leave no room at all for fun! If you can't laugh, or allow others to, how limited is your life?

Offensive to me is something that actually HURTS someone . . .

Don't take it off this site! If it's offensive to you, just click off of it, scroll down away from it (as I will do to the negative, hurtful replies I may get to this posting), go get some fresh air, and let others enjoy a cute, innocent, funny picture!


This is extremely offensive. Please take this post off of this site! Put it on another thread? Please don't. Elaine

[psaltz]

Hooray, another victory for Freedom of Speech! Thank you, Barry. Thank you, Elaine. I'm sure you're a very nice person otherwise, but you cannot police 1000+ members' minds!



Since Barry supports people being HIGHLY DISRESPECTFUL in this way to Jesus I told him that Elaine-Barbara: Neiswender and LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and JOYFUL LIVING CALIFORNIA will not participate on WACCO AT ALL. So if you wonder where our listings went it is because of this post that we withdraw and because Barry supports this utter disrespect for Jesus that I bow out completely! I will not let anyone be THIS DISRESPECTFUL to Jesus and align myself with a site that does this! Nor can I pretend that I did not notice. Also, Barry: Walter Chek asked me to take his name completely off this site as well since his heart belongs to Jesus and will not support either a site that allows disrespect to Jesus. He does not want to be on the Digest or post on here again also. And also Jim Watson wants to be taken off this site as well. No more digests and no more posts for all three of us. Happy Thanksgiving. We are thankful to Jesus on this day. Glad that this disrespect was shown clearly so we could all make it a clear call and remove ourselves. Freedom of religion is a given right. NO ONE on WACCO should ever have any right to be disrespectful of someone elses spiritual path or God! Elaine

[Merrilyn]

Since Barry supports people being HIGHLY DISRESPECTFUL in this way to Jesus I told him that Elaine-Barbara: Neiswender and LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and JOYFUL LIVING CALIFORNIA will not participate on WACCO AT ALL. Random personal thoughts sparked by this volley:

My mother was a practical woman yet she enrolled me in Sunday school one week before my second birthday. The Christian teachings were both basic and sophisticated. The first thing I remember was this deceptively simple diddy:

"There's not a spot
where God is not!"

That "not a spot" can cover a whole lot of ground and take a life time to realize.

Years later I met Swami Muktananda who liked to say, "See God in each other." Hmmm. Difficult unless one looks beyond superficial to essence. (Much of our "behavior" doesn't seem particularly Godlike.) So, I aspire to 'address' behavior while 'recognizing' essence.

I think the Bible says something like "Resist not evil....." (practically speaking, 'Bless your enemy and you rob him of his ammunition.') And in Aikido, resistance to an attack gives power to the force being resisted. Whoa! (Counterattack, whining, being a victim, judgement, blame, shame, even denial and insensitivity are forms of resistance that make matters worse.)

Then there is a Chinese proverb that says, "Humor is having a sense of proportion." Something I appreciate about Yoga is it's 'sense of proportion', as in, "To find enlightenment one must lighten up!"

I have judgements, reactions, likes and dislikes but more and more I'm seeing those thoughts and reactions as mental pollution that contribute to the toxins threatening life manifested in it's many forms on earth - so I try not to give those thoughts much power.

So where's the rub? If there's not a spot where God is not (therefore dog butts, and so-called religious do-gooders are also part of God); if we see God in each other - not in their behavior (Bush and Cheney come to mind as challenges); if we don't meet attack with counter attack (but use the attacker's energy to send them to the mat unharmed); if we lighten up to BE the LIGHT (not take our ego identities sooo seriously); and if we "judge not, lest we be judged" then......do we need to redefine what it means to have fun?

Merrilyn (with extra time to have fun since this is BUY NOTHING DAY)

[donallan]

Wow, this is priceless. I don't think "Freedom of religion" actually means one cannot be "disrespectful" to other people's beliefs (i.e., "believe differently"). Perhaps worshiping in the wrong religion disrespects others, too? I certainly respect people's right to choose with whom and with what web sites they wish to associate-- however, is seems that to judge and make others right or wrong to justify the decision seems to be the same "disrespect."

When will we ever just let each other have our opinions, our fun, our dogs, and our choice of Gods, without anybody having to be wrong??!! So-called "Terrorists" flew planes into the Twin Towers believing that they were being "disprespected" in regards to their choice of gods. (Of course, others believe that the towers were set with explosives by our own religeous/political terrorists, but that is another story).

Until we leave each other alone, and quit making others wrong for having different mythologies, beliefs, opinions, cute jokes, and religious loyalties, we are at war. Peace in our hearts and peace in our world will only come when we accept everyone's reality, without judgment or anger, and then simply choose where and with whom we wish to associate.

Besides, didn't the sage point out that "God" is "dog" backwards??!

Whew. That is my story tonight.

Allan

Dedicated to encouraging the Dream of Heaven on Earth.
www.joydancer.com (https://joydancer.com)
OR
Read "THE PERFECT DREAM" here (https://www.joydancer.com/pdf/ThePerfectDream.pdf)

[Juggledude]

Random personal thoughts sparked by this volley:

My mother was a practical woman yet she enrolled me in Sunday school one week before my second birthday. The Christian teachings were both basic and sophisticated. The first thing I remember was this deceptively simple diddy:

"There's not a spot
where God is not!"

That "not a spot" can cover a whole lot of ground and take a life time to realize.

Years later I met Swami Muktananda who liked to say, "See God in each other." Hmmm. Difficult unless one looks beyond superficial to essence. (Much of our "behavior" doesn't seem particularly Godlike.) So, I aspire to 'address' behavior while 'recognizing' essence.

I think the Bible says something like "Resist not evil....." (practically speaking, 'Bless your enemy and you rob him of his ammunition.') And in Aikido, resistance to an attack gives power to the force being resisted. Whoa! (Counterattack, whining, being a victim, judgement, blame, shame, even denial and insensitivity are forms of resistance that make matters worse.)

Then there is a Chinese proverb that says, "Humor is having a sense of proportion." Something I appreciate about Yoga is it's 'sense of proportion', as in, "To find enlightenment one must lighten up!"

I have judgements, reactions, likes and dislikes but more and more I'm seeing those thoughts and reactions as mental pollution that contribute to the toxins threatening life manifested in it's many forms on earth - so I try not to give those thoughts much power.

So where's the rub? If there's not a spot where God is not (therefore dog butts, and so-called religious do-gooders are also part of God); if we see God in each other - not in their behavior (Bush and Cheney come to mind as challenges); if we don't meet attack with counter attack (but use the attacker's energy to send them to the mat unharmed); if we lighten up to BE the LIGHT (not take our ego identities sooo seriously); and if we "judge not, lest we be judged" then......do we need to redefine what it means to have fun?

Merrilyn (with extra time to have fun since this is BUY NOTHING DAY)

Marrilyn,

I think I'd like to know you better! Your words truly echo in my heart and mind, the bringing multiple complimentary viewpoints to bear on the single issue of non-judgment, of allowing and perceiving beauty (god) in others while separately addressing their actions. Thank you for this fresh breath of air in a thread which started to swing like a pendulum, with cries of outrage from both sides of the issue.

Do as thou wilt, an it harm none.

Blessed Be,

Royce

[Sabrina]

Wow! I feel like I've won a prize:woohoo:with my winning little Goddog apparition that has made me a true believer! :worship: ( I'll have to share this thread with the friend from Hawaii who shared the holy little hole with me! And If she sends me more enlightening inspirations this goddog good, I'll be sharing it here again. But I'm so saddened that the woman who calls herself "Joyfulliving living" and who started such a lovely sounding nonprofit organization as "Love your neighbor", (a phrase right out of the bible, I believe) was not able to love our little pooch with his lovely little apparition! (let alone, I'm sure, not able to love me either, as the one who shared this bit of [en] light[ed] heart [edness] (however you want to see/read that)). I really liked what I'd heard about the "love your neighbor" place, and all the help she asked for, and most certainly received from this community, and her reports of helping folks in need, and the garden and :bgrphug:all sounded great. But I'm affeared that she may not really love all her neighbors! Oh, my. What will the holy mother of Jesus think about that? I'm sorry Joyfulliving, if I have offended you and given you something not very joyful to feel toward your neighbors. But, I'll have you know, truthfully, that t'was shear joy that was coming from my heart when I shared the delightful little doggies apparition of the [his] holyness with all. I knew, in that instant, like a commandment from the great spirit itself, I must share this with the wacco community! Yes! :dox:


Since Barry supports people being HIGHLY DISRESPECTFUL in this way to Jesus I told him that Elaine-Barbara: Neiswender and LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and JOYFUL LIVING CALIFORNIA will not participate on WACCO AT ALL. So if you wonder where our listings went it is because of this post that we withdraw and because Barry supports this utter disrespect for Jesus that I bow out completely! I will not let anyone be THIS DISRESPECTFUL to Jesus and align myself with a site that does this! Nor can I pretend that I did not notice. Also, Barry: Walter Chek asked me to take his name completely off this site as well since his heart belongs to Jesus and will not support either a site that allows disrespect to Jesus. He does not want to be on the Digest or post on here again also. And also Jim Watson wants to be taken off this site as well. No more digests and no more posts for all three of us. Happy Thanksgiving. We are thankful to Jesus on this day. Glad that this disrespect was shown clearly so we could all make it a clear call and remove ourselves. Freedom of religion is a given right. NO ONE on WACCO should ever have any right to be disrespectful of someone elses spiritual path or God! Elaine

[Sabrina]

p.s. And, yes, my late grandmother, may she rest in peace, who was a devout christian, always tought me that God IS everywhere. And, I do respect Jesus' teachings and those that believe in him... and I was also always taught by my Jewish late Grandmother, who's also resting in peace, (if she's not laughing to hard at this) to take life with a dose of humor...and, I was also taught by my pagan Mother (who's not late and is probably resting peacefully asleep in bed at the moment) to be open to the different paths that see the same truth at the end of the tunnel which may be the same truth for all, with all the different paths that lead there ( like a great octopus, or maybe a great spider at the center of a web, or all the veins leading to the heart!).


Wow! I feel like I've won a prizeimages/NewSmilies/woohoo.gifwith my winning little Goddog apparition that has made me a true believer! images/NewSmilies/worship.gif ( I'll have to share this thread with the friend from Hawaii who shared the holy little hole with me! And If she sends me more enlightening inspirations this goddog good, I'll be sharing it here again. But I'm so saddened that the woman who calls herself "Joyfulliving living" and who started such a lovely sounding nonprofit organization as "Love your neighbor", (a phrase right out of the bible, I believe) was not able to love our little pooch with his lovely little apparition! (let alone, I'm sure, not able to love me either, as the one who shared this bit of [en] light[ed] heart [edness] (however you want to see/read that)). I really liked what I'd heard about the "love your neighbor" place, and all the help she asked for, and most certainly received from this community, and her reports of helping folks in need, and the garden and images/NewSmilies/bgrouphug.gifall sounded great. But I'm affeared that she may not really love all her neighbors! Oh, my. What will the holy mother of Jesus think about that? I'm sorry Joyfulliving, if I have offended you and given you something not very joyful to feel toward your neighbors. But, I'll have you know, truthfully, that t'was shear joy that was coming from my heart when I shared the delightful little doggies apparition of the [his] holyness with all. I knew, in that instant, like a commandment from the great spirit itself, I must share this with the wacco community! Yes! :dox:

[Evalena Rose]

Barry,
Please get this thread out of General Community. I find it so distasteful on all levels and am tired of having it in my daily digest!
Thanks, Evalena

[rnichols]

Please don't end this thread. The world will be a better place when people realize religous belief is a a poor replacement for living and loving life. As the famous song goes "I don't care if it rains or freezes, long as I have my plastic Jesus glued to the dashboard of my car".

Elaine and Evalena, please let us have our little joke, it really isn't hurting anyone.


Barry,
Please get this thread out of General Community. I find it so distasteful on all levels and am tired of having it in my daily digest!
Thanks, Evalena

[kimpeck]

OH FER..
Read (re-read) "Stranger in a Strange Land" Robert A. Heinlien, 1962.. "THOU ART GOD!!" Read yer Old Testament.. It is ALL the God of Abraham!! Christer, Jew, Moslem.. As Carlin sez.. "My imaginary being can beat up your imaginary being!!" god is a creation of man, making the mystery of god a shallow one.. The true mystery is the Nature of Man!! THE UNIVERSE does not care if you live or die, are sad or happy.. In fact YOU may be the universe and the cause of all you own problems.. My faith is Personal Responsibility.. YOU are responsible, YOU!! Be well. Share. Love. Laugh. Beer is proof the god loves us and wants us to be happy!!

smoke a bowl for world peace!!
Kimpeck

[rnichols]

Awright, Kimpeck has gone too far suggesting beer is the nector of the gods. Everboddy knows its WINE. END THIS THREAD IMMEDIATELY. I will not have wine DISRESPECTED!!!


OH FER..
Read (re-read) "Stranger in a Strange Land" Robert A. Heinlien, 1962.. "THOU ART GOD!!" Read yer Old Testament.. It is ALL the God of Abraham!! Christer, Jew, Moslem.. As Carlin sez.. "My imaginary being can beat up your imaginary being!!" god is a creation of man, making the mystery of god a shallow one.. The true mystery is the Nature of Man!! THE UNIVERSE does not care if you live or die, are sad or happy.. In fact YOU may be the universe and the cause of all you own problems.. My faith is Personal Responsibility.. YOU are responsible, YOU!! Be well. Share. Love. Laugh. Beer is proof the god loves us and wants us to be happy!!

smoke a bowl for world peace!!
Kimpeck

[Barry]

Barry,
Please get this thread out of General Community. I find it so distasteful on all levels and am tired of having it in my daily digest!
Thanks, EvalenaYou can remove just this thread (or any thread) from your Daily Digest (or stop individual emails) quite easily! Click here for directions. (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?t=14845) And it will be even easier in the coming upgrade.

I will move this thread to WaccoTalk tomorrow (and I invite you all to continue there!). To set your subscription level to WaccoTalk, click here! (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/subscription.php?do=addsubscription&f=2)

I have removed Elaine's registration per her request.

[OrchardDweller]

I agree with you and find your reply a respectful one.
Some of the replies to Elaine's objection here are not respectful at all though: "good riddance" etc. Not cool.
I'm sad Elaine decided not to use Wacco anymore..


Our virtual community is gonna be that much poorer without the contributions of Elaine. She is a entraordinary person and she and her husband, Jim offer a valuable service to the real community of Graton.
On the other hand, I can't fault Barry for making a difficult call in favor of the First Amendment. The First Amendment, after all, would not be needed if all it was meant to do was to protect those ideas, thoughts and expressions that we all agree on. It exists to protect the right of people to say what others may find offensive in the extreme so that we are free to speak of all those things that fall between these two parameters.
I hope Elaine will reconsider her position under the threory that more can be accomplished by staying with the group and continuing to object rather than leaving the group and becoming silent.

[DCDarling]

From my point of view, the transgression was not the subject matter, it was that such a piss-poor joke was on WaccoBB AT ALL! I get plenty of stupid jokes from other friends, which I generally appreciate not at all, either. I don't think this BB is the correct place for jokes, unless Barry makes a Jokes section. Please don't waste my time...
Or maybe it's just that my feelings were hurt when I found Spiderman on a crenshaw melon at Andy's last summer and nobody cared. Nobody even laughed. So please take your dog's ass and put it....
D

[Sonomamark]

I've held off, but I think I want to weigh in on this thread. See, the problem is: everybody's right.

Barry's right that this crude joke is sort of funny. Part of what makes it funny is that it's so "wrong", after years of hearing about people travelling thousands of miles to prostrate themselves before trees, loaves of bread and tacos that they think look like Jesus, Mary, or some other high-status religious figure (though this seems to be a largely Catholic phenomenon).

And the people who were offended are right. Because they come out of religious traditions that don't allow adherents to laugh at the religion and its high-status figures. So they think doing so is blasphemous. To them, it is.

This is an unresolvable conflict. To those whose beliefs include appropriateness (or even a requirement) to laugh at yourself, those who are offended need to loosen up and get over themselves. To those who adhere to religions that take themselves Very Very Seriously, this is an appalling breach.

Personally, I believe that an inability or unwillingness to laugh at the things you hold most sacred is not only an unhealthily prunefaced way of engaging this paradoxical and sometimes ridiculous world, it is a keystone in the structure of the kind of cultish zealotry that leads to "holy" wars, inquisitions, pogroms, purges, massacres, forced conversions and Christian rock, all of which, well, I think it speaks for itself how awful they are.

But that's just me. I don't think there is one, but if there were some kind of self-aware interventionist creative/destructive Entity up/out there (or suffusing everything--I'm trying to be as encompassing as possible), I cannot imagine that s/he/it wouldn't find all this scurrying about of the temporary little human ants and the importance we ascribe to said scurryings really, really funny.

My point is that there is no operating policy which can resolve this breach. Fundamentalists of any stripe will find jokes like the one posted here violently offensive. Those who don't share their religions will find this an amusing overreaction.

It comes down to what gets you off. If you most get off on the moral superiority of being offended, that's what you'll go for. If you like a good chuckle at the absurdity of it all, for that. But Barry can't find a sweet-spot policy that will meet both worldviews, and we shouldn't expect him to try.

[oldrose]

Hi all, I have been reading this thread and although I am not offended by this site I have found it very interesting. Just as a study of social mores and attitudes. I find it interesting that although this is offensive to many it has not been censored as the rant of a person recently that was taken off the site because of their offensive language and bigoted attitude. It just makes me wonder if there should be a place or a heading for things like this that do not include censorship. I know that Craig’s list rants are ok they just have a place for rants and people know they can go there if they feel that they need a dose of that in their day. I just can't think that people just do not have to listen or read what is offensive to them. The biggest offense is being censored.
Tree

p.s. And, yes, my late grandmother, may she rest in peace, who was a devout christian, always tought me that God IS everywhere. And, I do respect Jesus' teachings and those that believe in him... and I was also always taught by my Jewish late Grandmother, who's also resting in peace, (if she's not laughing to hard at this) to take life with a dose of humor...and, I was also taught by my pagan Mother (who's not late and is probably resting peacefully asleep in bed at the moment) to be open to the different paths that see the same truth at the end of the tunnel which may be the same truth for all, with all the different paths that lead there ( like a great octopus, or maybe a great spider at the center of a web, or all the veins leading to the heart!).

[wildflower]

I just wanted to say that sonomamark's comments on this issue ring true for me and are very well stated.....a wise approach...especially this part on the risk and danger of taking your religious beliefs too seriously!

"Personally, I believe that an inability or unwillingness to laugh at the things you hold most sacred is not only an unhealthily prunefaced way of engaging this paradoxical and sometimes ridiculous world, it is a keystone in the structure of the kind of cultish zealotry that leads to "holy" wars, inquisitions, pogroms, purges, massacres, forced conversions and Christian rock, all of which, well, I think it speaks for itself how awful they are."

Thank YOU
wildflower



I've held off, but I think I want to weigh in on this thread. See, the problem is: everybody's right.

...

[sheryl]

Merrilyn,

Your thoughts have sparked a spark on this grey day with time to read and reflect. Thankyou for sharing--it hit the spot.

Sheryl


Random personal thoughts sparked by this volley:

My mother was a practical woman yet she enrolled me in Sunday school one week before my second birthday. The Christian teachings were both basic and sophisticated. The first thing I remember was this deceptively simple diddy:

"There's not a spot
where God is not!"...

[rnichols]

Thanks to everyone who has reponded to this "controversy". I've enjoyed all of it, from the offendees to the offenders, and the voices who think this is a monumental waste.

From the beginning I've understood this to be a satire having nothing at all to do with Jesus, but with the charletens in whatever religion, who exploit apparitions, promises of heaven, riches on earth, being saved, having a 1000 virgins, or whatever crazy promise, to keep followers in line. Did Jesus ever say "thou shall find a water stain on a wall from a leaky roof, and bow down before it"?

Please don't be offended, the teaching of Jesus, the Buddha, Mohammad have much to offer.

[yourlifepurpose]

Well that really was pretty rude. Those of you that thnk it's funny?

I wonder.

We can only change ourselves and pray for the rest......

[Barry]

I am moving this thread to WaccoTalk. Links to this thread will continue to work.

This thread started in the pets category. I should have moved it to the WaccoReader category (since it wasn't local), but for some reason that I don't remember (or just a mistake) I moved it to the General Community category. I'm glad it landed there since it seemed to strike a nerve for some people and a tickled the funny bone of others. The discussion and explanation of the various points of view has been quite interesting. Further discussion is welcome!

WaccoBB.net isn't for everybody and that's just fine by me. In fact I think that is what makes it such a special place. As I said earlier, a sense of humor is required (or at least very helpful!) here. Note that the original post/website (https://getbehindjesus.net/) wasn't attacking anybody.

I'll consider the suggestion of a humor and/or a rant category after the upgrade when managing your category subscriptions will be a lot easier.

:tiphat:
Barry

[Dixon]

Elaine, I love and respect ya, but can't endorse your censorious attitude about this Jesus joke. Understand:

1. You can't reasonably expect those who don't share your beliefs to treat your religious icons with respect. Speaking as a former Christian fundamentalist myself, allow me to point out that, to those who don't share your belief in Jesus, Christianity is just another of the thousands of false beliefs out there, and is not worthy of any more respect than any of them. Furthermore, Christianity's more conservative manifestations are quite bigoted and destructive, being explicitly misogynistic, homophobic, imperialistic, etc.

2. You say you believe in freedom of religion, so dig this--freedom of religion includes the right to satirize religious beliefs.

3. The picture of the dog-butt Jesus doesn't hurt anybody at all; it's harmless, so relax! Pray for a sense of humor!

4. Your attempt to get Barry to censor something you don't like reflects poorly on you and on your religion. (And kudos to Barry for not censoring it).

Some Waccoites may be interested to know that this business of seeing apparent images such as faces in random visual patterns has a name; it's called pareidolia. Jesus images have been seen in everything from tortillas to stains on a refrigerator, and have often attracted droves of the faithful, sometimes making $$ for the fortunate tortilla-maker.

Dixon


Since Barry supports people being HIGHLY DISRESPECTFUL in this way to Jesus I told him that Elaine-Barbara: Neiswender and LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and JOYFUL LIVING CALIFORNIA will not participate on WACCO AT ALL. S...

[dubwise]

I showed sent that URL to Jesus last night. He was crackin' up! You see, I have a personal relationship with Jesus too. By the way, he's told me more than once that he can't stand Christians!

[Carl]

This says it most clearly for me. There should be a flagging of items that many will find offensive! Why not? Do NOT CENSOR them! That person should NOT have been kicked off the site for offensive comments that we read, any more than this one should be kicked off. (Perhaps though, Barry had read some even more snide stuff from this mildly racist poster and decided enough is enough. Who knows? Only Barry.)

I personally find the holy dog to be awesome. And I mean that completely as containing the energy of enlightenment. Consider the lilies of the field and how they are arrayed. Do you think you can make yourself more beautiful by working towards that goal or by wishing? Beauty comes from Ugliness and Ugliness comes from excess of beauty. This whole universe and all the complexities of form and emptiness in it are fantastically awesome. There is just no getting around that truth. The anus of the living body is a holy orifice and deserves at least as much attention as the other parts. I personally can testify to this truth. The obscenity of our lives is not in comparing spiritual teachers with our assholes. (Each of us has one, by the way. ) No, the obscenity of our lives is in our ignorance of the fact of our birth in this wondrous starry universe!!! Our willingness to go out and kill each other to command respect is obscenity. Forcing another to give pleasure without consent, that is obscenity. Landmines placed secretly, hidden around the world create obscenity. To re-elect a president who loves obscenity, that my friends, is obscenity. Let us focus on the true problems and deal with them. ....And let us laugh when we are shown something for our enlightenment.

Carl.


Hi all, I have been reading this thread and although I am not offended by this site I have found it very interesting. Just as a study of social mores and attitudes. I find it interesting that although this is offensive to many it has not been censored as the rant of a person recently that was taken off the site because of their offensive language and bigoted attitude. It just makes me wonder if there should be a place or a heading for things like this that do not include censorship. I know that Craig’s list rants are ok they just have a place for rants and people know they can go there if they feel that they need a dose of that in their day. I just can't think that people just do not have to listen or read what is offensive to them. The biggest offense is being censored.
Tree

[Dixon]

Infidel, the sacrament is not wine; it is cannabis and psychedelics! Suggesting that wine or beer is the holy sacrament is blasphemy! Only cannabis and psychedelics will save your soul! We must now have censorship of your position and a holy war! Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!

Pope Dixon




Awright, Kimpeck has gone too far suggesting beer is the nector of the gods. Everboddy knows its WINE. END THIS THREAD IMMEDIATELY. I will not have wine DISRESPECTED!!!

[mykil]

In the words of my son "THAT'S JUST WRONG" And I thought I was the black sheep! LOL!!!




This is truley amazing! You will all become believers now! (this is about a pet)

I must probably put this on another thread as well.

https://getbehindjesus.net/

[rnichols]

I surrender. Its been 40 years since the sacred herbs and holy tabs have been in my body, and I just forgot!


Infidel, the sacrament is not wine; it is cannabis and psychedelics! Suggesting that wine or beer is the holy sacrament is blasphemy! Only cannabis and psychedelics will save your soul! We must now have censorship of your position and a holy war! Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!

Pope Dixon

[Dixon]

You are forgiven, my son/daughter/or combination thereof.

Take two of these and call me in the morning.

--The Shake 'n' Bake Shaman


I surrender. Its been 40 years since the sacred herbs and holy tabs have been in my body, and I just forgot!

[Moon]

I've held off, but I think I want to weigh in on this thread.
See, the problem is: everybody's right.

So how about asking members for fair warning, e.g. "This
posting would offend the bejabbers out of a lot of Christians
if they read it," or "...has really vitriolic things to say about
Paganism," or "...laughs at certain aspects of Islam"?

[Rucira]

This is truley amazing! You will all become believers now! (this is about a pet)

I must probably put this on another thread as well.

https://getbehindjesus.net/

WELL. This puts an entirely new "viewpoint" on the lord working in mysterious ways. a cynical response would say that its the power of suggestion. would u see the face of jesus as depicted by this well known artist upon this dogs arse if u werent first told it would be seen there? power of suggestion? i think this might be clerical brainwashing. how do i know this isnt an lsd flashback???:hmmm:

I must probably put this on another thread as well.

:thumbsup::idea:the spiritual master would say thus: If it makes you think of divinity, then it is krsna conscious. (enlightened thought). perhaps the dog was a pope in a past life.

[Rucira]

:hello::hello:a true christian shouldnt be offended. neither any person on any spiritual path of knowingness. :)::heart: the reason being is that by discussing this photo imprint or actual presence of the likeness of the socially accepted depiction of the alleged so called saviour jesus christ, we are in fact invoking Him and therefore we are preaching Christian consciousness even in this roundabout way. (pardon the puns) heh heh. We are making people think about jesus!



So how about asking members for fair warning, e.g. "This
posting would offend the bejabbers out of a lot of Christians
if they read it," or "...has really vitriolic things to say about
Paganism," or "...laughs at certain aspects of Islam"?

[Rucira]

This post really does clarify the fact that although something represents god it is not in itself divinity. jesus christ is considered to be divinity by christians. does this mean that the dogs ass is also divinity as it portrays the appearance of jesus christ???? the answer is god is formless, therefore if he or she wants to appear as a dogs ass he or she in all actuallity could do so. conclusion. jesus christ in person represented god. the dogs ass represents god as shown in photo. but these are not the sole representations known on earth. just because shit comes out of the mouth of the represented form of god doesnt mean god is full of shit.

[Sabrina]

Wow, I'm the one who originally posted the amazing apparition, as it appears, nearly a year ago(?)... The Lord does work in amazing ways, as my devout Christian Grandmother would always say, and like one previous blog partisipant said, we're all still thinking about "Jesus". Well, all I can add is that my dear Grandmother also always would say, the Lord exists in "EVERYTHING", every part of the body, every item etc...so...the doggies little butt has GOD in it too! (Bless his ass!)

[Willie Lumplump]

From my point of view, the transgression was not the subject matter, it was that such a piss-poor joke was on WaccoBB AT ALL!
I kind of feel this way myself. I'm strongly anti-religion, but even so this seems a little much. When I think of satire, I think of Voltaire, Jonathan Swift, and George Orwell, not a dog's behind.

[Dixon]

Re: the face of Jesus seen in a dog's anus--

Briefly doffing my "atheist" hat and putting on my (essentially identical) "pantheist" hat, let me say this: If "God" means that which manifests iself as the Universe (and everything in it), then every dog's asshole is God just as much as a cathedral or anything else is God. Those of you who think there's something nasty or dishonorable about anuses ought to stick a plug in your own for a few days and see how life is without it. Really, try to get over your societally-inculcated prudishness with its silly body taboos. Seeing Jesus in a dog's anus is just as silly as seeing him in the burn marks on a tortilla, but no "worse". And remember, if you're so averse to anuses that you won't give your lover's anus the attention it deserves, you might lose her to me.

Dixon "God" Wragg


I kind of feel this way myself. I'm strongly anti-religion, but even so this seems a little much. When I think of satire, I think of Voltaire, Jonathan Swift, and George Orwell, not a dog's behind.

[Willie Lumplump]

Those of you who think there's something nasty or dishonorable about anuses ought to stick a plug in your own for a few days and see how life is without it.
I'll let you know the result. In fact, I invite you to be nearby--very nearby--at the unplugging ceremony.

And remember, if you're so averse to anuses that you won't give your lover's anus the attention it deserves, you might lose her to me.
A cogent argument, to be sure!

[Zeno Swijtink]

I'll let you know the result. In fact, I invite you to be nearby--very nearby--at the unplugging ceremony.

A cogent argument, to be sure!

A pungent argument, indeed!

[decterlove]

Now amusement and entertainment are some of my favorite things, but so is investigation of the deeper aspects of this incredibly conflicted Planet we are all hoping to survive as a species on.

The question that ALWAYS remains UNASKED AND UNADDRESSED here and elsewhere where noble men and women gather to share fun facts and information...and what an act to follow but I'll hold my nose and type with my right hand......are these;

Is it possible that Man's consciousness, in regard to the World of Spirit, is Maleable and Changes over time and with any of the following influences....Age, Culture, Education...ie....lopsided intellectual development, and ultimately Epoch, or the Age we are born in. Is it possible that our basic cultural info packet injected into our souls by our educational system and fortified by media and all else....DISPLACES our ability to sense and relate to the deeper and more subtle worlds of Spirit.

For the most materialistic thinkers out there...let's just imagine for a moment we are radios, and when our dials are turned all the way over to the right, while we may be picking up some fine tunes, we remain completely oblivious to "broadcasts" on other frequencies.

As another side note; my contention is that the primary attraction to drugs in this culture beginning in the 1960s, was fueled by the desperate need to "loosen" the oppressive bonds of the hyper-rational civilization we live in so we could experience more directly, if only temporarily, the next world above ours, the Astral. The problem with this strategy is the real challenge of this era is to bring a discipline of mind and an element of rational investigation to these higher worlds and not just dive into these pools carelessly for mere pleasure and distraction oblivious to the potential dangers they hold for some.

We, living on the Cutting Edge of the Ultimate Scientific Reductionist Rational Meta-Industrial Post-Modern Waning Empire of the West, find it so easy to entertain ourselves with the various "visions" that our "less sophisticated" and undereducated, naive, brethren of other cultures, often Latin ones when it comes to visions of Jesus, often mystically are able to experience in their simpler, less materialistic and often devoutly religious lives. They must seem either hilariously childish to us or just amazingly nonsensical.

One of the greatest arrogances to me of the Modern Western Mind is the assumption that somehow in part through accident, and certainly admirable discipline and diligent effort, Mankind suddenly was able to lift himself out of total darkness and hurl himself towards a much greater wisdom and enlightenment via the vehicle of the Scientific Method. And all this just happened in the last one to four hundred years after possibly being a species for hundreds of thousand years!

Now as I've mentioned in posts before I do respect and honor Science for the many things it has accomplished and contributed to our daily lives. But if Science is correct, which I believe it to be in respect to all the facts and mechanisms to be found in the Outer World of Matter, then Human Beings in one form or another have inhabited the Earth for upwards of at least a half a million years. Do you really believe that in each proceeding epoch men were simply ignorant self deceived, pathetic cavemen who never were lucky enough to enjoy the fruits of Western Science?

I don't! I believe that it's quite probably there were brilliant minds of one sort or another going back hundreds of thousands of years potentially. Look at the recent experiments with chimpanzees who did better on certain simple sequential number test than college students. Intelligence has been a feature of advanced hominids for quite some time. It is just applied in different paradigms. And different paradigms imply different conceptual frameworks and more importantly to my argument, different perceptual abilities.

On the most banal plane, think of how insanely inaccurate modern weather reports are using the most advanced technological equipment and satellites in space and they still can't tell us what's going to happen 48 hours from now! I crack up every time I see a 7 day forecast on the news! Don't you strongly suspect that "Primitive" Man was much more accurate in this regard using only his most basic senses?

My contentions are simple.

Western science does not offer a greater vehicle for living sanely, and respectfully, and successfully on planet earth than many other belief systems did before it. It's just another game and an increasingly dangerous one at that. It does solve many of the dreadful scourges of the past but simultaneously creates a whole new set of problems to suffer from. It ultimately is the first World View in recorded history that offers total planetary destruction as an item on the menu. Contagious diseases have been greatly reduced but now we are beset by plagues of obesity, diabetes, cancer and on and on, not to mention gun violence and perpetual aka Orwellian global wars. The commonly held illusion is that "Oh, well, that's just some other people doing the bad stuff" but in reality it is the Scientific Reductionist paradigm we happily embrace and are drenched in, that is responsible for all these miseries.

The Scientific Western Rational Mind, heretofore referred to as SWRM, still cannot understand and explain some of the most Visible and Basic Mysteries of cultures previously to ours. It continues to be simply stumped by the real purpose and level of sophistication of the Pyramids and other leftover ancient cultural icons such as Stonehenge. How can we be so brilliant and all knowing when we can't even adequately explain the icons left over from cultures immediately before us?

The SWRM (Age of Reason) is simply a necessary developmental transition to the ongoing deeper necessities of Spiritual Evolution on Earth as the Age of Faith was before it. Some writers have suggested the the Scientific Mind could not have even evolved without the prior subtle disciplines of the Religious Thought before it. And of course, some of the greatest originators of Western Science were deeply religious personalities who were in many cases about to straddle each world view successfully.

So while I'm not suggesting that all merriment and good cheer be suspended when confronted by some item that just simply astonishes our modern minds.....perhaps just a little respect could displace the ridicule and scorn we feel for those humans that still reside deeply in the Age of Faith at this point in time. And perhaps, just a little wonder at what are the Deeper Realities that Dwell below the surface of our Spectacularly and Increasingly Shallow Cultural Mindset? Can we see our own Shadow? Should we be trying harder?

[mykil]

Well hell, this has been going down for sometime, the only real thing I can think of to say at this point is: You all have about the respect for your fellow human beings as a bunch of alien beings destine to take over the planet! I mean even if you are a bunch of atheists, don’t you think you might be able to give just a little respect? LOL1 I was raised with the notion that we were all suppose to respect one another’s feelings, respect our elders and really just get along. This is about what the average teenager would be inclined to put together as a little joke, all in all they probably would feel ashamed once they got their kicks and where done with the laughter. Were as some of you folks bringing this disrespectfulness to a whole new level. I just hold my head in shame and pretend. On and on they go, here comes the friggin wacco circus on the Internet show!!!!! LMAO I will still try to respect you all in the morning, although it’s just a tab bit hard to do with that ball gag in your mouth!!!!!

[Willie Lumplump]

the hyper-rational civilization we live in
Are we talking about the same planet? You call this civilization "hyper-rational"? I call it hypo-rational, or anti-rational. As small examples, I cite your uses of the terms "soul," "Astral," and "World of Spirit." These are not rational concepts because there is no evidence for them, at least not if you're using the terms in a standard way.

One of the greatest arrogances to me of the Modern Western Mind is the assumption that somehow in part through accident, and certainly admirable discipline and diligent effort, Mankind suddenly was able to lift himself out of the darkness and hurl himself towards a much greater wisdom and enlightenment via the vehicle of the Scientific Method. And all this just happened in the last one to four hundred years after possibly being a species for hundreds of thousand years!
Why does this strike you as arrogant?

Now as I've mentioned in posts before I do respect and honor Science for the many things it has accomplished and contributed to our daily lives. But if Science is correct, which I believe it to be in respect to all the facts and mechanisms to be found in the Outer World of Matter, then Human Beings in one form or another have inhabited the Earth for upwards of at least a half a million years.
The line that led to humans split off from the chimpanzees about six million years ago. Our species appeared somewhere around 100,000 to 200,000 years ago

Do you really believe that in each proceeding epoch men were simply ignorant self deceived, pathetic cavemen who never were lucky enough to enjoy the fruits of Western Science? I don't! I believe that it's quite probably there were brilliant minds of one sort or another going back hundreds of thousands of years potentially.
The fossil record contradicts this notion. Brain size suddenly began increasing less than 100,000 years ago, and it continued to increase rapidly until about 30,000 years ago.

On the most banal plane, think of how insanely inaccurate modern weather reports are using the most advanced technological equipment and satellites in space and they still can't tell us what's going to happen 48 hours from now! I crack up every time I see a 7 day forecast on the news! Don't you strongly suspect that "Primitive" Man was much more accurate in this regard using only his most basic senses?
No. Weather prediction has improved greatly over the past few decades, thanks mostly to real-time satellite data and supercomputers.

Western science does not offer a greater vehicle for living sanely, and respectfully, and successfully on planet earth than many other belief systems did before it.
If it weren't for Western science, you probably wouldn't be alive right now to offer your opinions. You would be worshiping spirits in rocks and trees, and in the best of cases your life expectancy would be about 35-40 years. You would know nothing of the causes of disease, you wouldn't know that you're on a planet circling a star in a vast universe, and you wouldn't be able to communicate freely with people of other cultures in other lands. You'd probably never in your entire life travel more than 100 miles from your home. It's easy to romanticize the past, but life was extremely difficult for the large majority of people only 150 years ago.

The Scientific Western Rational Mind, heretofore referred to as SWRM, still cannot understand and explain some of the most Visible and Basic Mysteries of cultures previously to ours. It continues to be simply stumped by the real purpose and level of sophistication of the Pyramids and other leftover ancient cultural icons such as Stonehenge. How can we be so brilliant and all knowing when we can't even adequately explain the icons left over from cultures immediately before us?
Egyptologists have developed a vast body of knowledge about ancient Egypt, including the pyramids. It's known where the stones for the pyramids came from, who cut them and how, where the workmen lived, how the stones were transported, how they were assembled into pyramids, and the purpose for which the pyramids were built. Less is known about Stonehenge and the people who constructed it, but apparently it was an astronomical observatory and probably a place of execution.

The SWRM (Age of Reason) is simply a necessary developmental transition to the ongoing deeper necessities of Spiritual Evolution on Earth as the Age of Faith was before it.
We are no longer living in the Age of Reason, as a simple look around will tell you, and apparently you're eager to return to the dark from which we recently emerged and to which we are advancing backward. St. Augustine called reason "the enemy of faith," which it certainly is. You extoll the brilliance of the caveman but then want to surrender modern brilliance to the darkness.

Some writers have suggested the the Scientific Mind could not have even evolved without the prior subtle disciplines of the Religious Thought before it.
Historians can tell us about sequences of events, but I defy you to name one historian who says that science could not have evolved without religion.

And of course, some of the greatest originators of Western Science were deeply religious personalities who were in many cases about to straddle each world view successfully.
Of course. What else would you expect? Rational science evolved in a context of irrational beliefs, religion included. How could it have been otherwise?

The people who continue to dwell in "the Age of Faith" had better wake up and start dealing with external reality through a process called "reason." We are menaced by nuclear weapons, global warming, war-mongering heads of state, and exhaustion of essential natural resources. These are real problems that require real commitment and hard work to solve. Your prayer circles aren't going to accomplish diddley-squat. And let physicists worry about "Deeper Realities that Dwell below the surface."

Can we see our own Shadow? Should we be trying harder?
Can we see the nose in front of our face? And should we be trying harder?

[decterlove]

Hmmmn, I knew my thoughts might provoke a similar response from some quarters, and of course, on this forum that some quarters might just be you, Willie ll. .

I applaud the vigor of your counter-argument and certainly admire the conviction you bring to it. That said, I will resist becoming engaged in a long running debate regarding contrary belief systems because I am certain that all events and influences that lead your convictions are dissimilar enough to mine (influences) that is very unlikely that either of us will find any common ground in this context. Let us both give it our best one two shot here and let the chips fall where they may. Let me suggest that we do not differ as much in our observations, but rather in the conclusions we draw from those observations.

"I cite your uses of the terms "soul," "Astral," and "World of Spirit." These are not rational concepts because there is no evidence for them, at least not if you're using the terms in a standard way."

Agreed, they are not rational legitimate concepts by many who are fully satisfied by current scientific modalities but none-the-less they have been described and investigated by some minds previously and I believe deserve merit even if Science has no way of classifying them or controlling them sufficiently in a laboratory to prove they exist. I use them simply out of convenience and do not expect my argument to rest alone on whether or not they are useful terms by someone else.
<o:p> </o:p>
There is a much used problem solving tool of connecting a series of dots using one unbroken line I'm sure you are familiar with. If one is not willing to go outside the dots, the challenge is unsolvable. Likewise, I believe that if the Western mindset is not willing to go outside the box of the contained, repeatable, scientific paradigm and consider that phenomenon observed consistently by other humans and other cultures at other times but not in a predictable, controllable, or "rational" context, may have validity, then the problems of the modern world can never be solved. And how do you account for the great leaps in Science such a Bohr's model which were obtained in the dream (irrational) state?

<o:p> </o:p> It's not that Science is invalid or inaccurate. Not in least. It's just insufficient and incomplete to solve all of the problems human beings face....some which it quite skillfully contributes to, creates or worsens. It solves or describes problems of the outer structural material world magnificently. Inner problems of the psyche miserably. The scientific mind believes that one day soon it will be complete and capable of accounting for all phenomenons on the earthly plane. Sorta like in 1899, they thought everything had been invented. I do not. It’s simply a case of betting on the horse you think will win.

"These are not rational concepts because there is no evidence for them, at least not if you're using the terms in a standard way."

One of the things the honest scientific mind will admit, and there are a great number of them, is that Spirit, God, whatever you want to call it, cannot be proven or disproved by means of scientific inquiry (Stephan Jay Gould, I believe adhered to this). While some of the greatest modern biologists (Dawkins, Stenger, etc) have recently made great and admirable efforts "prove" that God does not exist, other equally adept scientific minds have countered their arguments sufficiently even if the argument still remains open. (see Francis S Collins; The Language of God; A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.....While I'm not suggesting Francis closes the argument in his book he does refute some of Dawkin's contentions quite adequately, I believe.)

The reality is simply that the jury is still out, and while I don't believe Intelligent Design as yet develops a sufficient case for a Supreme Maker...my suspicion is that we are moving closer and closer to this potentially ground shaking synthesis.

"Our species appeared somewhere around 100,000 to 200,000 years. Brain size suddenly began increasing less than 100,000 years ago, and it continued to increase rapidly until about 30,000 years ago."

It's my understanding that this date keeps being pushed further and further back with at least Hominid skeletal evidence approaching one million years. But irregardless 30,000 years is still a lot to account for and I believe there's a lot of mysteries yet to be uncovered to be found in that vast blank of human history. I also contend that brain size alone does not account for all signs of intelligent life in the Universe. One subject that continues to alludes scientific research is the coordinated intelligence of animals, for example the navigational abilities of many species, even reptiles, and activities in an ant colony or a bee hive. Brain size, like penis size, certainly helps but there's more to it than that. Rupert Sheldrake suggested some different models for this which point suggestively to the general concept of the Astral and Etheric bodies found in earlier occult literature.

"No. Weather prediction has improved greatly over the past few decades, thanks mostly to real-time satellite data and supercomputers."

Maybe it has improved in the past few decades but IT STILL SUCKS! I mean I wish no disrespect on any Weather People out there but hey....it's laughable. Maybe I'm just watching the wrong station...I've heard people say one should go directly to the Coast Guard or the National Weather service but don't you believe, in your Heart of Mind, that some farmer in Vermont was capable of at least the same accuracy 300 years ago? How about a primitive human 30,000 years ago? This is a classic example of man's highest Intuitive skills vs man's highest Intellectual abilities. And frankly I strongly suspect that full honed Intuitive abilities at least ties, or more likely wins in this example.

I use this example just till illustrate the embarrassing tendency science to simply falls on it's face when attempting to address some of the most simple, practical issues in life. Contemporary medicine with all its demonstrable blessings in surgery and infectious disease provides a vast treasure hold of other stupid tendencies to make problems worse rather than better.

"If it weren't for Western science, you probably wouldn't be alive right now to offer your opinions."

I could make the same argument for snakes. If snakes did not exist as the supremely efficient predators of rodents that they happen to be, Mankind could have never stored enough grain in most parts of the world to move out of the Hunter Gatherer phase and we'd all be still sitting in the woods and definitely not debating this! Arbitrary, Unprovable but probably true!

"You would be worshiping spirits in rocks and trees, and in the best of cases your life expectancy would be about 35-40 years."

Well, the average human worshiping rocks and trees could be seen as naive and ignorant but it is also possible that through ritual and the guidance of the tribal shaman may have experienced a deep satisfying and profound Union with the Earth and the Cosmos at large that is simply unimaginable to the Modern Mind lost in tragic isolation and alienation from both Nature and their fellow men through, in large part, the necessary development of the Individual Ego. My serious misgivings regarding attempts at modern Paganism stem from the assertion once your brain has been molded to the modern mindset there is simply no possibility of reaching the Union that Primitive Man was able to achieve through ceremonial rites. We are now in the age of the Individual Ego, for better or for worse, and while Tribal concepts may find their way back into human cultures via cyberspace…the only real Tribe everyone belongs to now is the Human Race in its' entirety.
<o:p> </o:p>
As far as the life expectancy span argument, I just don't buy it. I think stats are vastly skewed by the reduced deaths at birth. (Which, of course, is a good thing as was polio vaccine) Look back at the founding fathers. Many people at that time lived well into their seventies and beyond. I also sure that among some of the longer lived people on the planet who live exceptionally healthy lifestyles and are isolated geographically from common infectious diseases, etc., life expectancy has changed little in hundreds of years. And it is also skewed by attempts at keeping people alive at all costs now by modern medicine. Since Death is irrational…it must be denied.

"You would know nothing of the causes of disease, you wouldn't know that you're on a planet circling a star in a vast universe, and you wouldn't be able to communicate freely with people of other cultures in other lands. You'd probably never in your entire life travel more than 100 miles from your home. It's easy to romanticize the past, but life was extremely difficult for the large majority of people only 150 years ago."

Agreed, and I acknowledge the blessings of science although a life of ease may be what is contributing to most of our problems. Being myself intrinsically a modern soul though, I certainly wouldn't make the trade backwards regarding the above. We do need to enjoy however the blessings that we have in the constantly evolving Devil’s Bargain called Life and I also would like to thank you at this time for some of the previous postings you have made regarding your wonder and gratitude for the simplest aspects of nature. A most fundamental instruction in these times might be:
<o:p> </o:p>
"Bring a sense of Subjective Wonder and Appreciation to the Outer World in all its’ manifestations including the Scientific and bring a sense Objectivity to your Inner World with all its’ raging currents of thoughts and feelings."

I think you get this part right, Willie, and part right might be the best any of us can do.

Our modern impulse though, is to do just the opposite and it is the excess Subjectivity that is what I believe you find most troubling. And I agree with you on that. The Irrationality if feeds and produces is indeed part of the larger problem. Hyper-rationality combined and creating Hyper-Irrationality feeds the greater and greater Spinning Disconnect from what is most essential to all of us in navigating the impending rapid waters ahead.

"Egyptologists have developed a vast body of knowledge about ancient Egypt, including the pyramids. It's known where the stones for the pyramids came from, who cut them and how, where the workmen lived, how the stones were transported, etc."

Yes, yes...they know all the outer stuff but what they still don't is why they went to all that trouble and they can only ascribe the motivation to be mysticism and superstition....i.e....all pagan cultures are to be categorized as great writers of fiction in their contact with the Deities they worshiped. It’s like Science believes it invented Non-fiction.

"Are we talking about the same planet? You call this civilization "hyper-rational"? I call it hypo-rational, or anti-rational."

Oh, yeah...we're on the same planet, Willie. Probably the only planet nearby that you and I could have this discussion on. We both might agree on that point, no?

What I'm suggesting is that it is indeed our hyper-rationality that creates an undesirable backlash of irrationality, along with rampant, ungrounded mysticism. (The dark inherited side of the sixties counterculture.)

But with all the advances in scientific knowledge, where is the progress being made in the social spheres? We see EVIDENCE of greater and greater irrationality instead. In the U.S and even in places like Finland now. We can deny, minimize it, or react to it by joining the Conservative Christian movement in America which by the way I think is influenced by the near apocalyptic weather patterns they are experiencing in the Heartlands as much as anything else. The fact remains though that people getting shot in the Malls and in Classrooms tells us that we are not moving in a direction assisted by some Imbedded Cultural Rationality.

Something is Amiss. God is afoot. Or so sang Buffy St.Marie back in the seventies. But which god/where god/whose god?" That is the real difficult question...and for that matter, which science? Do you trust Dr. Dean Edell's supposed access to countless scientific studies on vitamins that lead him to opinion that supplements are of no value whatsoever? Or Life Extensions? They both quote multiple studies and come to the most opposite contradictory conclusions possible. Both have a profit motive. How does profit motive influence today's Science? Does it steer it radically in favor of all status quos that offer political advantages, or it is truly the neutral, objective, dispassionate inquiry that you, Willie (and others..) would have us believe it to be?

The simplest example of how our culture (ie...USA in the last half of the last millennium and into this one...) can be described as hyper-rational is simply how it demands the repression of all human emotion. Granted this is in part perhaps due to its English influences, etc but regardless we now find ourselves living in a culture where any expression of real emotion is suppressed to whatever degree it can be suppressed. Simplest examples are the flagrant use of pharmaceuticals to suppress the natural exuberance of children "diagnosed" with ADD,etc and the almost epidemic
use of anti-depressants, etc by the rest of the culture.

This is a classic example of "scientific progress" and of course one needs to only travel back a number of decades to many cultures in Europe where even now they are not entirely "lost in rationality" and still have not been able to detach from their genuine emotional life to the extent that Americans are. And the counter manifestation in the U.S. is the talk show culture here that doesn't simple feel honest human emotions but instead vomits them up all over themselves and anyone nearby. One extreme set of conditions manifests the opposite set. Yin Yang. Terms not found in Western Science either but at the very core of the Chinese Investigational Model of Reality for thousands of years.

Hyper-rationality demands hyper-vigilance to all that is not seen as rational and productive to the consumer economy that we worship above all else. But more importantly, and paradoxically on the ground where we both observe uncomfortably the same phenomenon...

"We are no longer living in the Age of Reason, as a simple look around will tell you, and apparently you're eager to return to the dark from which we recently emerged and to which we are advancing backward. St. Augustine called reason "the enemy of faith," which it certainly is. You extol the brilliance of the caveman but then want to surrender modern brilliance to the darkness."

I don't extol either and I certainly don't deny the modern light. What I merely suggest is a greater curiosity and a more disciplined open-mindedness to the facts that present themselves to our senses, without denying all the phenomenon that doesn't fit our current hypotheses. Many scientists do explore these ideological fronts with open minds, but even when they find evidence for atypical conclusions are often discounted by the mainstream for decades, if not centuries, until there is just no possibility left for denial. Science, itself, is of course, a continual battleground of progressive and repressive mentalities. It seems to me to be resistant in a very similar way to the religious minds that existed 500 years ago.

The biggest objection historically and chronically if I may, raised by the religious dogmatic is, "But it can't be true, it's not in the Bible!"

And the dogmatic scientist just chants likewise, "It can't be true because it can't be demonstrated repeatedly in a laboratory under sterile conditions."

"Historians can tell us about sequences of events, but I defy you to name one historian who says that science could not have evolved without religion."

Well, the pens of history are unfortunately always controlled and written by those who currently own the guns of power but to point to where one of the splits occurred I can mention Goethe...

"The people who continue to dwell in "the Age of Faith" had better wake up and start dealing with external reality through a process called "reason."

And it is my contention that Reason simply won't do it. Although, I deeply respect and honor your desire to "have it done." I even empathize with your desperation in the face of the apparent odds against all of us. Reason, however, to a large degree, is what has led us into this mess the first place...ie...reason that allows, demands, and incorporates the scientific paradigm of scientific detachment as a god above all other gods, to the eternal exclusion of all Heart Wisdom that is available to all of us but lies dormant in most sleeping well below the depth of the arguments and apparent irreconcilable differences.

"We are menaced by nuclear weapons, global warming, war-mongering heads of state, and exhaustion of essential natural resources. These are real problems that require real commitment and hard work to solve. Your prayer circles aren't going to accomplish diddley-squat. And let physicists worry about "Deeper Realities that Dwell below the surface."

I agree, but choosing only the parts of Reality that we prefer dealing with may seriously interfere with getting to the real roots of the issues being addressed. To the man who has only a hammer....everything looks like a nail.

ps I apologize for any grammatical errors in this post...my router is just driving me crazy again tonight (help! why is it just in the evening??? am I being attacked from Cyberspace???) and I had to cut and paste back and forth from Word to keep from losing it all. (which I'm sure some of you might think....would be a good thing!)

[Willie Lumplump]

Agreed, they are not rational legitimate concepts by many who are fully satisfied by current scientific modalities but none-the-less they have been described and investigated by some minds previously and I believe deserve merit even if Science has no way of classifying them or controlling them sufficiently in a laboratory to prove they exist.
The burden of proof always rests with the person making the claim, and the more extravagant the claim, the more proof is required. Thus, it is not up to science to prove or disprove the existence of the soul, the Spirit World, or the astral plane. You're the one making the claim, so it's up to you to supply the evidence. If you make the claim in the absence of sufficient evidence, your claim is, by definition, irrational.


And how do you account for the great leaps in Science such a Bohr's model which were obtained in the dream (irrational) state?
You're referring to the cyclic structure of benzene, which supposedly was revealed to the chemist Kekule in a dream. Dreams are a function of the human mind. Why is it surprising that sometimes ideas come in dreams?

<?xml:namespace prefix = o /><o:p></o:p>
It's not that Science is invalid or inaccurate. Not in least. It's just insufficient and incomplete to solve all of the problems human beings face
But isn't this self-evident? I know of no person who has ever claimed that science can solve all of the problems that human beings face.


It [science] solves or describes problems of the outer structural material world magnificently. Inner problems of the psyche miserably.
But any observable phenomenon is a proper subject for scientific investigation. And science is beginning to unravel some problems of the psyche such as autism, schizophrenia, and Alzheimer's disease.


The scientific mind believes that one day soon it will be complete and capable of accounting for all phenomenons [sic] on the earthly plane.
You're quite mistaken about this. No scientist holds this belief.


While some of the greatest modern biologists (Dawkins, Stenger, etc) have recently made great and admirable efforts "prove" that God does not exist. . .
I don't know Stenger, but I do know Dawkins, and Dawkins has never tried to prove that God does not exist. In fact, he grants that such a proof would be impossible. What he does say is that the existence of a God is highly improbable.

The reality is simply that the jury is still out, and while I don't believe Intelligent Design as yet develops a sufficient case for a Supreme Maker...my suspicion is that we are moving closer and closer to this potentially groundshaking synthesis.
The entire Intelligent Design argument is a sham. People have been using the design argument for a very long time, William Paley being a prime example. The philosopher David Hume pretty much closed the book on this argument more than 200 years ago in his "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion." Science cannot be "synthesized" with Intelligent Design because Intelligent Design is religion and science is science.


It's my understanding that this date keeps being pushed further and further back with at least Hominid skeletal evidence approaching one million years.
The hominid line stretches back far longer than does our species because it includes many non-human primates.

I also contend that brain size alone does not account for all signs of intelligent life in the Universe.
I thought we were talking about the capacity for abstract thought which is a function of brain size. You can always dilute the definition of intelligence to include the behavior of animals.

Rupert Sheldrake suggested some different models for this which point suggestively to the general concept of the Astral and Etheric bodies found in earlier occult literature.
When you're making stuff up as you go along, you can point suggestively to just about anything you like.

don't you believe, in your Heart of Mind, that some farmer in Vermont was capable of at least the same accuracy 300 years ago?
Strangely enough, with regard to medium-term predictions, we're little better off now that we were 300 years ago. But with regard to short-range and long-range predictions, we're doing much better now. Only a few decades ago, the average warning of a tornado strike was about three minutes. Now it's up to about 15. Those extra minutes have saved a lot of lives. (And it's done with doppler radar.)

How about a primitive human 30,000 years ago?
You need to define "primitive." Humans of 30,000 years ago were very probably just as intelligent as we are.

I use this example just till illustrate the embarrassing tendency science to simply falls on it's face when attempting to address some of the most simple, practical issues in life.
The uses of science are largely political decisions, and politicians fall on their faces all the time.

I could make the same argument for snakes.
Sure, why not?

the assertion once your brain has been molded to the modern mindset there is simply no possibility of reaching the Union that Primitive Man was able to achieve through ceremonial rites.
Try telling this to a Zen priest.

As far as the life expectancy span argument, I just don't buy it. life expectancy has changed little in hundreds of years.
Life span has changed little in hundreds of years, but life expectancy has increased dramatically, and there are huge numbers of birth and death records going back to the Middle Ages to prove it. This point is beyond reasonable doubt.

And the dogmatic scientist just chants likewise, "It can't be true because it can't be demonstrated repeatedly in a laboratory under sterile conditions."
Where do you get these ideas? Much science is conducted in conditions that are not exactly reproducible and are certainly outside the laboratory. The whole field of astronomy is like that.

Well, the pens of history are unfortunately always controlled and written by those who currently own the guns of power but to point to where one of the splits occurred I can mention Goethe...
Goethe was an historian? He was a poet and a playwrite, but what history did he write?

reason that allows, demands, and incorporates the scientific paradigm of scientific detachment as a god above all other gods
This is a myth invented by those who would return us to the dark ages. Science has its limits, and the vast majority of scientists have a pretty good idea of what those limits are.

[Zeno Swijtink]

I don't know Stenger, but I do know Dawkins, and Dawkins has never tried to prove that God does not exist. In fact, he grants that such a proof would be impossible. What he does say is that the existence of a God is highly improbable.
[/COLOR]

This is Victor Stenger, who published the book "God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist."

This is a typical publisher's title, since the book shows God to be a failed hypothesis but does not "prove" that God does not exists. So it has the same general argument as Dawkin's.

[decterlove]

Thanks for the detailed point by point reply but to quote your own words which may have been used against you previously;


There are problems in the world that can't be addressed through sound bites.


On that note, I'll address a few of your points then I'll be on to other things. Let other people argue the points we've brought up if anyone is interested. As I mention previously, it's very unlikely we are going to profoundly alter either of our world view's based on argument in the context of a web forum.

Argument feeds the ego after all and the ego is best left half-starved in most affairs, no?


The burden of proof always rests with the person making the claim, and the more extravagant the claim, the more proof is required. Thus, it is not up to science to prove or disprove the existence of the soul, the Spirit World, or the astral plane. You're the one making the claim, so it's up to you to supply the evidence. If you make the claim in the absence of sufficient evidence, your claim is, by definition, irrational.

This sentence is so banal and overused it may as well be made into a tv jingle by now. It again reminds me so much of the one frequently asked by religious fanatics, "Where does it say that in the Bible?" There is room for common sense in the world even in questioning the apparent inviolability of Western Reason and the Scientific Institutions that spring forth from it. The question of the existence of Higher Worlds remains a central one in many people's individual lives as well as in addressing the cultural, social and global issues at large, even it is illusive and a nearly impossible one to answer at this time. Even Einstein pondered it quite frequently it would appear. But the modern athiest's reactivity and objection to the problems caused by many of the world's organized religions, I can fully sympathize with. I just think we need to look deeper.


You're referring to the cyclic structure of benzene, which supposedly was revealed to the chemist Kekule in a dream. Dreams are a function of the human mind. Why is it surprising that sometimes ideas come in dreams?

Dreams are the essence of Irrationality are they not?


Strangely enough, with regard to medium-term predictions, we're little better off now that we were 300 years ago. But with regard to short-range and long-range predictions, we're doing much better now. Only a few decades ago, the average warning of a tornado strike was about three minutes. Now it's up to about 15. Those extra minutes have saved a lot of lives. (And it's done with doppler radar.)

In regard to tornados and tsunamis, I suspect you're probably quite correct. Regarding basic incoming weather patterns, I do not.


You need to define "primitive." Humans of 30,000 years ago were very probably just as intelligent as we are.

Precisely, my point.


Try telling this to a Zen priest.

There are many different varieties of spiritual experience.


Life span has changed little in hundreds of years, but life expectancy has increased dramatically, and there are huge numbers of birth and death records going back to the Middle Ages to prove it. This point is beyond reasonable doubt.

I suspect you would have to isolate the statistics by country and region and I still think the change in life expectancy is over-stated in some regions. Science has certainly decreased or eliminated a substantial portion of communicable diseases. Sanitary conditions, of course. Understanding of many disease processes, absolutely. Does this apply to the Okinawan population? Has science greatly contributed to their life expectancy? Or the Hunzas? Or the Abkhasia? I'll let someone else look up this information...sorry, believe it or not, I have other things to do.

This is a myth invented by those who would return us to the dark ages. Science has its limits, and the vast majority of scientists have a pretty good idea of what those limits are.


Your suggestion is that it's an all or nothing proposition. And that we should all leave to Scientists to decide on which questions are legitimate to concern ourselves with and which are not. And again, scientific thought is hardly monolithic in many of the "softer" areas that are of the most concern to us. If the biggest problem in the world was establishing a colony on Mars in the next two decades, I would hands down trust my scientists to be able to do this. I trust them implicitly to figure out Global Warming and species preservation. I trust them to develop nanotechnology to address polution and land fill problems. But the biggest problems facing us also include things like Cultural Wars at Home, War in the Middle East, Dirty Nuclear bombs and Super Germs...things that science as is either has no real insight into or in the latter two actually has helped create.

And I'm not as threatened as you are by people who are willing to explore areas that may seem irrational to you even if I don't agree with their mindset entirely either. Steward Brand published a little cartoon some 20 plus years ago, that had a series of larger circles sitting on top of a series of smaller circles. And each smaller circle represented a group of like minded people who felt that the key oppressive issue in the world was the existence of the opposing group represented by the larger circle. Ultimately it's Duality is what is really running the show for all of us. And until we are able to resolve the riddle of opposites, we will remain in a world of increasingly dangerous clashes of deeply held world views.

[Willie Lumplump]

This sentence is so banal and overused it may as well be made into a tv jingle by now.
Then you disagree? You believe that the burden of proof does NOT rest with the person making a claim? And you believe that extravagant claims do NOT require commensurate evidence?

The question of the existence of Higher Worlds remains a central one in many people's individual lives
That is one of the problems that we're talking about.

Even Einstein pondered it quite frequently it would appear.
I know a little about Einstein, and while he felt a reverence for the mystery of nature, I know of no statement in which he asserted the existence of "Higher Worlds."

Dreams are the essence of Irrationality are they not?
Not necessarily. The higher centers of the brain make up stories in response to stimulatory electrical signals coming from the medulla. Often these stories are nonsense, but at times they can contain information useful to the conscious mind.

In regard to tornados and tsunamis, I suspect you're probably quite correct. Regarding basic incoming weather patterns, I do not.
Do you see a worldwide conspiracy of meteorologists to pull the wool over the eyes of the public? Or maybe it's just that all meteorologists are mistaken in their assessment that weather forecasts are improving? Which seems more likely to you, a worldwide meteorological conspiracy, a worldwide meteorological mistake, or that you simply don't know the facts?

I suspect you would have to isolate the statistics by country and region
But this is mere speculation. You apparently feel free to make baseless speculations and assertions and claim that somehow these are part of a logical argument.

I'm afraid that we don't have enough of a shared understanding of the process of reason to continue our discussion.

["Mad" Miles]

"Trapped by a mental habit, perhaps by the very way that our minds work."

Quote from my reading from my year in the Master's program at UofC, Intellectual History, '84-'85, This is a paraphrase. The actual quote, with citation, is buried in a little notebook, in my hardcopy files somewhere inaccessable. I just looked for it, without luck.

It struck me at the time as a cogent remark on the dangers of binary oppositional thinking. Still does, although my memory says the original was much more scintillating.

"Mad" Miles

:burngrnbounce:


Let's hear it for google! Here's the full text and citation:

https://www.patternlanguage.com/archives/alexander2.htm

Just do a "find on this page" search in Edit for "trapped by a mental habit" for the specific line. My memory does work!

"M"M

[Willie Lumplump]

It struck me at the time as a cogent remark on the dangers of binary oppositional thinking.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here, but I believe that (a) most, if not all, problems have a rational component, and (b) it pays to be rational when you're thinking about rational problems. If somebody disagrees with that, then I suppose that means we're involved in "binary oppositional thinking." But I've noticed a peculiarity in many wacco discussions, at least the ones I've participated in. People often begin a discussion by framing it as rational because, after all, what would be the point of an irrational discussion? Then, after having framed it as rational, they go on to make irrational statements but see no self-contradiction. I think they do this because they can't tell when they're being irrational. They don't know the difference between rationality and irrationality, and sometimes they get upset when told what that difference is. I'm not sure how "binary oppositional thinking" fits into this scheme.

[Sabrina]

Since I started this thread, I get all the conversation in my box. In my meager procrastination from my loads of work, I keep looking at it to see if there are any funny comments, etc....but my God, how do you guys find the time for the discussion your bringing up. I glance through some of these comments and I cannot even follow what the heck most of you are even talking about unless I take some real "time" and my dictionary ( I think I have neither). Must be nice to have that kind of "time" on your hands. (I know, I can find the "dictionary" in the used store if I get some "time" first). Signed, Lost in a dogs ass. (But at least I've got "Jesus" with me)


I'm not sure what you're referring to here, but I believe that (a) most, if not all, problems have a rational component, and (b) it pays to be rational when you're thinking about rational problems. If somebody disagrees with that, then I suppose that means we're involved in "binary oppositional thinking." But I've noticed a peculiarity in many wacco discussions, at least the ones I've participated in. People often begin a discussion by framing it as rational because, after all, what would be the point of an irrational discussion? Then, after having framed it as rational, they go on to make irrational statements but see no self-contradiction. I think they do this because they can't tell when they're being irrational. They don't know the difference between rationality and irrationality, and sometimes they get upset when told what that difference is. I'm not sure how "binary oppositional thinking" fits into this scheme.

[Willie Lumplump]

Must be nice to have that kind of "time" on your hands.
Well, I'm retired. And sometimes I get carried away. But I'm used to handling ideas and expressing them, and I can sometimes write half a page in only a few minutes.

[Sabrina]

I see. I can tell you are quite a writer. Without reading it all, I was thinking, this person should write a book. And, actually, since your retired, maybe you could....Maybe when I'm retired I'll get back to writing. I used to do more of it when I used to have "time". : )


Well, I'm retired. And sometimes I get carried away. But I'm used to handling ideas and expressing them, and I can sometimes write half a page in only a few minutes.

[decterlove]

Thank you again Miles! You can just control F the word "trapped" on that page and bring up the sentence as well. I like this quote in particular;

"It must be emphasized, lest the orderly mind shrink in horror from anything that is not clearly articulated and categorized in tree form, that the idea of overlap, ambiguity, multiplicity of aspect and the semilattice are not less orderly than the rigid tree, but more so. They represent a thicker, tougher, more subtle and more complex view of structure."

Perhaps this is the greatest challenge for all of us in pondering these divides....our minds inevitably insist on simplification and find overlap, ambiguity, multiplicity, and contradiction instead. And we pick at these like a festering sore...instead of just honoring the complexity they spring forth from.

Here's a random page of quotes from Gregory Bateson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Bateson) also describing impossible contradictions from "Ecology of Mind."

https://grids.jonmattox.com/people/bateson.html

I was searching for his little treatise on the 12 steps but can't find it right now but I do like the following in no particular order:

"If we continue to operate in terms of a Cartesian dualism of mind versus matter, we shall probably also continue to see the world in terms of God versus man; elite versus people; chosen race versus others; nation versus nation; and man versus environment. It is doubtful whether a species having both an advanced technology and this strange way of looking at its world can endure.

"Scientists are always assuming or hoping that things are simple, and then discovering that they are not."

"Man's behavior is corrupted by deceit - even self deceit - by purpose, and by self-consciousness."

"The essence and raison d'etre of communication is the creation of redundancy, meaning, pattern, predictablilty, information, and/or the reduction of the random by "restraint".

"Le coeur a ses raisons que la rasion ne connait point" - The heart has its reasons which the reason does not at all perceive)

"Samuel Butler was perhaps first to point out that that which we know best is that of which we are least conscious."


And here's a Zen one for you Willie:
"I once heard a Zen master state categorically: 'To become accustomed to anything is a terrible thing'"


Greater Minds than you or I have debated these very same quandaries.
Maybe we're all just forced to work with World Views that out of necessity are containable, but incomplete and self-contradictory. The Mind is forced to simplify and adapt in order to function and exist. Only 1 in a billion might be able to unravel the dualism we are still mired in...and they may or may not be writing about it!


Willie, I'll bow out now and wish you a fine evening and a fine morning to follow or the reverse if you prefer. We're all more much more comfortable in some places than others on the spectrum of the Rational vs. the Irrational....but the line disappears when you look close enough or blinds you in the effort.




"Trapped by a mental habit, perhaps by the very way that our minds work."

Quote from my reading from my year in the Master's program at UofC, Intellectual History, '84-'85, This is a paraphrase. The actual quote, with citation, is buried in a little notebook, in my hardcopy files somewhere inaccessable. I just looked for it, without luck.

It struck me at the time as a cogent remark on the dangers of binary oppositional thinking. Still does, although my memory says the original was much more scintillating.

"Mad" Miles

:burngrnbounce:


Let's hear it for google! Here's the full text and citation:

https://www.patternlanguage.com/archives/alexander2.htm

Just do a "find on this page" search in Edit for "trapped by a mental habit" for the specific line. My memory does work!

"M"M

[Willie Lumplump]

I see. I can tell you are quite a writer. Without reading it all, I was thinking, this person should write a book. And, actually, since your retired, maybe you could....Maybe when I'm retired I'll get back to writing. I used to do more of it when I used to have "time". : )
Funny you should mention that. I am writing a book, but I'm not making much progress lately because this house and land that I'm responsible for take up all my energy.

[Willie Lumplump]

"If we continue to operate in terms of a Cartesian dualism of mind versus matter, we shall probably also continue to see the world in terms of God versus man; elite versus people; chosen race versus others; nation versus nation; and man versus environment.--Bateson
What the devil does Cartesian dualism have to do with "God versus man" and all the other things Bateson listed? I imagine that Decartes would be very surprised to learn that his ideas were being applied in this way.

"Scientists are always assuming or hoping that things are simple, and then discovering that they are not."--Bateson
This kind of mischaracterization of science and scientists is what convinces me that our schools are doing a miserable job in teaching the aims and methods of science.

"Man's behavior is corrupted by deceit - even self deceit - by purpose, and by self-consciousness."--Bateson
Scientists are certainly aware of the constant danger of self-deceit, and every scientist learns how to use the elaborate system of checks that is part of the scientific method.

"The essence and raison d'etre of communication is the creation of redundancy, meaning, pattern, predictablilty, information, and/or the reduction of the random by "restraint".--Bateson
I seriously doubt that this sentence means anything at all, but if it does, I'd be open to hearing the interpretation.

"Le coeur a ses raisons que la rasion ne connait point"
I believe that would be "ne conait pas."

"Samuel Butler was perhaps first to point out that that which we know best is that of which we are least conscious."
An insightful man, Sam was. His "Three Generations" was a stunner.

Maybe we're all just forced to work with World Views that out of necessity are containable, but incomplete and self-contradictory. The Mind is forced to simplify and adapt in order to function and exist.
I think that the problem derives from the way that the mind has to work. We have no way of experiencing reality directly. All that we know of reality is the model of reality that we create in our minds based on direct sensory input that is interpreted and reinterpreted. A model is, by definition, an approximation and simplification of reality that captures important features of reality.

the line [between rational and irrational] disappears when you look close enough or blinds you in the effort.
Sorry, but statements like this just leave me cold. They sound very philosophical and profound, but when you try to nail down what exactly they mean, you find that they don't mean anything at all. It's a constant temptation to string words together that satisfy all grammatical rules and then think that because the rules are satisfied you've actually said something meaningful. The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein was particularly sensitive to this issue. So much, in fact, that he claimed that all apparent philosophical puzzles could be reduced to vague and confusing use of language. I see his point.

[Sonomamark]

Willie, I agree with everything you write here. But it's "connait". Verb connaitre.

SM

[Zeno Swijtink]

Willie, I agree with everything you write here. But it's "connait". Verb connaitre.

SM

"Le cœur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît point."

"Point" for emphasis. That's from Blaise Pascal, Pensées de M. Pascal sur la religion, et sur quelques autres sujets (1670), from a section called Le Pari (The Wager), a decision-theoretic argument for the rationality to believe and worship God.


31. le coeur a ses raisons* [le coeur V on] lescait *que la raison ne connoist point on (Dans a la marge supérieure de la page inversee.) en mill Choses / Jedis qle coeur ayme [natur] lestre vniuersel [qud il sy addonne] naturelle ---- / et soy mesme naturelle ---- selon quil s'y addonne, et il se durcit contre lvn oulaut -- / a son choix, vous auez rejetté lvn et conserue l autre, est ce par raison qevous vous aymez? /

277. The heart has its reasons, which reason does not know. We feel it in a thousand things. I say that the heart naturally loves the Universal Being, and also itself natu-rally, according as it gives itself to them; and it hardens itself against one or the other at its will. We have rejected the one, and kept the other. Is it by reason that you love yourself?

(No, I didn't type this all out for this posting. It's from some old course notes from a class I taught way back when.)

[Willie Lumplump]

Willie, I agree with everything you write here. But it's "connait". Verb connaitre.SM
Oops! I dropped an "n." Oh well, better to drop one than add one (I think).

[Willie Lumplump]

"Le cœur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît point."
Very interesting! I had never heard of that construction before. And I had no idea that French had changed so much since the days of Pascal.

Too bad about Pascal. He was a mathematical genius who eventually became absorbed in religious fantasies, putting an end to his brilliant career.

[porky]

Barry, I think you are wrong on this one.
If a joke is offensive to a number of people it should go to your censored category. This is how you have regulated "offensive" postings and threads before. Why you choose to change your policy when it comes to Jesus is circumspect.
What would you have done it was an image of Mohammed? (a double taboo?)


I am moving this thread to WaccoTalk. Links to this thread will continue to work.

This thread started in the pets category. I should have moved it to the WaccoReader category (since it wasn't local), but for some reason that I don't remember (or just a mistake) I moved it to the General Community category. I'm glad it landed there since it seemed to strike a nerve for some people and a tickled the funny bone of others. The discussion and explanation of the various points of view has been quite interesting. Further discussion is welcome!

WaccoBB.net isn't for everybody and that's just fine by me. In fact I think that is what makes it such a special place. As I said earlier, a sense of humor is required (or at least very helpful!) here. Note that the original post/website (https://getbehindjesus.net/) wasn't attacking anybody.

I'll consider the suggestion of a humor and/or a rant category after the upgrade when managing your category subscriptions will be a lot easier.

:tiphat:
Barry

[Willie Lumplump]

Barry, I think you are wrong on this one.
If a joke is offensive to a number of people it should go to your censored category.
If I may barge in here, I'm not sure that I agree. I find that what I say sometimes, maybe even often, offends people. I'd hate to be moved to the censored category every time that happens. I'd say that to qualify for that category a post should be malicious and without redeeming social value.

[decterlove]

I think that the problem derives from the way that the mind has to work. We have no way of experiencing reality directly. All that we know of reality is the model of reality that we create in our minds based on direct sensory input that is interpreted and reinterpreted. A model is, by definition, an approximation and simplification of reality that captures important features of reality.


Here's the first thing that you've said. Willie, that doesn't leave me cold.

Look, I apologize if I've been vague here, if I'm guilty of speculation, and if I've said things that may be contradictory, or just plain untrue. I react emotionally to this battle of world views and my personal experience has told me time and time again the attempting to confine reality to the parameters you are comfortable in, just simply contains a destructive element in it for me of a profound nature.

I think the following text from Wikipedia illustrates the argument perfectly. In the two sections describing the pro and con positions re the efficacy and validity of Acupuncture as a medical treatment it contains all the elements that I have been attempting to address in my above posts. And the subject of Acupuncture provides the perfect interface of the two contrary world views.

It also spans the full transition (5000 years) from a primitive world view to a modern one. It also holds the promise of at least some reconciliation in the relatively near future, as more and more western scientists are exposed to it and study it (which again I hold possible regarding the split between religion, or more accurately Spirit, and Science although I don't think Intelligent Design as yet offers that promise. I don't believe the latter two will be fully possible to integrate for hundreds of years but I see some degree of convergence this century.) I submit to you the following...I'm sorry if Bateson is a little obstuse.


Views of proponents
Criticism of Traditional Chinese Medicine theory hinges on the question of how to assess 'intangible' concerns. There is an assumption that all knowledge can be tested by randomly-controlled double-blind studies, and that anything not susceptible to this method of assessment must be jettisoned as unverifiable. Yet the difficulty is not in the methodology, but rather that the nature of TCM itself makes it difficult to subject it as a whole, or subsets of the medical theory, to this type of assessment.

The theory, practice and techniques of Chinese medicine evolved over many thousands of years, well in advance of a formal articulation of the scientific method. Nevertheless, the principles of the scientific method have been used throughout the development of Chinese medical knowledge.

Documentation of developments allowed practitioners to evaluate each other's theoretical and practical hypotheses, and what was shown to be effective and/or consistent with observable phenomena was kept, and the remainder discarded over time.

Chinese medicine is inherently individually applied. Given that the health of the entire individual is taken into account for each patient, any two patients, even with the same diagnosis, will receive different treatments based on their constitutional differences, their pattern of response to treatment, and so on. In addition, each treatment may vary from the previous one to treat exactly the same condition.

Thus the very complexity and flexibility of this medical system makes it extremely difficult to run clinical trials – a cohort of many thousands would have to be evaluated in order to even begin to assess any claims made for or against the medicine. Clinical trials are still a valuable exercise, but they are not sufficient to determine conclusively whether either the individual constituents of the medical theory (e.g. acupuncture points), or the medical theory as a whole, are valid.<sup class="noprint Template-Fact"></sup>

Views of critics
One of the major criticisms of studies which purport to find that acupuncture is anything more than a placebo is that most such studies are not (in the view of critics) properly conducted. Many are not double blinded and are not randomized. However, double-blinding is not a trivial issue in acupuncture: since acupuncture is a procedure and not a pill, it is difficult to design studies in which the person providing treatment is blinded as to the treatment being given.

The same problem arises in double-blinding procedures used in biomedicine, including virtually all surgical procedures, dentistry, physical therapy, etc.; the 1997 NIH (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_institues_for_health&action=edit) Consensus Statement notes such issues with regard to sham (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sham_%28falsity%29&action=edit) acupuncture (needling performed superficially a/o at non-acupuncture sites), a technique often used in studies purporting to be double-blinded.

Tonelli, a prominent critic of Evidence Based Medicine, argues that complementary and alternative medicine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_medicine) (CAM) cannot be EBM-based unless the definition of evidence is changed. Tonelli also says "the methods of developing knowledge within CAM currently have limitations and are subject to bias and varied interpretation. CAM must develop and defend a rational and coherent method for assessing causality and efficacy, though not necessarily one based on the results of controlled clinical trials."

Some researchers argue that there is no evidence that acupuncture has any affect on the pathogenesis of viruses and microorganisms, or on human physiology, with the exception of the neurological pathways associated with the nerve cells that were stimulated by them. Thus, the most promising clinical application of acupuncture is in the area of pain control.

Some researchers argue that to date there is no conclusive scientific evidence indicating that the procedure has any effectiveness beyond that of a placebo. They argue that studies on acupuncture that meet scientific standards of experimentation have concluded two things: acupuncture is usually more effective than no treatment or a placebo in pill form, and that there is no significant difference in the effectiveness of acupuncture and “sham” acupuncture, which is often used as a control.

These researchers therefore conclude that acupuncture's effect is either caused by the tendency of extended, invasive procedures to generate more powerful placebo effects than pills or by the general stimulation of afferent nerve endings at the surface of the skin, causing the release of pain relieving biochemical compounds such as endorphins (this can also be done with jalapeno peppers, electricity, and various other form of stimulation). It may also be a combination of these two effects. The bottom line is this. We all exist somewhere on the continuum of very Western thinking (ie high rationality and high tendency towards reductionism and a mechanistic Cartesian view of the Universe) to very non-Rational thinking ranging from the purely Irrational to the purely Intuitive and highest levels of Artistic (non rational again) expression. We exist in the particular spot we do for a myriad of reasons, including gender, place of birth, parenting and educational influences, basic personality traits and last but not least, our experiences in life and how we find ways of interpreting them.

Now if you've experienced being in a dark room alone and suddenly having a stereo go on full blast, and during the same period of time seeing the washing machine turn on by itself as well and having a sister that was suddenly shaken by the sensation of being grabbed physically by an unseen force, etc,. etc. plus innumerable other odd, mostly unexplainable occurrences over the course of a lifetime equally unexplainable for the most part by Western Rationalist Scientific Thinking, you might also question the paradigm yourself. If you take a trip to Seattle next week and see a real ghost yourself at the bed and breakfast you are staying at or a UFO on a lonely highway drive along the Coast, you might also adjust your way of viewing the world.

It's oddly enough a lot like how people often form opinions about a subject like gay marriage or abortion. If you know someone who is at the heart of the conflict it gives you an entirely different view of it. If you've never personally experienced things that have no rational explanation, or if modern medicine for example has never failed you in addressing an ailment you suffered from while alternative medicine has provided a cheap, easy, elegant, and lasting cure...well, you may not be open to that point of view. And it never has to be an all or nothing proposition.

Nature, God, Man, or the Universe itself may find it advantageous to make sure that such a continuum exists so that each niche of possible investigation, both rational and irrational, may be fully explored by some individual who finds the impulse to do so. After all there has to be both bridge builders that provide the cold, hard, dependable structures that society needs to engage with itself, and writers, artists, musicians and poets as well who provides some meaning, relief and transcendence to all the drudgery involved that is necessary.

But regardless of what set of experiences you are given in this life, you are entitled to pick any spot you prefer on the above continuum and remain there for as long as you like. And I wish you the best wherever you sit. And if you decide that it's still in your best interest and a profound call of duty to attempt to remove all the remaining Irrationality left in the Western World (before you start on the Eastern One)...well, good luck on that one!

Well, that's it for me, really! We are just rehashing the major cultural divides of our time and frankly I'm not retired and can't put any more effort into it. Later!

ps full text of quoted article is here;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acupuncture#Views_of_proponents

[Willie Lumplump]

the subject of Acupuncture provides the perfect interface of the two contrary world views. What two world views? The efficacy of acupuncture has been validated in scientific studies, and acupuncture has shed light on the functioning of the extrapyrimidal nervous system. If some Western scientists are opposed to it, I can only imagine it's because they are not informed.
I see some degree of convergence [of spirit and science] this century. Science deals in observable phenomena and their mathematical descriptions. If you say that spirit is observable, and if you can indicate the conditions under which it is observable, I'm sure that scientists will jump right on the bandwagon and study it. If you say that spirit isn't observable or can't specify the conditions (which amounts to the same thing), science will take no interest and there will never be a "convergence."
We all exist somewhere on the continuum of very Western thinking (ie high rationality and high tendency towards reductionism and a mechanistic Cartesian view of the Universe) to very non-Rational thinking ranging from the purely Irrational to the purely Intuitive and highest levels of Artistic (non rational again) expression. I don't know about you, but I'm all over the map. One minute I might be totally rational, and the next, rationality might be the last thing on my mind (as when I'm with my lady love). When you talk about a "mechanistic Cartesian view of the Universe," I hope you understand that Descartes divided the universe into matter and mind. He was, in a sense, the author of dualism (not that he didn't have precedents). He was hardly a mechanist.
Now if you've experienced seeing a washing machine turn on by itself as well and having a sister that was suddenly shaken by the sensation of being grabbed physically by an unseen force . . . you might also adjust your way of viewing the world.I've heard voices that weren't there, I've heard excruciatingly loud noises (auditory hallucinations) in my head, I've seen a shimmering shirt lift off a chair and float toward me, and I've experienced an altered state of consciousness that gave me a good view of Zen enlightenment. While all these experiences were educational, my view of the world remains basically the same: I am a mechanist and, in most respects, an existentialist. Also a libertarian socialist like Noam Chomsky, I might add.
After all there has to be both bridge builders that provide the cold, hard, dependable structures that society needs to engage with itself, and writers, artists, musicians and poets as well who provides some meaning, relief and transcendence to all the drudgery involved that is necessary.All fit quite nicely within my mechanistic view of the universe. I myself am a writer, musician, and sometime poet.
you are entitled to pick any spot you prefer on the above continuum and remain there for as long as you like.Like I said, I'm all over the map. Aren't you?
We are just rehashing the major cultural divides of our timePerhaps so. Many in our culture seem quite willing to suspend or surrender entirely their precious gift of reason, and the consequences are an entire class of people locked into poverty, perpetual war, and an imperialist regime that brutally suppresses the people of other countries. Reason would not permit this.

[Barry]

Barry, I think you are wrong on this one.
If a joke is offensive to a number of people it should go to your censored category. This is how you have regulated "offensive" postings and threads before. Why you choose to change your policy when it comes to Jesus is circumspect.
What would you have done it was an image of Mohammed? (a double taboo?)Well, let's see, to start with, this thread was started before I created the Censored and Uncensored category.

Given this has gone on to be a rather interesting discussion, I am going to leave it in the Talk category. I will, however, edit it in a warning on the original post.

I don't know what I would have done if the image was of Mohammad instead. It appears that Muslims, on average, have even less tolerance for teasing. If instead the "target" was Jewish (Moses?) I would have most certainly left it in Talk (I'm Jewish)! However, it's the Christian tradition that has a history of Holy Apparitions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_%28religion%29).

[Dixon]

Barry, I think you are wrong on this one.
If a joke is offensive to a number of people it should go to your censored category.

There's that magic word again--"offensive", the word that gives people the right to censor others' self-expression even when that self-expression is entirely harmless!

In my experience, "offensive" nearly always refers to self-expression that doesn't harm, attack or even insult anyone, but triggers emotional distress in people who are intolerant of anything that challenges or satirizes their beliefs or prejudices.

People have a right to choose beliefs/values that would cause them to be upset by harmless things, but do they have a right to censor those around them when they feel the inevitable distress that accompanies such intolerance? Hell no!

Here's some unsolicited advice for anyone who cares to listen: Whenever you feel upset by something harmless that someone says, instead of the kneejerk fascist reaction of censorship, try examining how your own beliefs and your intolerance for criticism are causing your distress. More constructive results will come from recognizing your own problem of intolerance and dealing with it responsibly than from censoring those around you.

Blessings!

Dixon

[Zeno Swijtink]

There's that magic word again--"offensive", the word that gives people the right to censor others' self-expression even when that self-expression is entirely harmless!

In my experience, "offensive" nearly always refers to self-expression that doesn't harm, attack or even insult anyone, but triggers emotional distress in people who are intolerant of anything that challenges or satirizes their beliefs or prejudices.

People have a right to choose beliefs/values that would cause them to be upset by harmless things, but do they have a right to censor those around them when they feel the inevitable distress that accompanies such intolerance? Hell no!

Here's some unsolicited advice for anyone who cares to listen: Whenever you feel upset by something harmless that someone says, instead of the kneejerk fascist reaction of censorship, try examining how your own beliefs and your intolerance for criticism are causing your distress. More constructive results will come from recognizing your own problem of intolerance and dealing with it responsibly than from censoring those around you.

Blessings!

Dixon

Except for calling censorship "fascist" I completely agree with you. Unfortunately censorship and suppression of free thought has been almost the norm in human history (https://www.beaconforfreedom.org/about_project/history.html).

To highlight one event, way back in 1559 Pope Paul IV put together an Index Librorum Prohibitorum (List of Forbidden Books) telling catholics what books not to read, on threat of committing a mortal sin (https://books.google.com/books?id=-KAMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA730&lpg=PA730&dq=index+librorum+prohibitorum+moratl+sin&source=web&ots=G67asWONYr&sig=BsXCNxm6x9MGEhegpFeYu7VhB1M). Similarly, confession is a way to control people's thoughts.

In the end everyone is less well off, as John Stuart Mill said:


"Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. " (JS Mill, On Liberty, 1859)

[MsTerry]

Yes, this does raise some issues beyond outright censorship.
Barry you created a special category Censored & Un-Censored where Anything goes (well, almost...)! Read at your own risk!
I remember clearly that when LuLu posted a hilarious parody about power abuse and equated you with God, You were quick to push that delete Button.
sensitivity only seems to be an issue when it comes to one's own sacred belief systems. freedom of speech is one thing, but respecting another person sensitivity is another, it is called decency.
only one person called for outright censorship, since you created a category for controversial posts, why not move the original post there and leave the rest as Waccotalk




Well, let's see, to start with, this thread was started before I created the Censored and Uncensored category.this is a strange way of thinking, todays rules don't apply to new insights?


Given this has gone on to be a rather interesting discussion, I am going to leave it in the Talk category. I will, however, edit it in a warning on the original post.the discussion is the same, who is sensitive to what and why


I don't know what I would have done if the image was of Mohammad instead. It appears that Muslims, on average, have even less tolerance for teasing. If instead the "target" was Jewish (Moses?) I would have most certainly left it in Talk (I'm Jewish)! However, it's the Christian tradition that has a history of Holy Apparitions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_%28religion%29).OK, than would you allow an image of a Hassidic Jew fornicating with a pig to make it kosher?
or how about your face coming out of a dog's ass?
would you still be tolerant if it touches your sensitivities?

[MsTerry]

Zeno,

I usually agree with you, since you usually try to balance two seemingly opposing views. As becomes clear from Dixon's use of the word "fascist", he is intolerant of the intolerant, which is akin to calling the kettle black.
to express that one is appalled by a dogsassjesus, is a valid opinion.
as is the call for censorship
the only reason that the dogsassjesus is funny is because you aren't supposed to do that. if a dogsassjesus was common, people would wonder if you were preaching.
so, it isn't just an image, it is also an attempt to offend or at least to be naughty.


Except for calling censorship "fascist" I completely agree with you. Unfortunately censorship and suppression of free thought has been almost the norm in human history (https://www.beaconforfreedom.org/about_project/history.html).

To highlight one event, way back in 1559 Pope Paul IV put together an Index Librorum Prohibitorum (List of Forbidden Books) telling catholics what books not to read, on threat of committing a mortal sin (https://books.google.com/books?id=-KAMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA730&lpg=PA730&dq=index+librorum+prohibitorum+moratl+sin&source=web&ots=G67asWONYr&sig=BsXCNxm6x9MGEhegpFeYu7VhB1M). Similarly, confession is a way to control people's thoughts.

In the end everyone is less well off, as John Stuart Mill said:

"Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. " (JS Mill, On Liberty, 1859)

[Braggi]

What two world views? The efficacy of acupuncture has been validated in scientific studies, and acupuncture has shed light on the functioning of the extrapyrimidal nervous system. If some Western scientists are opposed to it, I can only imagine it's because they are not informed. ...

Willie, I rarely take issue with your facts, but here again the lie that gets repeated over and over doesn't become more true over time.

Here's an interesting article discussing acupuncture: https://www.orthosupersite.com/view.asp?rID=25094

Yes, there are some studies that have shown acupuncture effective for various maladies. However, there are no really good, repeatable studies, covering a large number of subjects, reasonably well controlled, that show acupuncture effective at much of anything except emptying the pockets of those receiving treatments. Acupuncture has been shown to be less effective than massage at treating back pain. Massage was also shown to be far superior to chiropractic, surgery, and drug treatment BTW. For those with chronic back pain, the best treatments are gentle abdominal exercise and massage. And sex of course-that's Dr. Jeff's prescription.

Tactile healing modalities have value, but that value is largely in the area of customer satisfaction, not actual progress in the path toward healing. Only massage is really helpful for back pain. That's actually kinda nice, isn't it?

BTW, I also doubt your comments about acupuncture shedding light on the functioning of the extrapyramidal nervous system which is pretty well covered by neurology and psychiatry.
Read here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrapyramidal

-Jeff

[Willie Lumplump]

Willie, I rarely take issue with your facts, but here again the lie that gets repeated over and over doesn't become more true over time.
I'll check into it. Thanks.

[Valley Oak]

What breed of dog is that? I want to buy one to show off to my friends for tons of laughs!

The last time I went to visit this URL it no longer publishes the rapture. I went to another site that has the holy apparition but the image is static. But you'll see enough to 'get the message:'

https://libcom.org/forums/libcommunity/lord-saviour-jesus-christs-image-appears-in-dogs-arse

Thanks,

Edward



This is truly amazing! You will all become believers now! (this is about a pet)

I must probably put this on another thread as well.

https://getbehindjesus.net/

[Warning: Some people may find the above website offensive. A discussion follows. - Barry]