BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 01 - 10:24 PM

This thread is continued for those with slower connections.

A

Subject: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 01 - 10:22 PM

Th----

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 01 - 09:55 PM

I would submit that the problem lies in a confusion of domains. There is one class of data which we all carry records of concerning operating in the spacer-time domain. We learn all about it before we walk -- mass, persistance, inertia, various impressions of time, the way space always leads in to more space, and the way stubbed toes hurt and walls prevent moving from one room to the next unless a door is provided. This domain is the basis for physics and the kind of repeatability that science values so highly in its methods.

But there is a totally separate domain of experience that has as its components the agreements that make up social awareness -- moral codes, the different ways of using sound to communicate, agreed-upon notions of good and bad, the love of certain kinds of emotion, agreements on how to react to events -- this is a common, but non-physical, set of agreements. Of course it is all mixed up with physical dynamics since most of our agreements strat with being in a commonly held physical frame of reference.

The domain of greatest interest to some folks is different still -- it is the domain of the unbounded individual personal perspective; it goes as far as the imagination, in any dimension that can be imagined, and is made up of those constructs the author has created therein, whether they be goals, wishes, dreams, decisions about existence, high metaphysical concepts, or low inversions or debased impulses.

An individual can reach agreements about how powerful a juju man is, in the domain of agreements; and he can decide in his own universe that he feels immortal and probably is, at least as a consciousness operating a point of view. But to mix up the physical universe with its authoritarian, unbending, pigheaded patterns of persistence with the social or individual realms -- where creativity plays a much larger part -- is, I would say, pretty naive. Or pretty confused.

Ya gotta correlate the data of a domain with its own set, not just mix 'em together.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Mar 01 - 06:59 PM

the title of the thread is "Bizarre moments in our times", and relates the sad failure of 'bulletproofing'

to me, some of the most 'bizarre moments' come from survivors....that is, those who endure & survive terrible disasters. You know what I mean..*pulled from a collapsed building after 12 days*....*one of 9 people to walk away from an airplane crash that killed 137*....etc, etc...and in the TV interview, they are repeating the different versions of "God was with me and protected me"

Just ONCE, I'd like to hear the interviewer ask them, "...and just what do you suppose God had against the ones who didn't make it? Were they all evil? The young children?, the Nuns?, the heroic ship captain?"

presumably, these fortunate survivors truly BELIEVE that there was some divine intervention in their rescue, and thus that some 'power' had both the ability and the incentive to keep them safe. It really, really bothers me that anyone can hold a position like that. I'm sorry if it offends anyone, but IF there were a divine power who could do such miracles and exercised the ability so selectively, I do not care to be a part of (its) followers.

Yeah, I have heard a thousand times, "we poor mortals just can't know God's purposes in the matters". All that translates to me is "My mind's made up, don't confuse me with awkward logic"

I am perfectly in agreement with the concept that there IS more to the human experience than 'scientific proofs'...music, beauty, love and many other things DO have a place in our experience, even though we can't measure and define them with science, but these are part of our response TO aspects of life, and can be debated reasonably, if not with absolute standards. But opinions based on a belief system which by definition refers to entities OUTSIDE our experience and comprehension simply cannot be approached except by metaphor and suspension of scientific concept.
Kierkegaard referred to the "leap of faith" that Abraham made when he prepared to sacrifice Isaac at the behest of God (who, it turned out, was merely 'testing')......at least Kierkegaard understood that it WAS purely faith.

Handling snakes, standing in traffic, and shooting a man to test some 'belief system' are merely extreme examples of flawed awareness of how things work, as is claiming that God protected YOU when the boat sank, and let the other 300 drown, or committing suicide so you can go to the holy spaceship behind the comet. There are many little things people do every day that are just as bizarre, as they are based on the same beliefs, but do not directly and immediately threaten life & limb.

A few superstitions even have some use, as they may help keep people alert to real dangers, and some are merely harmless habits from cultural history.......but the very bizarre thing about our times, is that so MUCH superstition and "true belief" can endure in a society that considers itself civilized, educated and enlightened.

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: mousethief
Date: 21 Mar 01 - 05:48 PM

Thanks for clearing that up, Naemanson.

I think the claims of religions are more like historical claims than scientific claims. I was recently in a jury, and had to listen to various witnesses give their testimony as to what happened. After all the testimony, the jurors went back to the jury room and we had to decide what we thought happened, based on what the witnesses had said. Not all of the things that were said could all be true. Some of them were true and some of them were not; or maybe all of them were lies. But some of the testimony clearly contradicted other parts of the testimony. So we had to decide, in such cases, which of the witnesses we believed (if any).

It seems to me that religion is something like that. You can't prove it, the way you can prove a theorem in mathematics, or a proposition in one of the sciences. But in places where they contradict, you have to decide which of them you think is more likely correct. And of course there are some who think it's possible for contradictory claims to be true simultaneously (although I can't wrap my mind around such a possibility at all, and sure enough, when you ask them to pass the salt, they almost always pass the salt and not something else).

In the jury, we all had to agree, and render a unanimous verdict. In the courtroom of life, no such requirement is given. Thus, some people believe one religion, some believe another, and still others, no religion at all, based on how they weigh the evidence (or lack thereof) the various religious systems give.

And the evidence is such, I am convinced, that honest people can look at it, and come to different conclusions.

Which of course is exactly the situation we find in the world, thus increasing my faith in such a claim.

That's where I'm at about the whole "religion" question, and religious debates in general.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: Naemanson
Date: 21 Mar 01 - 05:30 PM

Esmond, what is the point of Buddhism? This is not a facetious question. It is asked as part of the discussion we are in. Granted, Bhuddists do not believe in a creator but they do have beliefs. Would you care to ennumerate them in a simple language I can understand? Then we can incorporate them into the conversation.

Alex, I didn't mean to suggest you were attacking anybody. I was just suggesting a guideline for this conversation.

Perhaps it will help if I explain where I am as regards religion. To start with, I see a distinction between religion and one's individual spirituality. Religion is the organization within which one pursues one's belief system. (Note: "belief system" does not necessarily equal "spirituality") I have been described as very spiritual but my "spirituality", if I have such a thing, does not fit into any of the organizations available. In fact the organizations, and people's actions within those organizations, bother me no end.

Science, as Alex has pointed out, does include areas that cannot be proven in the laboratory. I would add the word, "YET". If a hypothesis cannot be tested, or if only parts of that hypothesis can be tested, then it more rightly falls into the purvue of science.

If the hypothesis cannot be tested, or if it continually fails the tests applied then it does not belong in the realm of science. Belief in that hypothesis is based on faith that it is true. That is more in the realm of religion or pseudoscience than science.

Thus, telepathy has not been proven. the experiments continue. Perhaps we do not yet have the instruments to detect the event. Perhaps the atmosphere of a lab suppresses the subject's ability.

The existence, or non-existence of God has not been proven. Is there a test that will provide such proof? I hope not. I'd rather Let The Mystery Be (Musical inclusion!)

And who would want a religion proven correct? Can we even imagine the result if the Buddhists were proven correct? What would happen to the billions of devout Christians, Muslims, and others who suddenly had their life ruined by such a revelation? It is too horrible to contemplate. Of course the Buddhists would be busy teaching...

Brett

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 21 Mar 01 - 05:29 PM

And Again Back to the Bizarre:

There was a case about ten years ago of a private security guard hired to literally ride shot-gun in a bullet proof limosine, who thought a car closing on his client's rear was an assasination attempt, aimed the shotgun through the rear window and pulled the trigger... it was like teeing off a golf ball in a men's room (once done on a officers bet at Camp Lejuene, NC). ...And nobody was wearing bibles stuck to them... (sigh)

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: mousethief
Date: 21 Mar 01 - 05:20 PM

Thanks, Kat. Fascinating. There's a foundation for everything, ain't there? This one sounds truly worthy.

And I apologize to Wolfgang, for not answering his question. I have met people who believed that science was all they needed to know, and that anything not scientific was not really knowledge. I can't give you their names, mostly because I never knew their names (and those whose names I did know, I've forgotten). These were people I talked to back when I was at the Philosophy department at the University of Illinois. Some of my fellow grad-students had this highly untenable POV. Others were people in classes I TA'd or taught, and still others were people I talked to when I was sitting "at the booth" as a member of Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship (we had a booth in a fairly busy corridor (off to the side so as not to block traffic, of course) in the student center from which we passed out literature, talked to people who wanted to stop and talk, that sort of thing). Several on-campus student groups would use these booths: the various communist/socialist/marxist/leninist groups, other religious groups, various ethnic student societies, etc. They had the same sort of thing at the University of Washington when I was there; I had assumed virtually all colleges/universities had a similar sort of soapbox forum.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: katlaughing
Date: 21 Mar 01 - 05:14 PM

Good point, esmond. Thank you.

It seems to be that several of you ought to think about writing something for one of the many competitions of the Sir John Templeton Foundation Of particular interest may be this page:John Templeton Foundation - Science & Religion and this link: Dialogue on Science, Ethics, & Religion - American Association for the Advancement of Science

Here is an explanation of the Fondation:

The John Templeton Foundation was established in 1987 by renowned international investor, Sir John Templeton, to encourage a fresh appreciation of the critical importance---for all peoples and cultures---of the moral and spiritual dimensions of life. The Templeton Foundation seeks to act as a critical catalyst for progress, especially by supporting studies which demonstrate the benefits of an open, humble and progressive approach to learning in these areas. It is the Foundation's purpose to stimulate a high standard of excellence in scholarly understanding which can serve to encourage further worldwide explorations of the moral and spiritual dimensions of the Universe and of the human potential within its ultimate purpose. To this end, the Foundation believes that such efforts can have enduring significance for helping make the world's future more peaceful, more loving, more gracious, and that this perspective can help people to become more thankful for and open to the wonderful opportunities that the gift of life makes possible. Through its programs, the Foundation seeks to encourage the world to catch the vision of the tremendous possibilities for spiritual progress in an open and humble approach to life; encourage institutions of learning to incorporate training towards excellence in character in their efforts to prepare the next generation for service; to encourage growth in appreciating the potential of free societies; and to promote the understanding of the significant responsibilities associated with freedom in its several aspects, moral, spiritual, political and economic.

The Foundation currently funds more than 150 projects, studies, award programs and publications worldwide.

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: GUEST,esmond
Date: 21 Mar 01 - 05:06 PM

just to pick up on something way back in this thread, buddhism is not a belief system. There is no belief in a creator god or in souls etc. There are certain teachings that the Buddha may or may not have given but Buddhists are expected to try these out in the light of their own experience. And if they don't work for you, don't believe them. And you don't have to be a 'buddhist' to try them.

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: mousethief
Date: 21 Mar 01 - 04:56 PM

By the way, what did I say that you felt was an attack?

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: mousethief
Date: 21 Mar 01 - 04:46 PM

Sometimes expletives are used not as a sign of anger, but to try to capture someone's attention. I may overuse them in that capacity; mea culpa.

Not all sciences are experimental sciences, and it seemed that your definition excluded those that are not.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 01 - 04:24 PM

Wow! The Crossroads is a hotbed of vehement cartographers! Wunnerful.

What this really speaks to is, IMHO, the wide catalog available to us of ways to know. How you treat proposed information from the world, how you filter events to turn them into perceptions, what you include and what you leave out, and what you deem significant and why, is the real study involved. You can call them "proven conclusions" or you can call them "beliefs" -- any "certainty" always looks different to those who don't share it. Personally, I like to cleave to what is "workable", a sort of engineering criterion. But I have found that even that can be tricky, as the full system-wide ramifications of a "workable" solution or action sometimes turn out to be quite undesireable!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: wysiwyg
Date: 21 Mar 01 - 03:43 PM

: - (

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: Naemanson
Date: 21 Mar 01 - 03:06 PM

The problem comes from the use of language. When I see phrases like "...MY WHOLE FUCKING POINT..." and "Total, complete, 100%, unremitting BULLSHIT." then I have to assume that there is anger building and that does not add to the conversation/debate. I do not feel anger in this, only the stimulation of a good intellectual exchange. Thus I don't have enough invested in it to continue.

If you do want to continue I am perfectly willing. I refuse to participate in an attack on an individual. Attacks on someone's point is expected but should be phrased to pick apart the argument, not to impugn the individual making the argument.

On the original question of religion and respecting the belief system, I think we are saying the same thing. If the belief system causes harm to others there is a problem that needs to be changed. The mechanics of change are impossible to scope out but I believe it would have to be done.

On the question of science and religion we are talking apples and oranges. You cannot compare one to the other. However one can overlay the other. Religion lends itself to rationalizing arguments and interpretations that allows a scientist to be a religious person.

I'm curious as to why you consider my definition of science to be narrow.

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: Bedubya
Date: 21 Mar 01 - 01:45 PM

Every time I hear a story like that of Mr. Aberima I am dumbfounded by the sheer amount of egotism involved.

Intentionally putting oneself in deadly peril and trusting in the divine for rescue appears on the outside to be an act of faith and, as such, an attempt at ego transcendence. In actuality, it is purely a function of ego to assume that one knows the "will" of the divine or that anyone has such a special relationship with "God" that they are immune to the laws of nature. If there is a God He/She must laugh His/Her ass off every time this kind of shit happens.

Cheers

bwl

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: mousethief
Date: 21 Mar 01 - 12:44 PM

Actually my attitude at this point is fairly --what's the word?-- bemused. I do get annoyed when Susan plays playground monitor, but there's no stopping her from doing that, so there's no point in getting angry about it.

Anybody who makes sweeping universal claims about "religion" should be prepared to have their claims called bullshit, and RichM hasn't weighed in yet on why he feels entitled to make such a broad claim, or how he would defend it if called upon to do so.

I was just having fun with Wolfgang with the "sermon" stuff, and he hasn't indicated he was angry or upset at my doing so. Indeed, he hasn't weighed in yet on that, either.

I'm sorry you feel the conversation isn't worth persuing, Naem. Don't blame it on me, though. Take ownership of your own decisions.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: Naemanson
Date: 21 Mar 01 - 12:39 PM

A number of replies come to mind but Alex has worked himself up into an attitude where the conversation is not worth pursuing. I'd rather break it off and remain on good terms than say anything that would be cause for harsh words among friends.

If we were face to face and could see the real reaction our words were having on each othe, could gauge the depth of feeling, and could feel the spirit of the debate then I would forge ahead.

Thank you for your comments, Alex, Wolfgang, Susan, and all.

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: mousethief
Date: 21 Mar 01 - 12:36 PM

Sue, he wasn't speaking about his experience, he was speaking about RELIGION simpliciter. And not just speaking about it, but making universal negative claims about it.

My personal religious experience is not up for discussion on Mudcat now or any time in the forseeable future.

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: wysiwyg
Date: 21 Mar 01 - 12:32 PM

Alex. Maybe that is just an accurate recounting of what the person experienced, in which case labeling it bullshit is not likely to improve communication about your experience or theirs.

If you experienced something else... you are very, very lucky. What was it?

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: mousethief
Date: 21 Mar 01 - 12:17 PM

On the other hand "religion" is a pre-packaged system that is imposed on the believer by others. -- without his/her need to have personal experience or testing of the beliefs.

Total, complete, 100%, unremitting BULLSHIT.

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: Hollowfox
Date: 21 Mar 01 - 12:12 PM

RichM..All Riight!

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: wysiwyg
Date: 21 Mar 01 - 12:11 PM

BREATHE....

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: mousethief
Date: 21 Mar 01 - 12:02 PM

I said that BEFORE your sermon. In THIS message, I most explicitly said, I was objecting, not to evolution per se, but to Naemanson's narrow definition of "science."

Somebody pregnant with a sermon doesn't tend to read carefully when there's any chance they might get asked (or horn their way) to the pulpit.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: Wolfgang
Date: 21 Mar 01 - 11:12 AM

Alex, had you said what you now claim you have meant, there would have been no need for my sermon.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: mousethief
Date: 21 Mar 01 - 10:44 AM

Wolfgang, you misread me entirely. MY WHOLE FUCKING POINT was that repeatability is not the be-all and end-all of science.

Sheesh. You're just a sermon looking for a pulpit.

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: katlaughing
Date: 21 Mar 01 - 09:58 AM

RichM...I LOVE it! Exactly!

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: Stonewall
Date: 21 Mar 01 - 06:58 AM

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools . . ."

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: RichM
Date: 21 Mar 01 - 06:21 AM

A powerful shaman was once asked,
"What would you do if someone pointed a gun at you, with the intent to kill you? How would you be able to avoid being injured or killed?"

He replied, "I'm wise enough to be able to foresee and avoid being in such a circumstance".

Magic is a personnl exploration of realities. What you do with the knowledge gained from this experience depends on your personal wisdom.
Stupid Magicians make mistakes!
On the other hand "religion" is a pre-packaged system that is imposed on the believer by others. -- without his/her need to have personal experience or testing of the beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: Wolfgang
Date: 21 Mar 01 - 05:13 AM

Kat,
I knew it was.

Alex,
You didn't name one, I guess you can't. I at least have never met any person in many discussion who would have supported such a statement nor have I read such a notion in one of the many books I have read about such topics.

I mean that macro evolution can not be proven by repeatable experiment because you would have to repeat the history of the planet, which is not possible (Alex/Mousethief)

That's an interesting statement for all its implications on what constitutes scientific evidence and how theories are tested on many more fields than just evolution. It deserves a refutation for I think that it implies wrong ideas about how science works or should work.

The method of enquiry that has been termed science has in its history more often than not been applied to situations and cases that are in the strong sense unrepeatable. For instance, when I study human memory, all these humans in my lab are different and even the same person might be different (mood, attention, inner states) from one test period to the next and even from one test question to the next. Why do I think I'm allowed nevertheless to generalise across my findings? One simple reason is it works. That is, I can make successful predictions about future performance, about influences of other factors on performance. If my predictions wouldn't work, I couldn't convince any other scientist by armchair arguments about the validity of my research. As long as my predictions are sound, any arguments from philosophers don't count for most scientists I know.

In the physical sciences there are also many instances in which complete repeatability isn't possible. Think of forensic evidence which is considered admissible as proof. Never two bodies are completely alike (we wouldn't want to experiment by killing a volunteer) in terms of length of exposure, ambient temperature or weather. Nevertheless the rules in that branch of science work so good that this evidence is given greater weight in court than most other evidence.

Now let's consider science as applied to nonrepeatable (most of them in our past, but some like a meteorite coming dangerously close might be in the future) events. Let's skip for a moment evolution (for I do not have the impression that you can discuss that topic without falling below your usually high level of arguing). Let's talk about geophysics, cosmology, paleoanthropology, astronomy, and many others. They all make theories about unrepeatable events (in our timescale) like the continental drift, like the origin of planets, like the formation of rocks and many more. They test these ideas in repeatable experiments. When their predictions fail consistently they know that something is wrong in their theories and will either adapt them or discard them. When they have tested different theories with different predictions and one of them has 'won', they might even say for short that this theory has been proved though they know that it only has not been disproved yet and is only able at this moment in time to make better predictions about experimental results than competing theories. If you have a theory about let's say continental drift which makes correct predictions to all tests any scientist has thought of yet, you'll consider this the best fitting hypothesis about what has happened at a time when no human has watched. Yes, and scientists prefer these theories to e.g. Rudolf Steiner's (founder of anthroposophy) musings from occult sources about the early continents. One of the best reasons for this pattern of preference is the much larger predictive power of the scientific theories.

Science has repeatability of experiments as a prerequisite for proof (or better: failure of disproof) of theories and not as you seem to imply repeatability of events. If you really demand complete repeatability of events you'll have to throw out much more than just evolution.

As for evolution, it is the best fitting hypothesis (several of them competing, actually) at this moment and in my eyes much better and much more testable than accounts from several thousand year old folktales.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: wysiwyg
Date: 20 Mar 01 - 06:30 PM

Well Naemanson, me, I am strictly an and-and girl. That either-or stuff.... shudder.... it's just not necessary.

We are ALL correct.

And we are ALL all wet.

Simultaneously.

Really. So relax, and just... look around... and be yourself... that real YOU I get to see once in awhile... who knows this is a GOOD world to be in. START THERE. Let me know where ya get to from THERE.

love,

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: mousethief
Date: 20 Mar 01 - 05:16 PM

Oh when will they ever learn?
Oh when will they ever learn?

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: Naemanson
Date: 20 Mar 01 - 05:04 PM

OK, Godammit, I'll quit being wishy washy! YOU'RE WRONG! ALL OF YOU! WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!

MUWAHAHAHAHA!

Or maybe I am...

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 Mar 01 - 02:46 PM

Wolfgang, it was a joke.

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 20 Mar 01 - 02:27 PM

I heard an interesting quote this weekend that I kind of liked - "Religious wars are nothing more than people fighting over who has the better imaginary friend." For some reason it came to mind as I was reading this thread.

I have always been amused at the idea that people "put their faith in science". It appears to me to be a bit of a non sequitir. I don't worship at the altar of science, but I have found that applying the scientific method to practical problems in my life has provided more effective solutions than applying the lessons of my early religious learning.

On the other hand, I find that merely knowing the "science" of something (such as why a particular person died) can provide little comfort. So maybe there is room in a rather complex world for different modes of thought. Perhaps the key is in discovering which mode is most appropriate, while leaving plenty of room for conjecture.

Subject: LYR/CHRD ADD: He Washed My Eyes With Tears
From: wysiwyg
Date: 20 Mar 01 - 01:59 PM

(Sorry, Joe Offer, I forgot to change the subject line again when adding a song. Scroll up. ~S~)

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: Songster Bob
Date: 20 Mar 01 - 01:56 PM

<>

Anglo (and Hispanic) missionaries were very gratified when the Amerindians clamored for copies of the Bible, until they discovered that the Indians were using them in their shields, as arrow-and-bullet-proof, well, shields; the thick set of pages did indeed help ward off arrows, spears, and, unless it was a buffalo rifle, bullets. If they'd had enough Bibles, the Indians could have invented paper "Kevlar!"

Bob C.

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: wysiwyg
Date: 20 Mar 01 - 01:56 PM

As I said earlier, it's very difficult to defend and explore territory at the same time.

Some things one can only know by exploring, going where this leads, and finding out what can be known there. And then how you test whether what you have learned is true is you try living by it, day by day, and assess the results. Some things turn out to be wrong, others are wrongly understood, others understood partially and lead to more exploring, others feel like sense but have no logic and you set them aside to keep an eye out for kmore data.

Here is one place I ended up as a result, much to my utter surprise.

~Susan

---

HE WASHED MY EYES WITH TEARS
(Ira Stanphill)

He washed my eyes with tears, that I might see
The broken heart I had was good for me.
He tore it all apart and looked inside;
He found it full of fear, and foolish pride.
He swept away the things that made me blind,
And then I saw the clouds were silver-lined.
And now I understand 'twas best for me--
He washed my eyes with tears, that I might see.

He washed my eyes with tears, that I might see
The glory of Himself revealed to me;
I did not know that He had wounded hands;
I saw the blood he spilt upon the sands.
I saw the marks of shame, and wept and cried;
He was my substitute-- for me He died.
And now I'm glad He came so tenderly,
And washed my eyes with tears, that I might see.

(c) 1955 Singspiration Music

CHORDS
He washed my (Eb)eyes with tears, that I might (Bb7)see
The broken heart I had was good for (Eb)me.
He tore it all apart and looked in- (Bb7)side;
He found it full of fear, and foolish (Eb)pride.
He swept a- (Ab)way the things that made me (Eb)blind,
And then I (F7)saw the clouds were silver- (Bb7)lined. (F7, Bb)
And now I (Eb)understand 'twas best for (Bb7)me--
He washed my eyes with tears, that I might (Eb)see.

SOURCE:
The Best of Country & Western Gospel Hymnal, Benson Music

SH

---

In this fashion I have gone many places I sure never thought I'd go. I first gave up being sure about, and defending, so many untested things, myself.

What I learned by living as much as I could understand, over time, accumulated into what some now see from the outside as my "faith," and others see as "my" strength.

I did not "get" it by agreeing to anyone's authoritarian view.... and when these were offered, in fact, they often slowed me down to where I could learn some other true things instead. Nor did I "make" it by myself. I saw them develop over time with the help of an able partner in close interaction.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 20 Mar 01 - 01:45 PM

History recalls someone else who believed in his immunity from bullets...Crazy Horse, warchief of the Sioux. After engaging in his ritual purification and donning his Medicine clothing, he led his cavalry into battle. In several battles in the Fort Fetterman area, Crazy Horse rode his pony nearly to the line of the soldiers, taunting them and exhorting his men. Even massed volleys failed to touch him.

He was eventually killed, bayonetted by soldiers who surprised him during a surrender negotiation at a fort. Horse was a very religious man, his visions leading him to the forefront of his people. Because he and his people indulged in such things as self-mutilation they were looked on as barbarians. Yet they also believed in the "Sacred Hoop", the seamless integration of man and nature that insured the survival of both, a concept which we as a civilization are late (hopefully not too late) in coming to. If we would question aspects and rituals of a particular faith, then we should also question our own belief systems. For many years, Christianity has erred by elevating spirit to the point of despising the flesh, by valuing the next world to the detriment of this one. In God's infinite wisdom, might He not have filled this world with Holiness, as well?

Perhaps Crazy Horse had something to teach us after all, if we had but listened.

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: mousethief
Date: 20 Mar 01 - 01:00 PM

Of course we're right. Quit being so goddammed wishy-washy.

With a sad smile,
Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: Naemanson
Date: 20 Mar 01 - 12:52 PM

You're right that there are no easy answers. I had a girlfriend who once criticized me for not raising my children within a spiritual atmosphere (my belief is that the kid needs to decide). That is as much my choice as yours is to raise yours in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Both choices are valid and neither should be criticized.

I did lay out what I consider to be an important distinction and I did it deliberately. We (you and I) believe that human life is sacred and nobody has a right to harm another. I also believe that we can critize those who practice such a harmful religion (I assume you do too). But to make that step we need to set out our distinctions.

There is a range of distinctions available to us from very conservative (they don't believe ABC the way I do) to very liberal (anything they do is OK as long as they do no harm). Do we have the right to stand in judgement of others?

Bear in mind that those from that other belief system also have the right to do the same with us. I can see myself being pilloried for not taking my children to church (as has happened to people in the past). I can see you and yours being harmed for not conforming to a particular system. Are we any better than those people? We say we are because we are against harm to others. We are right but are we RIGHT?

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: catspaw49
Date: 20 Mar 01 - 12:39 PM

AUSSIEBLOKE----Being of some Italian descent and being reared in a strongly Italian-American community, it is somewhat safe for me to tell you that the unfortunate Jehovah's Witness you mention was run down by an Italian. It's not that we don't like Jehovah's Witnesses; Italians don't like any witnesses.

HOLLOWFOX----You live too close to Pennsylvania.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: mousethief
Date: 20 Mar 01 - 12:24 PM

"If we are going to question one ritual we need to questin them all."

Only if we don't have a way of distinguishing between them. But any idiot can distinguish between rituals that kill and rituals that don't. And you yourself immediately thereafter come up with a distinction that is even better: harm-to-others. Aside from harm-to-others, I don't think there's sufficient reason for persons NOT belonging to a particular belief-group to stick their noses in those others' business. I mean, we can comment about it and such, but not take action to stop them.

But how much harm is harm? And who gets to define harm? Perhaps some very anti-religious people would say that the way I am raising my children -- to believe in God, and go through the rituals of the Eastern Orthodox Church -- is de facto harming them.

In this as in anything else that's really important, there probably are no easy answers.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: Naemanson
Date: 20 Mar 01 - 12:15 PM

Science recognizes answers to questions, expresses skepticism, and pursues proofs of the answers. Religion recognizes answers to questions and accepts those answers on faith, without proof and without skepticism. I have no problem with that except that nobody asks for the credentials of the person providing the religious answer.

I told someone once that I would be willing to believe and willing to accept a religious vocation but the Old Man himself has to assign it. I accept no intermediaries.

"I'm not quite sure I see the connection between infant sacrifice and infant baptism. The latter is far less -um- deadly."

My example was intended to be one of rituals that are important to particular religions. There is, as you point out, a world of difference. But if we are going to question one ritual we need to question them all. We then need to create a yard stick by which we can measure them. My yardstick would be the amount of harm done to others. Since baptism does no harm I can safely ignore it. Since the Taliban does not allow medical treatment for women I would fight against that. My analogy is flawed for there are whole cultures of Muslims who are not fundamentalists and in whose societies women are not abused.

And Alex, if you want to see a sacred (science) cow being defended in full fury you need to listen to scientists with opposing theories. It gets pretty bloody (metaphorically).

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: mousethief
Date: 20 Mar 01 - 11:58 AM

Wolfgang, you only prove that you don't worship at the altar of science. Not that others don't.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: Wolfgang
Date: 20 Mar 01 - 11:44 AM

Mousethief: some people think the only truths are those that can be proven scientifically

Name one, Alex. I for instance hold many things to be true (like sport results, who was American president 10 years ago) without any scientific study about them.

Such an opinion would be extremely stupid that is undefendable in my eyes. Science isn't but an extremely useful method to test statements about the world. And in several respects it is superior to other methods of knowledge gathering. That is when other methods and science battle on the same field, the other methods often lose.

Thanks a lot for the citation.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: Hollowfox
Date: 20 Mar 01 - 11:29 AM

Back to bizarre moments, here is the beginning of the headline story from the Youngstown (OH) Vindicator, March 14, 2001: "Authorities said they do not believe Tammy Felbaum intended to kill her husband when she castrated him last month at the couple's home in Harrisville.(PA)
Pennsylvania State Police here said the 40-year-old James John Felbaum initiated the castration on himself and then asked his wife to help him finish what authorities have called 'a very crude operation.'"
Things got stranger after that, it apparently turns out that Tammy had a sex-change operation a few years back, she had been married five times, and "Police said they believe Tammy Felbaum has been involved in taxidermy. However, they have no indication she is a licensed taxidermist and believe she has no medical training."
And people say the Midwest is dull.

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: mousethief
Date: 20 Mar 01 - 11:24 AM

I'm not quite sure I see the connection between infant sacrifice and infant baptism. The latter is far less -um- deadly. And let's not get started on abortion.

Wolfgang, I mean that macro evolution can not be proven by repeatable experiment because you would have to repeat the history of the planet, which is not possible. I was objecting, not to evolution per se, but to Naemanson's narrow definition of "science." Geez, you guys, just go ahead and PROVE my "sacred cow" comment by getting all worked up over evolution, okay?

And by the way, I didn't say any particular scientific theory is a sacred cow (although it is clear from this thread that macro-evolution is), but rather science as a whole. So much so that some people think the only truths are those that can be proven scientifically. They (luckily for them and us) don't live this in their day-to-day lives, but they have it as part of their personal philosophy, so to speak.

The question about bullet-proof-ness is not a question of ethics ("moral positions"), as Naemanson discussed, but rather one of consistency. Had this guy ever seen someone bullet-proofed by a jujuman before? Had he ANY reason to think that bullet-proofing was something that jujumen were qualified to do? As I pointed out before, the reaction of the villagers -- who presumably didn't at that moment cease to believe in jujumen in general, just this one in particular -- shows that the jujuman in question was making claims he couldn't live up to, and that this is unacceptable for jujumen. If he had said, "Jujumen can do a lot of things, but we can't make you bullet-proof," I doubt they would have tried to kill him.

On murder in pre-agricultural societies: see Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. This was not the first place I ran into this fact; rather that was in a copy of Science News from 1984 or 1985. But I don't have that to hand; whereas the book mentioned, I just read this past month.

Great discussion, guys.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: Naemanson
Date: 20 Mar 01 - 09:29 AM

Well, lots to chew on in the time since my last post.

Alex, you are completely right about evolution. It has not been proven. BUT! A lot of the mechanisms that make evolution work HAVE been proven by repeatable experimentation and the search goes on. So we should by all rights say that evolution has not been completely proven YET. Give the scientists time.

As regards my statement about equal validity of belief systems. There is a red flag that should go up when belief systems are under discussion. They are each valid. But they are not all right depending on whose moral values you use. A system that practices human sacrifice would not meet the rather rigid moral atmosphere we have here in the US and much of the rest of the world. In fact we would all be horrified by the thought and would fight to change or eradicate that practice.

But would we be right? If you fight that religion whould you then have to fight a religion that immerses young babies in water? There go the Catholics and several of the Baptist branches of Christianity.

We would then have a fight, not between religions but between moral positions. As the 1940's proved such a fight can be the good fight.

(I have to admit I would support you in the fight against any system that causes physical harm such as human mutilation (female genital mutilation) or human sacrifice, or the abuse of people such as the strict fundamentalists in Afghanistan.)

Subject: RE: BS: Bizarre Moments in Our Times
From: Wolfgang
Date: 20 Mar 01 - 08:02 AM

Kat: I always heard She had the many-roomed mansion....:-)

Are you sure, kat? The person speaking in the citation (John 14) is Jesus (Jesa?).

Mousethief: nobody has ever PROVED evolution with repeatable experiments

I'm at a complete loss of understanding what you want to tell us by this.
- Do you mean that Naemanson was a tiny bit careless when only citing experiments as evidence where he also could have mentioned repeatable observations and mathematical modelling and...?
- Do you mean that most scientists are uneasy speaking about experiments proving anything and prefer to speak about experiments disproving a theory (as Naemanson has made completely clear in his post)?
- Do you mean that never in the history of science any single experiment has proved a complex theory and therefore it is completely obvious that the theory of evolution also falls in this class?
- Or do you intend to claim that there is no sound evidence, many of it experimental, for theories of evolution (dispite all their dissimilarities in detail)?

Mousethief again: The chief cause of death in pre-agricultural societies is murder.
Do you have a source for that? For reasons that have nothing to do with this thread I'm interested in death statistics from different countries at different times.

In general, deep in my heart I feel not the same amout of respect for all belief systems and I don't think I should. A belief system endorsing human sacrifices, a belief system in which destruction of symbols, idols, churches or what else belonging to other belief systems is thought necessary, a belief system giving part of the population, women e.g., a very subordinate role has always had much less respect from me than a belief system that says 'love thy neighbour' or a rather peaceful belief systems like many parts of buddhism.

To give you an extreme example: You may have heard of theosophy (Blavatsky) and anthroposophy (Steiner) two very esoteric systems of knowledge gathering. But I think you have not heard yet of one of the more extrem offshoots of these esoteric schools, namely ariosophy (Guido von List, Lanz von Liebenfels). Guido von List claimed to be the last magus of the Armans, a priest caste of the old Germans. His 'knowledge' came from esoteric practices in a combination of German and hinduistic thinking. He was claiming superiority of the Germans (Aryans), asking for a Fuehrer to come (in the 1910s), promoting the SS-rune for the future racist (that was a good word for him) Germany and telling that the worst threat for Germany was the 'international jewish conspiration'.
I have no respect at all for this thinking though the man was clearly claiming religious status for his ideas. I think it a pity that ideas like his, wherever they claimed to come from and whatever religious cover they used were not lauged off in his times.

Wolfgang