From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Fantasies vs. Ethics
Date: 19 Aug 1992 14:58:38 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <viking.714178827@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>	I've been reading this thread with some amusement, and I admit
>I've skipped an article or five when they looked like they weren't
>breaking any new ground.  However, I found ample areas for commment in
>this one.  I'll try to keep it short.
>linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan) writes:

>>>In particular, read Mark 5 in which Jesus casts out the "Legion" 
>>>of demons and sends it/them into a nearby herd of swine, thereby 
>>>curing a "possessed" human individual of physical and mental disease.  
>>>The passage is significant, imho, because it clearly treats 
>>>souls/spirits/demons (aka minds) as extrinsic properties, rather than 
>>>intrinsic properties, of human and animal beings.  

>	I see a minor point that needs to be addressed.  Demons, spirits,
>and souls are different, and do not equate to minds in all cases.  For
>example, the human soul is not the thinking part, but it is the spiritual
>part, or the essence of the person.  The brain is the thinking part.
>Thus, demons and spirits can inhabit the body of anything living, but
>this does not mean the living thing need have a soul.  This is only
>relevant if you believe it, of course.

>>Why wouldn't I believe in the literal accuracy of this passage?  I have
>>already said I believe in God and the Bible.  

>	You believe literally a book of parables, examples, and outright
>stories?  Do you believe the story of Hansel and Gretel is true, or do
>you merely think it a story used to make a point?  I don't have my
>Bible handy, but my reading has shown that many of the tales presented
>therein were probably true, and a great many others most likely false
>but used to make a point.  I don't believe God made the world in six
>24-hour days, but if I took it "literally" that is what it says.  For
>that matter, God may have created man in his own image by making an
>ape and letting it evolve.  "Literal" translations don't allow this, but
>I find it one way of reconciling scientific and theological differences.


That you do read the Bible is good, IMHO.  It appears that you believe in
God at least to an extent.  That you may have come to a different under-
standing or interpretation is great for discussion but, I am not in any
position to tell you whether your interpretation is any more right or 
wrong than mine.  I have no reason to not believe that God indeed made
the world in six 24-hours days as said for example.  


>>You mean you think I have little respect for YOUR concept of human and 
>>animal rights.  If you were to say you feel dogs should have the right
>>to vote and I disagreed, I guess you would say I have no respect for
>>animals rights.  This is only your perspective.

>	Russ and I tangled on this when the group was first formed, and
>I cannot remember if we ever resolved it.  Russ, do you remember how
>we cleared this up?

>>>rl> If "god" were to command you to kill a group of men, women, and 
>>>rl> children, while refusing to explain his reasons, would you obey 
>>>rl> his command?  Or, would you disobey?

>	Religous zealots have used this excuse before.  Strangely
>enough, they don't recognize the courts as having the authority to
>judge them.  The tale of Soddom and Ghomorra should be an exercise
>in how little power a law exerts over those who do not recognize the
>authority of the lawmakers.  I don't suppose the Angel of Death that
>passed over Egypt cared if the Pharoah was a god too -- his son was
>killed just like the rest of them.


The Bible tells us to obey man's laws as long as they are not in conflict
with God's laws (my interpretation).  


>>Let me ask you a question.  If God manifested himself out of thin air in
>>front of you, performed a few other miracles, would you doubt him when he
>>said he was God and commanded you to do something you would otherwise view
>>as unethical?  Would you seek the help of a shrink?  Or would you finally
>>believe?

>	I suggest the real question is, if this happened to Russ and he
>told you about it, would you believe him?  There was once a man by the
>name of Joseph Smith, who lived in Nauvoo, Illinois.  He was killed for
>precisely this same reason, as the story goes.  You know his movement
>as the Mormons.


As I have said to Russell, it doesn't matter whether I believe him or he
or the rest of the world believes me.  For example in the Book of Genesis
it is told that God came to Abraham and told him that he must kill his 
only son Issac.  Abraham did not understand and certainly did not want to
do this.  However, Abraham's love and trust for God was such that he in 
the act of doing what God commanded when God stopped him.  This was a test
of Abrahams faith and he has proven his love.  Had God not stopped him he
might have face the wrath of man for this deed and may have ended up sac-
rificing his freedom or life for following God.  Would you think this 
sacrifice would be of great consequence if you knew what God had in store
for Abraham for the rest of eternity?  Do you think what the rest of man-
kind thought of his act mattered to Abraham in view of the fact that he 
had God's approval?  

If everybody had personally met God and had all the answers about our 
lives here on earth and what was on the other side I doubt there would
be any of the controversy concerning religion.  Since we don't have the
answers, one can only go on the word of God and faith.  I am not foolish
enough to expect everybody to accept this and some may think I am foolish
for believing.  I am at ease with this reality.


><Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>



Mike Linan






















Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals