From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: an observation
Date: 9 Oct 1992 22:15:50 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <BvvDsu.HFM@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>Dan Sorenson writes:
>ds> Just a nit, Russ, but rights are a fairly new concept.  At
>ds> the time the Bible was written, human rights were not known nor
>ds> even contemplated in most areas.  What you had was privlidge, based
>ds> almost solely on power...
>
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> I agree that rights are a fairly new concept for us humans, but this
>rl> limitation would hardly apply to Mike Linan's omniscient "god".
>
>From article <viking.718618509@vincent1.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
>ds>  That God did not exist as a human concept until about 2000
>ds> years ago, and you'll kindly note that power is what kept the other
>ds> gods alive for several hundred years thereafter.  The Scandanavian
>ds> countries were openly worshipping Thor and Odin nearly a millenia
>ds> after Jesus Christ died, and this despite heavy targeting by
>ds> priests in both Scandanavia and in Constantinople, where such
>ds> notable Scandanavians as Harald Hadrada (Harold the Tyrant) were
>ds> given serious military experience.  The Varangian Guardsmen were
>ds> not Christian or Muslim despite the influences of the region.

>You're contradicting Mr. Linan's claims.  He says that his "god" 
>is omniscient, created both non-human animals and mankind, 
>and is all-powerful.  If such a "god" truly exists, he would not 
>be limited by the restraints of human intellectual development.  
>On the other hand, if this "god" is the product of the human 
>imagination, then it's inappropriate to invoke his dictates as a 
>rationale for our abuse or misuse of other individuals.  Instead
>of saying, "God gave animals to humans", perhaps Mike Linan should
>say, "A man named Jeremiah told his scribe, Baruch, son of Neriyah, 
>that animals belong to humans".


Perhaps you should let Mike Linan believe what he will and say what he
will and quit trying to tell me what I should believe and say.  


>It seems to me that a benevolent, omniscient "god" would have 
>taught his creatures to honor the thoughts and feelings of other 
>thinking/feeling individuals instead of giving them contrary 
>commandments to hamper their development.


We now know how you feel Russell.  Let's just remember that you are a
non-believer and so your words have little meaning to those who do believe.


>ds> Would you like theories or facts?  That the poeple you mention
>ds> above rendered a Church a mute political force certainly would have
>ds> caused alarm in the churches of the day.  Why, just imagine no
>ds> state religion!  The pilgrims weren't here to gain religous freedom;
>ds> they came here to escape religous persecution.  The same can be said
>ds> of Brigham Young and his tribe of merry Mormons settling in what is
>ds> now Salt Lake City, Utah several centuries later.  You will kindly
>ds> note that some of the Founders were athiests, and many belonged to
>ds> no organized religion.  Thus it makes perfect sense, in my theory,
>ds> for their views of individual liberties to have been opposed by the
>ds> organized religions of the time.  

>Clerical opposition to concepts of personal rights involved quite a
>bit more than the desire to protect state religions.  The principle
>that was most endangered was the concept of the great chain of
>being that still lies at the core of christianity as we know it 
>today.  The notion of the "chain of being" lost much of its power 
>during the political turmoil of the 17th century and this set the 
>stage for the development of both scientific thinking as well as 
>the concept of rights.  

>ds> Really, though, this isn't relevant.

>Yes it is.  And Mike Linan's notions about the dictates of his 
>"god" illustrate the relativity quite plainly.  If the bodies of 
>animals, both human and non-human are the rightful property of 
>"gods", rather than the minds contained within the bodies of 
>those animals, then the concept of "rights" loses its meaning.  


Russell, you nearly always fail to write anything that reads like your
opinion.  What you nearly always do is write comments that you would have
us believe is fact, just because you view it as such.  The concept of
"rights" are in the Bible, IMO.  Get it?  Try to realize that your 
opinion is of less importance to others than it is to you.  Vastly less
importance.


>rl> Isn't it a shame that "god" said:
>rl>    "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

>ds>  No more a shame than, "Sodomy shall be a felony offense within
>ds> the borders of the state of Mississippi."  This is not a quote,
>ds> just a plausible example.

>I disagree.  It's one thing if Dan Sorenson says, "We ought to kill
>all the stupid republicans."  It's far less honest, and/or far
>more hypocritical, if Dan Sorenson says, "I was talking with God this
>morning and He says we must kill the republicans".  In the first
>statement, the speaker would be presenting his own opinion, whereas
>in the second statement the speaker would be casting his own voice
>into the Mouth of God the way a ventriloquist uses a dummy.


So you say but, what if Dan had actually been told by God himself to
say what he said.  Naturally a person like yourself would just claim
he hadn't given his beliefs enough "critical thought" or that this was
an example of "mindless acceptance" of religion.  But if the mortal
Russell Lawrence, arrogance and all, were to be paid a visit by God he
would be transformed into a cowering shadow and most likely be a be-
liever from then on.  Christians speak the word of God to others because
they are told to in the Bible.  The word of God to Christains *is* the
Bible and you can view that as being hypocritical or as the craziest 
thing you have ever heard.  You are not the first to your type of 
lost ignorance and you won't be the last.
 

>rl> Instead of saying something like:
>rl>    "Thou shalt respect the thoughts and feelings of other beings."

>ds> "Judge not, lest ye be judged", "let he who is without sin cast
>ds> the first stone," and "do unto others and you would have them do unto you"
>ds> seem to convey the same message.

>Sure.  And how about, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto
>you".   Both statements oblige us to stop and consider the possibility
>that other minds exist, and that our own minds are not all-powerful.
>Both quotations reflect an entirely different notion about the
>nature of meaningful existence than the notion that we find embodied
>in the passage: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".


Oh yes, the word is a magical and perfect place isn't it Russell.  You
don't acknowledge evil and crimes against humanity do you.  Just animals.
Apparantly there was a time in history when witches existed, who were evil
with supernatural powers.  The embodiment of satan.  Under these circum-
stances perhaps God was right in saying they should die.  I am not question-
ing him, I don't doubt him but you do.  Apparantly you feel you have all the
answers but, the world has seen a lot of things that Russell Lawrence can't
imagine or believe.  That's ok but, lay off those who do.  You're in no 
position to criticize anyone's beliefs.

>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000

Mike Linan






Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals