From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: an observation
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 05:40:04 GMT

In <BvvDsu.HFM@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>Dan Sorenson writes:

>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.

>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.

	God is supposedly omnipotent.  So, he could have easily
forced our human intellectual development.  He is also supposedly
omniscient, which means that he doesn't have to force us to do
anything as he already knows what we'll do.  Tense, Russ, tense.
If you aren't omniscient, you can't possibly determine just what
we will think, or when.  I believe the concept of "free agency"
as taught in most churches shows that God is probably quite willing
to let us find our own way rather than forcibly make us follow his
directions.  The analogy of humans as sheep probably wasn't done
without good reason.  Sheep can be incredibly stupid, and so can
humans.  I don't see how I've contradicted Mr. Linan's claims.
An omniscient and omnipotent god can do whatever he feels like;
neither quality is an obligation to step in and correct something.

>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.

	If you study the Bible and Koran, you'll find that the laws
therein differ significantly over time and region.  While you might
find it unnerving that there are variables in moral code, I find it
quite refreshing to see that morals have evolved just as humans have.

>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.  

	I'd like to hear more of this "chain of being" you mention.
I've never heard of it, and I've had more than a passing education
in many Christian and most popular religions.

>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.  

	Do they lose their meaning in a human-society context or
in the context of some religous or Diety-specific context?  You
might as well complain that an afterlife is promised by one god and
not your local City Council.

>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.

	And just what do you think everybody from Brother Jed to the Pope
does?  When dealing with two entirely different things like a mortal and
a diety, just how can you possibly think the Pope or Brother Jed has a
better grasp on the wishes of that diety than you do?  No matter to what
or whom I ascribe my beliefs, you are free to ignore them or think me
a prime candidate for a rubber room.  Think of it this way, Russ:  To
the deer, we are as the Olympian Gods.  We manifest ourselves as people,
we carry great power over life and death, and we are invulnerable to
the measly threats the deer might make.  Do you honestly think a deer
could read your thoughts, know your plans and goals or how you intended
to bring them about?  To us Olympians, it hardly matters.  To the deer,
it may be the primary object of their desire to know these things.  Thus,
just as blblical understanding is not the sole responsibility nor the
sole ability of some pontiff, neither are the opinions of each individual
deer any less valid than those of the dominant buck.

>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".

	Alright, I made a typo.  Sue me.

>   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".

	I suspect you could somehow construe an argument along these
lines to denote that the commandment, "Thou shalt not murder" is
really mitigated by, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
I'll give you a pointer: even in blblical law, there are no absolutes.
That a jury can convinct a person to death is hardly a reason to
disqualify the juror who stole $0.05 from Mom's purse to buy candy.
Both acts are sins acccording to the Bible.  The interpretation
of which sin is worse, or if it's even relevant, is left as an
exercise to the believers of these laws.  Last I heard, Judge Wapner
was not a prophet and had no special communication with any diety.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"I see angels on Ariels in leather and>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | chrome, Swooping down from heaven to >
<viking@iastate.edu      | carry me home."   ---    R. Thompson >
<ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee.>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals