Re: Child Witchcraft Allegations On the Rise

July 22, 2010

excerpt from the story;'When they

came to collect it, however, they found the foal, Kohana, had already deeply bonded with Igasho. The chief, being a wise man, knew when not to interfere with nature's will. Nevertheless, his son Malek coveted that horse and burned to have it, and schemed for years to take it.'My comment;modern people could certainly learn from this; "when not to interfere with nature's will"an interesting story of greed, lust for power, and bullying.rl 'My cat Rusty is a servant of the Living God....'adapted from a poem by SmartTo:

FAMSecretSociety Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 2:20:24 PMSubject: Re: Re: Child

Witchcraft Allegations On the Rise

I found it and it is very short. I think it was an experiment in very short fiction, a full story in under 200 words or something like that. A very useful exercise really since it teaches one to be concise.

This story came to me while watching a documentary about ancient peoples. Part of that program was about a horse tribe that predated the Mongols. I can't spell the name now but it is in the story. I actually had a lot of requests to tell more of this character's story, but unfortunately, this seemed to be one of those "one off" stories that tell themselves and that's it, no more will come.

A Journey Begins

Storke

1999

A lone rider pause below the crest of a low ridge, careful not to silhouette himself against the moonlit sky, gazing back on last time at his homeland. Even at night the stark beauty of the endless, open plains awed him. His clan had always called this wilderness home, but now he had to leave it, forever. As his eyes came to rest on the faraway smoke rising above his people's encampment, a shudder of sadness shook him. Igasho, who from youth wanted to ride to the ends of the plains and see what lay beyond, did not want to leave like this.

His people were horse herders who depended on their horses for their lives, and wealth. His own father had raised the finest horses in the tribe, brining respect, and envy. When one of his herd produced the finest foal seen in years, the tribal chief wanted the foal for his own son. When they came to collect it, however, they found the foal, Kohana, had already deeply bonded with Igasho. The chief, being a wise man, knew when not to interfere with nature's will. Nevertheless, his son Malek coveted that horse and burned to have it, and schemed for years to take it. And so for years their fathers maintained an uneasy peace between the two feuding warriors.

But when the chief was struck down by illness and died and his son claimed power for himself, Igashio, long made an outcast by Malek's machinations, found his life in constant peril. Indeed, for during a battle with a rival clan, Malek struck. Owing to Malek's poor ability, his clan was losing, until Igasho and his father, riding side by side, struck into the enemy and turned the tide. shing his lance, Malek charged after the valiant pair, rallying warriors close behind. Time froze for an instant as Malek's lance pierced not an enemy, but the back of Igasho's father. A shocked hush claimed the battlefield, the sole movement being Malek hurling his spear at Igasho. Kohana's alertness saved his master, stunned with hoor and hate, from being impaled. Malek drew his axe, ready to finish his rival, only to turn and flee back to the encampment, pursued by the spears and lances of both clans, the battle forgotten at the sight of such cowardice and dishonor.

Igasho stood over the body of his father, surrounded by some of the older warriors of his own clan, while the disgusted enemy rode from the field. Respectfully, the body of the murdered warrior was placed upon his horse and promises of a proper burial made. Igasho had to trust them, for he knew returning home would mean death. Remounting Kohana, he watched his kinsmen carrying his father away. leaving him alone on the bloody field.

That night, he had stolen into the camp and to the tent of an old friend. There he found sympathy, but little else: Malek was chief and they had to follow him, no matter how much they hated him. Igasho had considered challenging Malek and killing him in a fair duel. Slowly shaking his head, he had let that idea go:without his friends' support, it would have been suicidal. The best they could do was to tend his wounds and provide him with all the food they could spare. His wounds tended and bundles collected and nothing left to say, he stalked out of the tent and melted into the night.

Kohana stamped the ground and his rider caressed the horse's strong neck, soothing them both. With a long sigh, he drew up his cloak tightly about him against the cold, whipping wind and, fiercely clutching his bronze tipped lance, the young Pazyryk warrior galloped away from his home, riding eastward across the great Siberian plain.

In a message dated 7/19/2010 11:21:11 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, renaissanzelady@ yahoo.ca writes:

;

if you can find your story, I would enjoy reading it.

Stories of those who are different, and adapt enough to have some sort of productive/satisfac tory (to them) life fascinate me.

rl

July 22, 2010

If we didn't " interfere with nature's will, " we would never have tamed horses (or built computers) -- unless, of course, you accept that our species is part of nature, too (so the will of a human is just as natural as the will of a horse).

As one author noted: " There are hidden contradictions within the minds of people who 'love nature' while deploring the 'artificialities' with which 'Man has spoiled ‘Nature.' The obvious contradiction lies in their choice of words, which imply that Man and his artifacts are not part of 'Nature'--but beavers and their damns are. But the contradictions go deeper than this prima-facie absurdity. In declaring his love for a beaver dam (erected by beavers for beavers' purposes) and his hatred for dams erected by men (for the purpose of men) the 'Naturist' reveals his hatred for his own race--i.e., his own self-hatred. ... willy-nilly I am a man, not a beaver, and H. Sapiens is the only race I have or can have. ... it strikes me as a fine arrangement and perfectly 'natural.' ... "

-- Heinlein, THE NOTEBOOKS OF LAZARUS LONGKate Gladstone

July 22, 2010

excerpt from the story;

'When they came to collect it, however, they found the foal, Kohana, had already deeply bonded with Igasho. The chief, being a wise man, knew when not to interfere with nature's will. Nevertheless, his son Malek coveted that horse and burned to have it, and schemed for years to take it.'

RL's comment;

modern people could certainly learn from this; "when not to interfere with nature's will"

an interesting story of greed, lust for power, and bullying.

My comment: It's also demonstrative of the fact that people aren't wlling to work hard to axquire or save up to acquire what other people have. There is no need for greed or lust of any kind. I think the only time jealousy (an emotion which approaches a combination of lust and greed) is warranted is when someone has screwed someone out of something deliberately and gone on to a smashing success.

Bullying is also wrong, although I have no problem persisting with trying to make my points when the other person bullies ME.

Administrator

July 23, 2010

Re:> people aren't wlling to work hard to a[c]quire or save up to acquire what other people have. There is > no need for greed or lust of any kind.

In your view, is greed (or lust) wrong always -- or are they only wrong when they're enacted at the expense of other people?Kate Gladstone

July 23, 2010

While everything that mankind has built has materials which have come from nature, the more man builds his own things, the more he seems to have developed a disrespect for nature in its most pristine forum. While we can argue that man is the most intelligent, and will therefore develop things most likely to fit his own habitat and least likely to resemble nature, anything that exists in the nature that remains seems to take only what is needed from nature and leaving the rest for other animals.

Additionally, flora and fauna seem to have a symbiotic nature with one another. (Birds dropping seeds in their waste, which causes trees and plants to grow in new places). Man mostly takes what he needs, and it has not been until recently that man has recognized the need to restire habitats which he has exploited for mineral or plant or water resources.

Administrator

-- In FAMSecretSociety , Kate Gladstone wrote:

If we didn't "interfere with nature's will," we would never have tamed horses (or built computers) -- unless, of course, you accept that our species is part of nature, too (so the will of a human is just as natural as the will of a horse).

As one author noted:

"There are hidden contradictions within the minds of people who 'love nature' while deploring the 'artificialities' with which 'Man has spoiled `Nature.' The obvious contradiction lies in their choice of words, which imply that Man and his artifacts are not part of 'Nature'--but beavers and their damns are. But the contradictions go deeper than this prima-facie absurdity. In declaring his love for a beaver dam (erected by beavers for beavers' purposes) and his hatred for dams erected by men (for the purpose of men) the 'Naturist' reveals his hatred for his own race--i.e., his own self-hatred. ... willy-nilly I am a man, not a beaver, and H. Sapiens is the only race I have or can have. ... it strikes me as a fine arrangement and perfectly 'natural.' ... "

-- Heinlein, THE NOTEBOOKS OF LAZARUS LONG

Kate Gladstone

July 23, 2010

" In your view, is greed (or lust) wrong always -- or are they only wrong when

they're enacted at the expense of other people? "

From a religious perspective, any emotion that puts somemthing else or some

other person before God is wrong. In other words, desire, lust, or greed for

something or someone suggests that the thing or person that is desired or lusted

for is more important than God. As for greed, there ought to be no thing that we

should want to have in this world in a fashion that emotionally consumes us,

because when we die, we leave it all behind anyway. The only thing we should

really want is to be with God.

From a purely moral and ethical non-religious perspective, I believe that strong

emotions of any kind can impair our abilities to do anything good or bad. I am

of the opinion that certainly we should be passionate about the things we

believe in and the things we do, but our passions ought to be counterbalanced

with rational and logical thought.

Additionally, it is important not to be too rational or too logical either, as

too much ratoinal and logical thought can prevent us from persuing our passions.

Administrator

July 23, 2010

Interesting takes on my story, and thanks to all those who read it. Here's my backstory.

Origin: An article on a grave discovered in Siberia of what was probably a chieftain of a horse clan. This was determined by the quality of the grave and the bronze goods and horse gear buried with him. Very little is known about them, so I drew some from actually herding people's and made some up.

We know that in tribes that rely on animals, that the animal is the main determinant of wealth and status. Quantity of ones herd and the quality of it are what counts. So in the story, I applied this to horses.

Details.

We don't know if any kind of spiritual connection existed toward the horses in this tribe. Indeed, not all herding people see their animals that way, but as an investment and material things to be cared for because it is their livelihood. My story is kind of a cross between the two. I state that Kohana and Igasho form a bond. For the story it doesn't matter if it is some shamanic kind of bond or simply the kind one might see between a dog and a kindly owner today. The point being that the horse "chose" Igasho and wouldn't allow anyone else to ride it.

I based the tribe on a divine right to rule type. This can be seen in the people following Malek in spite of his treachery. This is why the people didn't openly support Igasho after the battle, but they did help him leave.

This story was about greed and power in part. Malek wanted Kohana but couldn't have him. He was held in check only by his father the chief and some fear of what the people would do if he moved too soon. Eventually he saw his chance and took it. He failed in the end and I'm sure the tribe would suffer under his reign, but that's no longer part of the story.

As for other comments about the environment and all that, I do see some romanticization of nature. While some aspects of nature are symbiotic, the other side is that all kinds of life compete for resources. Since I feed birds and animals, I see this every day. Different kinds of birds fight against each other over food and there is plenty of fighting within the various species as well. They can get along well enough when there is plenty of food, but as the supply dwindles, they get more aggressive and sometimes fight quite harshly. Some animals, like beaver, change the environment to suit themselves. Some other animals benefit as well, but others suffer.

I do agree though that the land should be looked after better than most do today. My family has timbered the same land for over a century. That was only possible by planning for the long run and taking care of the land as much as possible. Of course, the government has many regulations as well. Some of it we were already doing anyway, some are stupid, and some are outright ridiculous, and we are all worried about what else might be coming in the future, since many in this administration are hostile to farming. That's not even counting UN Agenda 21 that wants to put more than half of the US off limits to humans. Considering also that many farmers are also small businesses or self-employed, they will also be having to pay heavy taxes when that new $600 purchase and up registration and tax comes into being.

Anyway, some interesting points made by in this thread.

In a message dated 7/22/2010 6:27:04 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

Additionally, flora and fauna seem to have a symbiotic nature with one another. (Birds dropping seeds in their waste, which causes trees and plants to grow in new places). Man mostly takes what he needs, and it has not been until recently that man has recognized the need to restire habitats which he has exploited for mineral or plant or water resources.

Administrator

July 23, 2010

Re:

Additionally, flora and fauna seem to have a symbiotic nature with one another. (Birds dropping seeds in their waste, which causes trees and plants to grow in new places).And predatory plants which eat animals -- the Venus flytrap, for instance, which entices and swallows insects and sometimes larger animals (young mice have been found in Venus flytraps) as its major source of nutrition.

Not to mention what fauna do to fauna --

Lions killing leopard cubs wherever, whenever they can find them -- apparently for fun, not for food, because they don't eat the cubs: they just kill the cubs with one bite to the head or neck, then walk away.

(Chimps often do the same with baby baboons.)And don't forget the cuckoo. It lays all its eggs in the nests of other birds -- one cuckoo egg to a nest -- and when the baby cuckoo hatches, it pushes all the other baby birds and eggs out of the nest.

Isn't nature lovely?<;-SRe:

Man mostly takes what he needs,Should we *not* take what we need to make what we need? Then we wouldn't have computers (or, for that matter, steel).

It sounds as if you're saying that every species has a right to flourish on its own terms -- except man.Re:

and it has not been until recently that man has recognized the need to restire habitats which he has exploited for mineral or plant or water resources.This need that we're just beginning to recognize is a need that no animal has yet recognized. Whenever animals do something that maintains their habitat, they do it accidentally and unintentionally (e.g., your example of birds dropping seeds).

Kate Gladstone

July 23, 2010

Re:

> From a religious perspective, any emotion that puts somemthing else or some

other person before >God is wrong.

So if I ever have to choose between

/a/ doing what I judge is worth doing and needs doing,

or

/b/ instead doing something else that someone has told me " God wants, "

then /a/ is wrong?

Re:

> Additionally, it is important not to be too rational or too logical either,

What do you mean by " too " rational?

It sounds like telling someone not to be " too " aware or " too " healthy.

The guy who invented lobotomies (and got the Nobel Prize for that

abomination) promoted his procedure by telling investors (including

governments) that it would cure troublesome people of being " too

intelligent " and " too rational " which (he said) is what made people

into troublemakers. (But if he thought that this was so important, why

did he never take his *own* medicine?)

Kate Gladstone

July 23, 2010

Lions killing leopard cubs wherever, whenever they can find them -- apparently for fun, not for food, because they don't eat the cubs: they just kill the cubs with one bite to the head or neck, then walk away.

Lions know that leopard cubs grow up to be leopards. That is why they kill them. They also kill the lion cubs of rival males to ensure that their own cubs survive. It's their way of preserving themselves and making sure their familial lines live on.

Humans, on the other hand, should not be killing each other. Instead, they should not be having so many children, so that people do not have to fight for resources. Aside from that, there is very little in the world worth killing someone else over, unless it is in self-defense.

(Chimps often do the same with baby baboons.)

Baboons are very dangerous. They have been known to kill animals to eat them, and have also been known to tease, intimidate, bite, and attack chimps. Chimps do not hunt down baboons unless they become troublesome, but baboons will hunt down chimps just to bother them.

And don't forget the cuckoo. It lays all its eggs in the nests of other birds -- one cuckoo egg to a nest -- and when the baby cuckoo hatches, it pushes all the other baby birds and eggs out of the nest.

Survival of the fittest. Yet humanity should be beyond this. What the cuckoo does is essentially what any group of people who commit genocide do against another people.

Should we *not* take what we need to make what we need? Then we wouldn't have computers (or, for that matter, steel).

It sounds as if you're saying that every species has a right to flourish on its own terms -- except man.

I think there is a crucial difference between what we need and what we want. What we need is food, shelter, clothing, and love. What we want are all kinds of luxuries. No one needs to pile more food on their plate than they can eat. For a family of four, a nice three bedroom house is all they need. Not a mansion. Do we really NEED designer clothing?

My grandparents have all died, and after my father's parents died, I spent a good part of a month cleaning out her house and getting rid of all kinds of things that she had been accumulating for the 95 years of her life. There was a lot to get rid of. My family kept the best of what was there...but then we got rid of some of our own stuff.

If we all lived simpler lives, there would be no need to use up as many resources as we use up, or work as hard to keep the things we buy in working order.

Sometimes, leading a simple and modest life can be much more rewarding and enjoyable than leading a complex one filled with "luxuries."

This need that we're just beginning to recognize is a need that no animal has yet recognized. Whenever animals do something that maintains their habitat, they do it accidentally and unintentionally (e.g., your example of birds dropping seeds).

Agreed, and there have been instances throughout history where animals of one kind or another have destroyed their own habitats, mostly by becoming too populous. Insect swarms are the best example of this, but there have also been swarms of crop eating mice, invasive species in water which crowd out natural foliage, etc.

At one time in history, cheetah where very numerous, extending from the bottom of Africa, throughout the Middle East, and all the way into India and perhaps beyond. Today, they are in Africa and parts of Iran and there used to be a few on India. What happened was that they became so numerous, that when there was a sickness among them, it spread all across their territories and decimated the population to the point where today, a cheetah in the North of Africa is genetically a sibling of one in the South of Africa. Mating between cheetahs these days is genetically incestuous, and it is likely that another disease could wipe them out. These days, man is hunting the cheetah to the point where there are now pockets between groups, and so it is not likely that some will come in contact with others, and so this may save them.

See here to see past and current ranges:

http://www.cheetah.org/?nd=race_for_survival

Administrator

July 23, 2010

I said:"From a religious perspective, any emotion that puts something else or someother person before God is wrong."

You said:So if I ever have to choose between

/a/ doing what I judge is worth doing and needs doing,

or

/b/ instead doing something else that someone has told me "God wants," then /a/ is wrong?

My reply:

I will revise and qualify my statement.

"From a religious perspective, any emotion that puts something else or some other person before one's God is wrong."

My statement presumes that if one is religious, and their religion dictates that their God comes before all people and all things, then any person or thing the person happens to want is secondary.

I will admit that this has and will continue to cause conflict between people. I am aware that Orthodox Jews, Reform Jews, and Conservative Jews may have a different view of Jewish law.

Which view is correct?

If one is an Orthodox Jew, their own view is correct.

If one is a Reform Jew, their own view is correct.

If one is a Conservative Jew, their view is correct.

How do these separate movements interact with one another?

With consideration and respect for each other's viewpoints. I am sure that each will practice their religion according to its doctrine in a manner they consider acceptable in their own homes and in their private and public lives.

As far as my own religion goes, I do try not to lust or what have you because Christianity frowns upon such things. If I find myself in a circle of people who are engaging in activity which goes against my religion's precepts, I simply remove myself from those people and/or their influence. If this inconveniences the other people, there is nothing I can do about it. I would rather be in my God's good graces than a man or woman's.

I said: Additionally, it is important not to be too rational or too logical either,

You replied:

What do you mean by "too" rational?

It sounds like telling someone not to be "too" aware or "too" healthy.

My reply:

I suppose I can only explain by using an example, and the best example I can use is the thought process we may use when deciding whether or not to get involved in a loving relationship with someone. Often what happens is that people lean toward the irrational side. This is usually the result of hormones. A person may believe after a date or two that they have finally found the love of their life.

But the other side of the coin is when someone says "I will not entertain the possibility of getting involved with that person because they _____" Depending on one's inclinations, one can fill in the blank with any descriptor one chooses:

Have kids.

Have had too many relationships.

Have had too many marriages.

Have too many debts.

Have a disability.

Are poor.

Are cheap.

Are ugly.

Are further up the career ladder than I am.

Are older than I am.

Any of those thoughts can prevent a person from getting involved with another one on presumptions, or without thorough investigation. What if a person turns away what would have been the best parter for them based upon purely rational thought?

I think humans have all kinds of emotions and all kinds of thought processes. The best thing to do, in my opinion, is use them all moderately and in conjunction with one another for the best outcome. Short of having all the facts and evaluating them, our feelings, emotions, and thought processes are the best tools we have to making choices.

You said:The guy who invented lobotomies (and got the Nobel Prize for that abomination) promoted his procedure by telling investors (including governments) that it would cure troublesome people of being "too intelligent" and "too rational" which (he said) is what made people into troublemakers. (But if he thought that this was so important, why did he never take his *own* medicine?)

My reply:

I saw a program on him and agree with your opinion about him. Likewise, your question is well put.

But what can be said also is that there have been many atrocities committed in the world by "rational" people, or if not by "rational" people, for what they believed to be "rational" purposes.

Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot slaughtered huge numbers of people to fulfill their agendas. They of course did not slaughter all these people themselves, but used emotional and "irrational" arguments to incite people to do the deeds for them. But the main purposes of these slaughters (among other things) was to get rid of political adversaries, to steal wealth from the (demonized) masses, to consolidate power, and to acquire land.

Chavez in Venezuela may right now be heading down a similar path. He is confiscating businesses, shutting down media outlets that do not promote his propaganda, and I am willing to bet that it will not be long before we start hearing of disappearances or torture chambers. His argument, which seems rational to those who hear it even though it is clearly irrational, is that businesses have enslaved the masses, and the media are obvious schills to businesses.

The fact is, whether Chavez's political moves are altruistic or selfish, I am willing to bet that he has rationalized what he is doing, and this is what allows him to act without guilt.

We are not getting into philosophical territory. Obviously people must co-exist with one another, and it seems that because people are different, territories and rules must be established to keep people from encroaching on one another. It is inevitable that someone will feel that their own space or their own "rights" as they see them, are infringed upon. What is to be done?

I do not have the answer, except to say that whatever is done ought to be done with careful thought and consideration, and using all the mental and emotional tools at one's disposal, and in the case of people who hold power over other people, with input from as many people as possible.

Administrator

July 23, 2010

Kate wrote: " In your view, is greed (or lust) wrong always -- or are they only

wrong when they're enacted at the expense of other people? "

What does G*d have to say on the subject of greed and lust? I believe a fair

bit of the Torah and Old Testament speaks to those two subjects as well as other

related subject.

Raven

July 23, 2010

Kate wrote: " So if I ever have to choose between

/a/ doing what I judge is worth doing and needs doing,

or

/b/ instead doing something else that someone has told me " God wants, "

then /a/ is wrong? "

Well, this question you just posted is not an extension of your initial

question.

You see, the first question wasn't about what someone else has told you God

wants. The first question you put to the members of the forum was about greed

and lust with no mention of God at all.

This second question also does not have God mentioned other than to ask about

how one would act on the say so of someone claiming to speak on God's behalf.

That's not the same thing as God speaking on God's behalf.

My question to you, Kate, is this: What is your real question without the

linguistic trickery?

Raven

Co-Administrator

July 23, 2010

Re: Humans, on the other hand, should not be killing each other. Instead, they should not be having so many children, so that people do not have to fight for resources.

And what about also *creating* more resources? Or isn't that something that humans should want to do?

I think there is a crucial difference between what we need and what we want. What we need is food, shelter, clothing, and love. What we want are all kinds of luxuries. No one needs to pile more food on their plate than they can eat. For a family of four, a nice three bedroom house is all they need. Not a mansion. Do we really NEED designer clothing?

I don't make someone else's notion of what I " need " into my sole arbiter.If I want something -- and if I can find a way to make it or trade for it without sacrificing other people -- why shouldn't I do so?

Kate GladstoneTwitter -- http://www.twitter.com/KateGladstoneFacebook -- http://www.facebook.com/KateGladstone

July 23, 2010

>Re:

As far as my own religion goes, I do try not to lust or what have you because Christianity frowns upon such things. Does Christianity actually frown upon *all* lust --

since " all lust " logically includes lust for one's own husband or wife? (I'd better not become Christian, then -- my husband would hate it!)Re:

>But the other side of the coin is when someone says " I will not entertain the possibility of >getting involved with that person because they _____ " Depending on one's inclinations, one can fill in the blank with any descriptor one chooses: ...

If reason vetoes a partner, that wouldn't be a good partner anyway. There are any number of *good* reasons to marry someone who has children, or whatever, so I don't see why you assume that following reason would cut such folks out of your life.

Re:> many atrocities committed in the world by " rational " people, or if not by " rational " people, for >what they believed to be " rational " purposes. ... the main purposes of these slaughters >(among other things) was to get rid of political adversaries, to steal wealth from the >(demonized) masses, to consolidate power, and to acquire land.

And do you consider those purposes all quite rational?

Re:> His argument, which seems rational to those who hear it even though it is clearly irrational, is >that businesses have enslaved the masses, and the media are obvious schills to businesses.

Using an irrational argument (that seems rational to the somewhat irrational) is not " being too rational " -- so it is not evidence against " being too rational. "

Kate Gladstone

July 23, 2010

And what about also *creating* more resources? Or isn't that something that humans should want to do?

There is a finite number of resources on this planet. We cannot "make" more of them. We can find ones we have not discovered up until now, but they are part of the finite amount of resources that we have.

The only "incoming" resource we have at the moment is solar energy.

Possibly someday we will be able to mine other planets and plunder their own resources. But at present, we are stuck with what we have.

I don't make someone else's notion of what I "need" into my sole arbiter.

If I want something -- and if I can find a way to make it or trade for it without sacrificing other people -- why shouldn't I do so?

Everything we do somehow affects other people. If we turn on a light, it means that energy is being expended. If that energy is generated from burning coal, it means that there is that much less energy (from coal) for some future person to use.

I am not saying we should go around second guessing our every move, but we need to recognize that we live in a wasteful soicety, and we could all benefit by reducing the amount of what we use, reusing what we have, and recycling what we don't want.

Administrator

July 23, 2010

" Does Christianity actually frown upon *all* lust -- since " all lust " logically

includes lust for one's own husband or wife? "

Here is what Christianity days about lust:

Galations 5:16 I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the

lust of the flesh. 5:17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit

against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do

the things that you wish. 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not

under the law.

5:19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, [fn]

fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 5:20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions,

jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 5:21

envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you

beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such

things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness,

goodness, faithfulness, 5:23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no

law.

5:24 And those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its passions and

desires. 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. 5:26 Let

us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.

You said:

" Using an irrational argument (that seems rational to the somewhat

irrational) is not " being too rational " -- so it is not evidence against " being

too rational. "

Youa re entitled to your opinion, although I disagree with it. My point is that

what is " rational " and what is not is a matter of personal perspective. If a

person argues from a point of what he or she believe to be " pure rationality "

and what they are arguing for is genocide, then they are certainly being " too

rational. "

Administrator

July 23, 2010

Thanks for quoting and explaining what you think. Re:

> My point is that what is " rational " and what is not is a matter of personal

perspective.

I disagree: some things don't depend on perspective, but are true and

rational (or are the opposite) irrespective of what you or I happen to

believe about them -- as in the old saying: " Reality is that which,

when you don't see or believe in it, doesn't go away. "

Re:

>If a person argues from a point of what he or she believe to be " pure

rationality " and what they are arguing for is genocide, then they are certainly

being " too rational. "

No -- actually, such a person is taking the irrational and misnaming

it " the rational " instead -- and you are accepting his or her

misnomer.

Taking a duck and calling it a bunch of roses doesn't make it a bunch

of roses. If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, walks like a

duck, smells like a duck -- it is rational to call it a duck. You can

call it a bunch of roses -- it still quacks. And if the duck goes

berserk and kills millions of other ducks, it is folly to blame the

duck's behavior on being " too rosy. "

Kate Gladstone

July 25, 2010

Logical, challenging reply, Kate!Humans ARE part of the natural world, Realistically, if we didn't excercise 'stewardship' or 'dominion' over nature, our crops would be over run with weeds; we and our animals would die young from pests or diseases, etc. In light of this, i will adapt my comment to say that humans often over-rule the emotions and basic nature of 'lesser beings' in our species-centric progress. (or maybe from ignorance)The author Temple Grandin speaks of how it is better for animals when humans understand the animal's basic nature, and provide what they need when in captivity.Some animals are heard animals, and do best in this setting; some, such as elephants, form lasting bonds, and breaking up a social group by sending an

elephant to a different zoo is cruel.rl'My cat Rusty is a servant of the Living God....'adapted from a poem by SmartTo: FAMSecretSociety Sent: Thu, July 22, 2010 9:00:27 AMSubject: Re: Re: Child

Witchcraft Allegations On the Rise

If we didn't "interfere with nature's will," we would never have tamed horses (or built computers) -- unless, of course, you accept that our species is part of nature, too (so the will of a human is just as natural as the will of a horse).

As one author noted:"There are hidden contradictions within the minds of people who 'love nature' while deploring the 'artificialities' with which 'Man has spoiled â€˜Nature.' The obvious contradiction lies in their choice of words, which imply that Man and his artifacts are not part of 'Nature'--but beavers and their damns are. But the contradictions go deeper than this prima-facie absurdity. In declaring his love for a beaver dam (erected by beavers for beavers' purposes) and his hatred for dams erected by men (for the purpose of men) the 'Naturist' reveals his hatred for his own race--i.e., his own self-hatred. ... willy-nilly I am a man, not a beaver, and H. Sapiens is the only race I have or can have. ... it strikes me as a fine arrangement and perfectly 'natural.' ... "

-- Heinlein, THE NOTEBOOKS OF LAZARUS LONGKate Gladstone

July 25, 2010

wrote; exscerptedFrom a purely moral and ethical non-religious perspective, I believe that strong emotions of any kind can impair our abilities to do anything

good or bad. I am of the opinion that certainly we should be passionate

about the things we believe in and the things we do, but our passions ought to be counterbalanced with rational and logical thought.

Additionally, it is important not to be too rational or too logical either, as too much ratoinal and logical thought can prevent us from persuing our passions.my comment;a concise description of a balanced life!!!!!rl

'My cat Rusty is a servant of the Living God....'adapted from a poem by SmartFrom: environmental1st2003 <no_reply >

"In your view, is greed (or lust) wrong always -- or are they only wrong when they're enacted at the expense of other people?"

From a religious perspective, any emotion that puts somemthing else or some other person before God is wrong. In other words, desire, lust, or greed for something or someone suggests that the thing or person that is desired or lusted for is more important than God. As for greed, there ought to be no thing that we should want to have in this world in a fashion that emotionally consumes us, because when we die, we leave it all behind anyway. The only thing we should really want is to be with God.

From a purely moral and ethical non-religious perspective, I believe that strong emotions of any kind can impair our abilities to do anything good or bad. I am of the opinion that certainly we should be passionate about the things we believe in and the things we do, but our passions ought to be counterbalanced with rational and logical thought.

Additionally, it is important not to be too rational or too logical either, as too much ratoinal and logical thought can prevent us from persuing our passions.

Administrator

July 25, 2010

wrote, excerptedIf we all lived simpler lives, there would be no need to use up as many resources as we use up, or work as hard to keep the things we buy in working order.

Sometimes, leading a simple and modest life can be much more rewarding and enjoyable than leading a complex one filled with "luxuries."my comment;The more 'stuff' we have the more time, & work & resources ($) is needed to take care of it.rl

'My cat Rusty is a servant of the Living God....'adapted from a poem by SmartFrom: environmental1st2003 <no_reply >To: FAMSecretSociety Sent: Thu, July 22, 2010 7:57:30 PMSubject: Re: Child Witchcraft Allegations On the

Rise