X-Message-Number: 15117
From: "Dani Kollin" <>
Subject: RE: CryoNet #15111
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 12:02:46 +0200

Message #15111
From: "John de Rivaz" <>
Subject: Re: destrying symbols of coercion
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 15:26:25 -0000

Dani Kollin writes:

> The movement to identify God with nature is simply not accepted by most if
> not all Ethical Monotheists.

Do Ethical Monotheists believe what's in "The Bible"?

John, you really can tone down the sarcasm. This is, afterall, meant to be a
civil discussion.
And yes, of course Ethical Monotheists believe what's in the bible. However
just like in any movement there's bound to be differences of interpretation.

There it says
something to the effect that God created the whole of everything **and saw
that it was good** (presumably this means what he made turned out the way he
wanted it to be).

In fact yes, it did turn out the way he wanted it to be. According to the
scripture his initial creation was not only the heavens and the earth but
the earth in its perfected stated - otherwise known as the Garden of Eden.
In this state - per your previous posting - fluffy lion cubs didn't get
eaten by their parents.

 Now of course there are arguments about doing it in seven
days or the whole universe being made of water for a while etc etc, but this
underlying concept is surely beyond argument as a basic tenet of monotheism?

See above

Or is "ethical monotheism" some offshoot of what most people who profess to
worship a single god believe?

If you're being sarcastic again the answer is "no". If you're not, the
answer is "no".

As far as people who think it is worthwhile to practice cryopreservation are
concerned, it seems to me that there could be survivalist arguments for what
may pass as "ethical behaviour" by others. I suspect that if you really want
to live indefinitely you do have to behave in an ethical manner (whatever
that may really mean) to maximise your lifespan.

Truth be told John, my beliefs are such that whether or not I kick the
bucket tomorrow (deep freeze or not) the notion that I must act in a
predefined ethical manner will not change because what drives me to act that
way has nothing to do with "survivalist preservation" and everything to do
with the ten commandments.

For example, a Christian who is about to be killed by someone else and who
has the
opportunity to kill first may still consider it unethical to do so.

A Christian, perhaps ( I can't speak for Chrisianity as I am not qualified
to do so) A Jew no. Judaism (My belief system) and Christianity are pretty
far apart on this matter. "Turn the other cheek" is not part of our dogma
and killing in self defense, at least according to Judaism is 100%
permissable.  That being said the commandment does not say "thou shalt not
kill" it says thou shalt not murder".

A survivalist would not hesitate to kill in order to survive, if killing is
his only option.

And neither, in fact, would a good ethical monotheist (see above).


If you killed in order to get someone else's money (or wife
or ox) then however well laid your plan for not getting caught, with a
potentially infinite lifespan ahead of you the chances of someone finding a
flaw in your plan becomes finite. Even if there is no death penalty the
negative effect this is likely to have on your life is most likely to
outweigh however many  years of benefit you may get from your ill gotten

Nothin' wrong with a little incentive (indefinate lifespan)to act in an
ethical manner. Can't argue with that. Just saying I don't need it as an
incentive to act ethically.

I suspect that the concept of indefinite lifespan also produces a strong
need to behave with respect for other people, ie cryonics carries an ethics
package similar to religions, but not exactly the same. By eliminating
ageing, disease and death, man will elevate himself beyond the animal chain
of evolutionary struggle and become something different.

First of all I think man is already quite different and decidely so (see my
last posting).  However I honestly believe that that which makes us human,
whether we become cyborg/nano/software/ based individuals makes no
difference whatsover with regards to my belief in treating other people
(however newly defined) in an ethical manner.

The concept of "continuous creation" is something I heard from a Church of
England priest years ago at a funeral address: it does make more sense to me
than the concept of a "big bang" creation with all initial conditions set,
especially if you are struggling to link the words "benevolent" or "ethical"
with "god".

I'm not struggling. But thanks for the concern.

And finally I'd just like to say that the bible is easy fodder for ongoing
discussion. In fact I can help you find lots of verses within it to put me
in myriad binds but I'd hate to turn this list into a Talmudic tractate.
Suffice it to say the story of creation (in particular) is viewed by many
not as absolute fact but rather as metaphor.

And one last note (really) Someone questioned in another posting how a
relgious person could reconcile himself with believing in a soul and being a
cryonicist. It's easy. The future only promises unlimited lifespan which
isn't, in fact, a guarantee against final death. So whether you live 70
years or 70,000 years the notion of what, if anything, is on "the other
side" will always be in play and ergo so will the soul.


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15117