X-Message-Number: 15120 From: "John de Rivaz" <> References: <> Subject: Re: destrying symbols of coercion Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 17:32:49 -0000 > Message #15117 > From: "Dani Kollin" <> > Subject: RE: CryoNet #15111 > Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 12:02:46 +0200 > > From: "John de Rivaz" <> > > <SNIP> > > 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. Sorry, there was not an attempt at sarcasm. It seemed to me that someone could beleive in a god and equate that belief with ethics without beleiving in any other that claims to have the answer to deep philosophical problems of life. A lot of people say that they beleive there is a god as a philosophical concept but they don't follow any organised religion - you could have been one of them. "Ethical Monotheism" could be a name given to such a philosophy. There are, of course, many religions that do not beleive in the Judeo-Christian bible and yet beleive in a single God. > > <SNIP> > >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. the intitial conditions must have contained the seeds of the world as it was long before man appeared - animals were eating each other during many geological periods that were bounded by impacts, super volcanos, tsunamis and so on. This carnage was not brought about by the "fall of man". If the fall of man story had any reality in history (a tribal leader making a wrong decision, for example), at that time the planet would in geological terms have been very little younger than it is now. > > <SNIP> > > 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". It was a straight forward question. Apologies for any offence taken. > Just saying I don't need it as an incentive to act ethically. Maybe, or maybe no one can really analyse precicely what the incentive is that makes them act "ethically." [I put it in quotes because I am not really sure what the word means, it is elusive like discussion about "The Bible"] It is a bit like the discussion as to the true nature of "selfishnmess" or "selflesness", which also crops up in cryonics circles from time to time. (del) > 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. > I think there are two possible arguments: Life is a precious gift and how better to show gratitude to the donor of a precious gift than to look after it. or the doubters about cryonics may say: God has told you that there is more life after death and you must not distrust him. Of course the difficulty many would have with this is that who can really know what a god thinks, even if he does exist as a being that can carry out processes we would recognise as thought and speech? If there does exist a being that has the attributes of God, it could be so alien that we could never even recognise it as a being let alone communicate with it. The writings and speeches made by "holy men" are generated from their brains, nowhere else. That is why this thread is called " destroying symbols of coercion": The concept of "Do as I say because God speaks through me" is one of the most powerful tools of coercion ever invented by men to have power over other men. The British monarchy, for example, relies strongly on this power. -- Sincerely, John de Rivaz my homepage links to Longevity Report, Fractal Report, music, Inventors' report, an autobio and various other projects: http://www.geocities.com/longevityrpt http://www.autopsychoice.com - should you be able to chose autopsy? Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15120