helen99 | Earth's Heart in a Cage

I'm not to keen on naming a technology, in and of itself (genetic engineering), as good or bad. I think genetically modified foods are of poor quality and may wreek havock on mother nature down the road, so this constitutes a misuse. A technology is a tool, in my opinion. A tool can be used with or without love.

As for blasphiming the Holly Spirit, I agree with the main thrust of your post. In the Christian stage of my journey, I figured this ment stiffling the spiritual experience of other people, or stiffling other people's interpretations of those experiences. I have no trouble with having opinions, expressing them or debating, but so often organized groups of people will stiffle the experiences of individuals by coercisan or just plain manipulation (maniulative people can be extrodinarily "nice"). This, and her'es another opinion, stems from a false notion of the group and the individual being in cloflict. This is faulty logic because a group is nothing more or less than a collection if individuals. Further, every individual is a part of a group, connected to larger systems. This idea is very "American" (as in how Americans have been tought to procieve our ideals) in it's feel... Socialist (and Communist, if you want ot go to that extream) ecconomies fail to realise that humans are already interconnected (thus making our resources interconnected), so there is no need to inforce a collective style of distributing resources. On the other side of the coin, there is not need to inforce individuality (consumerism, which is what people mistakenly call capitalism) is a system that ardently defends the individual (his/ her desires, no matter how constructive or destructive, frivolous or meaningful) regardless of how it effects the society at large (or the planet, as your post speaks about). Both ecconomic systems (and there is much more involved in this than the distribution of wealth and resources) work with a false and unthealthy principle. The first subverts the needs and potential of individuals for the good of the whole, while the second subverts the needs of the whole for the good of individuals.

Have I created a system that works on the premis that a group bennifits by bennifitting the individual and the individual bennifits by bennifitting the group? Nope. I don't have a solution to society's ills yet. LOL Wish I did, I'd freely share... as it would likely bennifit everyone including me. LOL

I knew you'd respond. You love this stuff!

[["In the Christian stage of my journey, I figured this meant stifling the spiritual experience of other people, or stifling other people's interpretations of those experiences"]]

Interesting take. I expect it means entirely different things to each person. It's pretty much "The Most Horrible Thing you can Think Of" (TM) LOL!

[["I have no trouble with having opinions, expressing them or debating, but so often organized groups of people will stiffle the experiences of individuals by coercisan or just plain manipulation (maniulative people can be extrodinarily "nice"). This, and here's another opinion, stems from a false notion of the group and the individual being in conflict. This is faulty logic because a group is nothing more or less than a collection of individuals. Further, every individual is a part of a group, connected to larger systems. "]]]

Yeah, it gets way to complicated to make blanket statements like I did above. Ignore me. I'm in a "mood" today (cackle)...

[[["This idea is very "American" (as in how Americans have been taught to procieve our ideals) in it's feel... Socialist (and Communist, if you want to go to that extreme) ecconomies fail to realise that humans are already interconnected (thus making our resources interconnected), so there is no need to inforce a collective style of distributing resources."]]]

I agree - I never could stand the idea of being a slave to a collective. I am not a hive entity...

Interesting take. I expect it means entirely different things to each person. It's pretty much "The Most Horrible Thing you can Think Of" (TM) LOL!

True. I remember hearing a Catholic priest talk about a prophacy... the Third Secret of Fatima (I think). He said, "Think of the morst horrible think you can think of, and it will be worse."

At that point, he lost any credibility with me, but this gets beyond the realm of evidence or even faith and plunges right into naked unsubstanciated fear.

This most grievous of sins comes accross and being more bassed on intention than action... The idea that, if your intentions are right, your actions will fallow suit. I don't believe this to be true, nessessarily. The converse of this is that, if your intentions are wring, your actions will fallow the cource. Seems to me that the Spirt is not about physical action but what is in a person's heart. If some one stiffles the goodness (assumeing God is good, and I have my doubts about YHWH, but that's another story), they are stiffling the source of right actions and turning them onto a path of evil... I don't like thw word "evil" because it's too culturally loaded and nonspacific, but by "evil" I mean manevolance and or an end justifed the means philosophy.

Yeah, it gets way to complicated to make blanket statements like I did above. Ignore me. I'm in a "mood" today (cackle)...

Far be it for me to judge some one for being moody.

I agree - I never could stand the idea of being a slave to a collective. I am not a hive entity...

Neither is any other human being (even the extreamly sheepish). That's why totalitarian systems donnot work.

"This most grievous of sins comes accross and being more based on intention than action... The idea that, if your intentions are right, your actions will fallow suit. I don't believe this to be true, necessarily. "

Not always, no - suppose you have the best of intentions but then press the wrong button and something blows up. I think there might be a point at which ignorance is its own offense.

"The converse of this is that, if your intentions are wrong, your actions will follow the course. Seems to me that the Sipirt is not about physical action but what is in a person's heart. If some one stifles the goodness (assumeing God is good, and I have my doubts about YHWH, but that's another story), they are stifling the source of right actions and turning them onto a path of evil... I don't like thw word "evil" because it's too culturally loaded and nonspecific, but by "evil" I mean malevolance and/or an ends justifies the means philosophy. "

I have my doubts about YHWH too. He never did like people very much. Thought we made too much noise and tried to destroy us several times. His brother liked us better, but he was no bed of roses either. Rock/Hard place...

I have my doubts about YHWH too. He never did like people very much. Thought we made too much noise and tried to destroy us several times. His brother liked us better, but he was no bed of roses either. Rock/Hard place...

I suspect that YHWH, while probably wise and well intntioned, might have been/ might be a rather substancial entity who decided to be a heavy handed ruler of a "chosen people". I even suspect that the God of Jesus was not YHWH even though he said it was... or perhaps some entity went and claimed to be YHWH and fooled allot of naiev but well intentoned Semetic people's into stoning gays and pWn1n6 the Cannanites. *shrugs* There seems to be quite a schism between a God of laying down the law... at extrem costs and a God that sets down lays but is willing to forgive and work with people... people who choose him instead of the other way around. Interesting.

As for a devil, I've run into severl distinct energy structures that claimed to be Lucifer (one is in a body), but none of them have come off as terribly convincing. "Hi. I'm the devil. I'm scary." Well, I think Lucifer, if even real, is a hell of allot more complex than the big scary thing people make it out to be. Satan, Belial, Bealzibub... either different entities or different names for the same boogie man.

I don't think Jesus ever even mentioned the name of his father, did he? He just said, "My Father".

Who knows who that really was.

Mary was visited by Gabriel, an "angel of the Lord", and she was found to be pregnant shortly thereafter without Joseph, her fiance, ever having touched her.

While many folks think of Gabriel's energy signature as being female, I've never quite been sure. This article describes him as male.

Is it me or does it seem like some text was edited out between, "May it be done to me according to your word." and "Then the angel departed from her."? I've always thought there was more to the story there. Something happened to get her pregnant, anyway.

Of course, things like that had happened before.

But that's just all speculation on my part of course. *cough*

I love said speculation... Speculate away...

See, she was still a virgin when Jesus was born, because no man had touched her. Angels are not human.

And another thing, Gabriel says, "and he will be called a Son of God." not the Son of God. The Fallen Angels were also called the Sons of God (ie: Anu), so to my mind, Gabriel was telling Mary that Jesus was going to be of the same bloodline as the Fallen Angels/Anunnaki (which is of course, what de Vere has claimed he was as well) and that it would be no secret.

He has named his father as being the God if Isreal, the God of the Old Testament etc. If you want me to, I can dig up verses.

Right, but if you read carefully in the old testament, there are several descriptions and personalities of this same God. In fact, in Genesis, there are several different stories going on at the same time. Where did Cain's wife come from, etc..

Right. Agreed. The most noted example of this is two creation stories w/in Genisis.

I'm not to keen on naming a technology, in and of itself (genetic engineering), as good or bad. I think genetically modified foods are of poor quality and may wreek havock on mother nature down the road, so this constitutes a misuse. A technology is a tool, in my opinion. A tool can be used with or without love.

I completely agree. Humans change the world around them, they have been doing so when they picked up the first piece of stone and used it to chip another piece of stone. From my own moral perspective, carving a stone, building a brick wall, breeding animals, genetically engineering animals, humans, or plants, drawing on a wall, and reshaping a world are all morally neutral. I strongly consider terraforming a dead planet to be a moral good, just as I consider genetic engineering that cure a disease (in people, animals, or plants), or building a house for someone. However, it is also very possible to use all of these technologies for immoral purposes, it's all a question of what you do with various technologies. Then again, I also do not consider "natural" or "unnatural" to be categories with any moral value at all. For me, increasing diversity is good, while decreasing it (especially in any permanent sense, like extinction) is deeply immoral.

Then again, I also do not consider "natural" or "unnatural" to be categories with any moral value at all.

I agree and take this further. Nature is as nature does. Humans are natural. It is natual for humans to invent, sort, figure things out... and apparently be to be at least somewhat self destructive, but this may be because of the overpopulation (in terms of counties like China, for example since the population growth of the U.S. is now at 0, and this is with immigration). I do not make any distinction between nature and technology. Ususally by "natural" people mean "earth friendly" which is morally good in my opinion. By "unnatural" people tend to me either just plain beyond cultural values (having sex with a dead dog for example) and may or may not be wrong (or is just plain disgusting) or destructive to other nature, which I believe to be immoral. Okay, nature destroys itself all the time, part of life cycles. I get that, but I mean extream exploitive damage, a disregard for how things work to the point where the dammage does long term damage to an evnironmental system.

You have an unnatural way with words! (rofl).

... and that longterm damage to the environmental system may end up killing us - not that my life is worth anything to the system at large, but I'd kind of like to keep going just to see what happens in the end...

You have an unnatural way with words! (rofl).

Not sure how to take this.

My brand of environmentalism is bassed in practicality and survival instinct. Sure, we can get into the metaphysics of it, but the just of it can be summed up like this: "It's a bad idea to shit where you sleep."

That referred to the blunt (and much appreciated) manner in which you get a point across (the above is a great example).

That's funny. I usually try to curb my bluntness over the net because tone can often be misinterpreted. I can see where some one might take my words as sarcastic or crude when not in front of me to hear it etc.

I have trouble being dishonest... I suspect that's one thing that keeps me from being entirely normal.

I've also seen all kinds of problems w relationships arise because people are being dishonest, and I'm not talking just about the extreams of cheating or stealing. Often, people start relationships by trying to look good to the other person, not just bathing, manners and trying to put fourth intelligent conversation (and many don't do some of these things) but try to gage what their target wants and behave accordingly. Then, as the relationship wares on, people start being themselves and then decide they don't like the other person. Besides that, so many annoyances can be avoided by just being honest, "No. I'm not keen on doing blah in the bedroom. I think it's kinda grose." Sure as hell beats some one putting up with a particular sex act just to oppease the partner and harbor secret resentment about it. I could go on for days about how dishonest fucks things up between people, and it isn't just love relationships. It's friendships and aquantences.

agreed, totally. My problem with it is, at this point I don't think the ethics (or lack thereof) can be divorced from the technology. For the most part, the Biotechs and other related corporations own the technology (and the lawyers, and the Government, and the UN, and the world bank and the military, etc.). It's this ownership that bugs me. Genetic material and governments (among other things) cannot be private property. Of course, you take that one step further and say that all private property is morally reprehensible. I remember disagreeing with that at some point. Now I'm not so sure. I guess it's a matter of where one draws the line. Also, I'm all in favor of erring on the side of caution when doing biotech of any kind.

All property is really private. Even in Communist dictatorships, all that means is that the government, rather than corporations, controls and owns everything.

There is no society where all property is REALLY held in common by every person. All property is owned by someone - individual, family, government, company, or religious institution.

The idea of property, in fact, implies that someone owns it.

Native American cultures didn't view land as something that could be possessed. Now it's all for sale though, so under the current system(s) this assessment is accurate. I am not in favor of giving up private property. I am, in favor, however, of giving up the idea of owning genetic material of any kind, which is at this point private property.

As far as I'm concerned, (whatever the courts may say) nobody owns my genes, in whole or in part, or the genes of seeds. The fact that anyone is saying they do is akin to trying to put Spirit in a cage. I'm sorry, but just No. You're free to disagree if you wish, but it won't change how I feel about it.

Earth's Heart in a Cage

Ramblings

Re: Ramblings

Re: Ramblings

Re: Ramblings

Re: Ramblings

Re: Ramblings

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: Ramblings

Re: Ramblings

Re: Ramblings

Re: Ramblings

Re: Ramblings

Re: Ramblings

Re: Ramblings

Re: Ramblings

Re: Ramblings

Re: Ramblings

Re: Ramblings

Re: Ramblings