Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can; seeds:

Say what you like, the inescapable truth is that Christ - according, at least, to the Gospels - taught that celibacy is preferable.

Your proof-quotation, dear seeds?

Funny that you think the One who commanded, "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh" allegedly didn't support marriage.

You'll have to make that case to me.

[Dontaskme]

Relgious maniacs don't want explanations, especially not sociopathic narcissists like IC who already 'know everything'.

IC KNOWS NOTHING

IC is a concept known by the only knowing there is.

As consciousness is everything because nothing is known without it, you are the knowing that cannot be known.

IC just doesn’t know it. Only pretends to know.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The point is this is part-and-parcel of human existence. For us to exist, we must cultivate. And I referred to the Mississippi Basin -- the very core of America's agricultural power -- as an example.

This is quite blatantly self-contradictory. First, you pointed out that the Red Man had lived in that Basin (clearly for a very long time) without cultivating it. Then you claim that we "must" cultivate.

Do you have much background in anthropology? It was one of my first interests. The Red Man (the term we are using here) cultivated limitedly in some regions. In some areas of the Mississippi Basin some Indian groups cultivated limitedly. But there was such an abundance of life in that ecosystem that the plains tribes lived predominantly off of that.

But these Indians (and all the Indians of North America outside of the general region of central Mexico) remained in a more-or-less hunter-gatherer civilization level.

The Europeans came and, indeed, took over the land of all the tribes that lived there. And they had a very very different means of sustaining themselves: cultivation.

What interests me is your *judgment*. Standing as a moral arbiter. Seeing yourself as judge and jury. Taken to its (logical) extreme your judgment-perspective will need to be carried back through time to the very origin of so-called civilization. And just imagine the retro-decided judgments you will impose!

It is such a bizarre way of looking at things. But I do not judge you for it!

[Harry Baird]

The point is this is part-and-parcel of human existence. For us to exist, we must cultivate. And I referred to the Mississippi Basin -- the very core of America's agricultural power -- as an example.

This is quite blatantly self-contradictory. First, you pointed out that the Red Man had lived in that Basin (clearly for a very long time) without cultivating it. Then you claim that we "must" cultivate.

It's the old "Noble Savage" myth, Harry.

No, it's the fact that native Americans* lived sustainably off the land without cultivating it, whereas AJ claims that cultivation is a "must".

I don't care to indulge you in the rest of your post, which seems to me to be reacting to something I never wrote, and which in any case seems to be aimed at justifying colonialism, which I reject.

* And I agree, "Red Man" is not an appropriate term; I simply mistakenly mirrored AJ's use of it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Philosophy Now Forum trivia contest!

Without looking it up name the 4 animals domesticated by American Indians (the so-called Red Man) in the Americas. There are only four. No cheating now!

[Harry Baird]

The point is this is part-and-parcel of human existence. For us to exist, we must cultivate. And I referred to the Mississippi Basin -- the very core of America's agricultural power -- as an example.

This is quite blatantly self-contradictory. First, you pointed out that the Red Man had lived in that Basin (clearly for a very long time) without cultivating it. Then you claim that we "must" cultivate.

Do you have much background in anthropology? It was one of my first interests. The Red Man (the term we are using here) cultivated limitedly in some regions. In some areas of the Mississippi Basin some Indian groups cultivated limitedly. But there was such an abundance of life in that ecosystem that the plains tribes lived predominantly off of that.

But these Indians (and all the Indians of North America outside of the general region of central Mexico) remained in a more-or-less hunter-gatherer civilization level.

The Europeans came and, indeed, took over the land of all the tribes that lived there. And they had a very very different means of sustaining themselves: cultivation.

Blah blah blah - but, in other words, you admit that it is not the case that we "must" cultivate.

What interests me is your *judgment*. Standing as a moral arbiter. Seeing yourself as judge and jury. Taken to its (logical) extreme your judgment-perspective will need to be carried back through time to the very origin of so-called civilization. And just imagine the retro-decided judgments you will impose!

It is such a bizarre way of looking at things. But I do not judge you for it!

Oh, no, of course not! You are not a judge! You do not judge that cultivation "must" occur! You do not judge that colonisation is fine because that's "just the way of the world"! You do not judge at all! It is only those with whom you disagree who judge!

[seeds]

Immanuel Can; seeds:

Say what you like, the inescapable truth is that Christ - according, at least, to the Gospels - taught that celibacy is preferable.

Your proof-quotation, dear seeds?

Funny that you think the One who commanded, "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh" allegedly didn't support marriage.

You'll have to make that case to me.

Why are you asking for a cited Biblical quote from me? Harry's the one who said that "...Christ taught that celibacy is preferable...," not I.
_______

[Alexis Jacobi]

* And I agree, "Red Man" is not an appropriate term; I simply mistakenly mirrored AJ's use of it.

Red Man it is from here on out! White Man, Red Man, Yellow Man -- if these are politically incorrect then I relish their use! Relish I say!!!

Harry, what did you think of John Trudell's Rich Man's War?

Are you any good at the Red Man's dances or do you stick with those of the Aboriginal Black Fellow? (If 'Black Fellow' a used term still used in Australia now? David Gulpilil used it describing himself I noticed).

[Alexis Jacobi]

Blah blah blah - but, in other words, you admit that it is not the case that we "must" cultivate.

You are missing the real point: our lives here involve the necessity of consuming other beings. That is to say, we must impose ourselves as-against other forms of life. Cultivation is now the means by which we live. Everywhere, except perhaps in some isolated forest somewhere.

We must 'cultivate' if you take cultivate as I really mean it. All building, all cultivation, the raising of animals for food, all of this, these are forms of what I mean by 'cultivate'. Mining, extraction, fabrication. All of these are acts of violence (when examined closely).

[Harry Baird]

Immanuel Can; seeds:

Say what you like, the inescapable truth is that Christ - according, at least, to the Gospels - taught that celibacy is preferable.

Your proof-quotation, dear seeds?

Do you perhaps, mean me: dear Harry?

Try Matthew 19:12:

For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.

Note: should accept it.

Also try Luke 20:34-36:

Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection.

Do you not think that Jesus wants us to be "those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come"?

There are probably more, but I don't have the patience to search for them.

[Harry Baird]

We must 'cultivate' if you take cultivate as I really mean it.

When you admitted that Native Americans did not cultivate (largely, and at least not in the destructive way that we do), you gave up the right to say that we "must" cultivate.

[Harry Baird]

(If 'Black Fellow' a used term still used in Australia now? David Gulpilil used it describing himself I noticed).

"Black fella" is commonly enough used amongst - well, black fellas - in Australia. They also use the term "white fella". Neither is a term of abuse or self-abnegation, and it's common enough for the two to be combined respectfully, as in "Black fella; white fella - we gotta get along together".

[Alexis Jacobi]

(If 'Black Fellow' a used term still used in Australia now? David Gulpilil used it describing himself I noticed).

"Black fella" is commonly enough used amongst - well, black fellas - in Australia. They also use the term "white fella". Neither is a term of abuse or self-abnegation, and it's common enough for the two to be combined respectfully, as in "Black fella; white fella - we gotta get along together".

"Black fella; White fella . . . we gotta get along togetha . . ." I think you mean? So the endings match, right?

From now on please hear this tune when you see or read a post of mine. Thanks.

[Alexis Jacobi]

We must 'cultivate' if you take cultivate as I really mean it.

When you admitted that Native Americans did not cultivate (largely, and at least not in the destructive way that we do), you gave up the right to say that we "must" cultivate.

I give up no rights. I am damned White man!

[Harry Baird]

From now on please hear this tune when you see or read a post of mine. Thanks.

I prefer this version.