To: K-list
Recieved: 1999/11/21 07:42
Subject: Re: [K-list] If There Is A God...
From: Martin Thompson
On 1999/11/21 07:42, Martin Thompson posted thus to the K-list:
22:34:28 Fri, 19 Nov 1999
at PokimontazATnospamaol.com writes:
><< If there is a god, why is this earth such a hell? How could a god,
> he-she-it, bring into being such a world where all of nature, beautiful
> as it may be, "lives" by killing. >>
>
I agree with the sentiment of these arguments (both of them) but not
really with the facts as stated.
>CORRECTION: Earth does not live by killing. Earth is a fragile ecosystem
>being destroyed by the every expanding egos of the human race. Other animals
>control their population to conserve resources whereas we just keep making
>babies noone can take care of.
Well... I don't think so. Other animals (and humans) just starve when
they run out of food, (rabbit/lynx populations are the classic example
of this) and the majority of animals die from being eaten alive. Others
from diseases. Very few from old age (death from whatever cause except
self-choice being another swindle if you ask me).
Humans are, I think, the only creatures to consciously try and control
their population - contraception, pre-natal abortion and, in earlier
times, post-natal abortion.
> Our people live on the streets and we pass
>them in cars, turn a cheek and act like they dont exist. Unlike animals
>though we are given the gift of reason...we chose whetehr or not to believe
>in a god and decide the consequences of our actions.
At least, we like to think we have a choice, but maybe we don't.
> Earth in its principle
>does not base its existence on killing;
This is apparently contradicted by the existence of predators, prey,
parasites and diseases.
> please keep in mind the circle of
>life spoken of in the lion king. We must respect the earth in order for her
>to respect us. We ahve lost respect for the earth and poison her with out
>pollutiona nd ar now paying the price dearly and so will our children.
Maybe. But then again, maybe not. For all we know, we might be involved
in a desperate race against time to become independent of this one
planet before the big comet strikes or the aliens invade. Under such
circumstances, our admittedly destructive approach would be a survival
advantage, as it has been in the past (the evolution of civilization has
consistently favoured those that were the most destructive). How can we
judge when we don't know why we are like this? Maybe there is a good
reason.
>Sometimes I wonder if we as humans are
>really even mammals, anyone whose seen Matrix will know what I am talking
>about. The comment was made that humans are not really mammals, they are
>viruses of the planet.
I suspect Dolly Parton is a mammal ;-)
> if we were mammals we would not reproduce without
>adequate resources
All other species do, so why would we be different? Like them, we die if
we go too far.
> and we would help each other, we would be connected to
>ourselves and our earth. but we are not mammals we are viruses who attack
>their hosts (earth) and use its resources without replenishment and continue
>to replicate until we kill our host and each other.
Or we are Gaia's babies, having a turbulent birth?
I often think that environmentalists over-discount the benefits of
future technology: Buckminster Fuller showed that we have used less than
1 billionth of the energy available to us on the Earth, for instance.
Clean, safe/deadly and immensely powerful technology isn't more than a
generation or two away, if we don't destroy ourselves in warfare first.
>so why is it god's fault we kill each
>other and plague the earth?
>
If God made us this way, who else can take the blame?
><<Last nite I watched a nature film "Vanishing Edens" on Public TV. The
>place was the Southwest USA, a very beautiful area, but all that the
>animals in the area did was eat each other. How could a half way decent
>god created such a hell?>>
>
>we eat the animals which in turn eat plants...once the animals die their
>carcuses nourish the plants for other animals to eat. Its the way the world
>turns and if noone ate each other all populations would run loose.
As things stand, yes I would agree. But the implication of the question,
to me, is: why is life on this World based on predation rather than
symbiosis?
FWIW, my personal answer is to stop blaming an external God and accept
that I am God (as much as anybody is) and this is my Universe. Why would
I make it this way? It is an illusion, an invented creation that
reflects my state of personal or spiritual evolution. That's all.
>. Note that
>the only animal to waste its food product is man though. My cat eats the
>whole bird not just the leg or breast....in general we are very wasteful.
We have to leave something for the bacteria, rats and seagulls. Nothing
is wasted. It all gets recycled in the end.
[x]
>
><<And look at "great" American companies that oppress their workers,
>making life miserable for the many at the bottom so that an evil few at
>the top can amass more wealth than anyone could possible need...how can
>any self respecting god allow this?>>
>
Perhaps "evil" is putting it a bit strongly. Their companies are
presumably creating wealth, after all. And their money doesn't just sit
uselessly in a treasure chest somewhere doing nobody any good like in
the old days. You can be sure it is invested and working for its
existence as well, providing much-needed capital for companies
throughout the world. If the money was removed, we'd all starve: it is a
measure of our economic *activity* more than it is a measure of wealth
as such. The activity is what counts; wealth is just an abstract notion,
meaningless in human terms.
As for oppression of workers, yes, many people look like they could do
with a wake-up call. Did you know that to earn as much as Michael Eisner
(top dog at Disney) does in an hour, a Haitian Tee-shirt maker would
have to work for 150 years? Now, OK, we wouldn't want to disrupt the
Haitian economy by raising wages too much - or would we? Capitalism,
while clearly being a very effective system for generating wealth, has
problems distributing it. How much is the behaviour of money and history
down to individuals and how much is it beyond the control of mere
mortals? Philosophers have been arguing about that one for a long, long
time. It does seem likely, however, that some very dubious characters
are at the helms of our economies, and that such people have been there
for centuries, at least. It seems to be in the nature of human societies
that, over time, the scum rises to the top. But this may not be
deliberate on their part: politics is a power structure - the art of the
possible, as the saying goes. Powerful scumbags can't be ignored or
legislated away: they have to be dealt with, bargained with. That's life
too. (I'm not accusing Michael Eisner of being a scumbag - I've never
met him.)
--
Martin Thompson martinATnospamtucana.demon.co.uk
London, UK
Home Page: http://www.tucana.demon.co.uk
Free Regular Income: http://www.virtualis.com/vr/mthomps4/vrp.html
"Everything I do and say with anyone makes a difference." Gita Bellin
DISCLAIMER!
Home | Archive Index | Search the archives | Subscribe
K. List FAQ | Kundalini FAQs | Signs and Symptoms | Awakening Experiences | K. list Polls | Member Essays | Meditations | List Topics | Art Gallery | Cybrary | Sitemap | Email the moderators.
symbol.