|
|
Post by phil on Aug 22, 2005 7:20:26 GMT -5
" Le Dieu des chrétiens est un père
qui fait grand cas de ses pommes,
et fort peu de ses enfants. "
- Denis Diderot, pensées philosophiques.
"The christian God is a father
who cares a lot about his apples
and a lot less about his children."
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 22, 2005 8:32:23 GMT -5
Let’s imagine, just for the fun of discussion
that humans start a nuclear war tomorrow;
an hypothesis that is not entirely implausible…
And let’s imagine that in the process
all the Creation gets wiped out to the last man;
an hypothesis that is not entirely improbable…
Technicaly, God would then find himself laid off !
We can ask ourselves if God would create again the same identical world,
with the same construction defects;
or if he would profit from the acquired experience
– on our back – to improve his prototype.
I wouldn’t want to interfere but it could be a good PR policy
to launch a vast public survey among the users
who tested the first model in order to get their impressions.
Everyone will agree that making a world,
with life, plants, animals, man, and all that jazz
was kind of a neat idea and that the experience should be continued;
but we could suggest a few modifications, nothing too drastic…
For example, we could suggest to Him to do away with natural disasters;
I’m sure there are better ways to test solidarity between human beings.
Of course the snake is out ! We gave enough at the office.
And just to be on the safe side, because it all started there,
let’s also forget apples.
I, for one, will miss them but it is a small price to pay
for our peace of mind !
Mosquitos, I’m pretty sure we can do without; zits too !!
Roses, they were kinda nice, we could have those again;
but without the thorns, evidently and why can’t they last longer ?
Or come in blue ?
Sex! Now that was one unqualified success of the first prototype;
we must absolutely take up this idea again.
Of course with a few simple improvements;
delete all taboos, write a better how-to manual,
make sure that all the chromosomes line up properly everytime
and, most importantly, make sure to distance sex from procreation.
God can think of some other way, I know He can do it !
Oh ! and while we’re on the subject of procreation,
it is totaly pointless to « suffer while giving birth »;
a really bad idea, lose that one.
And why not include deodorant directly in the perspiration ?
For Him, it must not be so difficult to manage;
those are the little things we don’t think about in the ether…
but when one has to take the bus or the elevators…
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 22, 2005 8:38:48 GMT -5
Phil, your complete disdain for religion continues to be quite clear, but thanks for sharing yet again.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 22, 2005 8:43:40 GMT -5
And Phil, did you write #140?
This thread is loosely translated/adapted
from a book by Pierre Yves Morvan called
DIEU EST-IL UN GAUCHER QUI JOUE AUX DÉS ?
(Is God a lefty who plays dices ?)
It is about the discovery of the universe
and its thereabouts ...
Quite intertaining AND informative !
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 22, 2005 20:33:50 GMT -5
We use to think the first humans looked at their world in awe, everything around them must have seemed mysterious and incomprehensible: the stars in the sky, the outburst of a thunderstorm, the birth of a small flower, illness and death…
We believe ingenuously that they were totally helpless to explain those unexplainable phenomenons. Well, not exactly! In reality, they had absolutely no problem with any of that.
All they had to do was pick a rain god here, a harvest goddess there – lets not forget the excellent Dyonisos –and many others, and everything was under control.
Homer’s greeks lived in the hand of the gods; for them, the supernatural… it was natural !!
Even so, in spite of all those poetic “explanations”, a few men started to wonder. When Aristote talked about those thinkers who came before him, he paid tribute to that virtue of wonder they had inside:
“Like today, it was indeed wonder that pushed the first thinkers to philosophical speculations. In the beginning, it was the more apparent difficulties that interested them; then, moving forward little by little, they tried to resolve more important problems relating to the moon, the sun, the stars and also the genesis of the universe. To notice a difficulty and wonder, it is to acknowlede our own ignorance…”
It is how, about six centuries B.C. philosophy was born, just like that in Milet, when Thalès, Anaximandre, Anaximène walked around, wondering. They wondered and they started explaining everything by the sole action of natural elements – the water, the air, the fire, the earth…
What audacity ! or maybe what recklessness !
It had to be said that it was possible to explain natural phenomenons without appealing to the gods. What a peculiar idea since gods’ job was, other than charming humans with the story of their extraordinary exploits, their job was – precisely ! – to explain the unexplicable.
And a fine job they were doing. Why want to put them out of work ? Well, that is what the milesians dare to do : In this way, they invented science !
And it wasn’t very long after they asked, “What is the world made of ?”, another thinker came up with a new and more important question, “How can I learn about it ?”. With that fundamental and very difficult question, “How can I know ?”, self-doubt and relativity were born …
|
|
|
|
Post by maarts on Aug 22, 2005 23:00:44 GMT -5
Oh to be one of them.
It's probably what this time is missing- this sense of awe. Too much of our senses are pressed so hard that they have become numb. The misery of war, the rat race of society, the ever increasing pressures on people raising their children or growing up themselves. Perhaps this world knows awe in the form of looking up for a change to the sky and taking a pause from looking at the concrete they're walking on or the computer/TV-screen in front of them- to acknowledge the beauty in the things so natural. But I'm afraid the world lost its sense of awe together with their innocence.
Damn you mankind.
|
|
JACkory
Struggling Artist
Posts: 167
|
Post by JACkory on Aug 23, 2005 0:57:03 GMT -5
And to think, you've saved me from wasting any hard-earned money on this Pierre Yves Morvan crap by posting it here.
I certainly appreciate that, but for crying out loud, howzabout an ORIGINAL thought for a change?
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Aug 23, 2005 2:05:54 GMT -5
I think we should start teaching evolution in Church and Sunday School. Provide both ideas to the kids, let them decide for themselves.  |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 23, 2005 7:52:00 GMT -5
« Where are we from ? »
« Where are we going ? »The evolution theory gives us a few elements of response to these essential questions. Some people say that we come from the cabbage patch… Well ! No ! Or should we say, not only from a cabbage. According to the theory, we come from the fish in the sea, the flowers in the field, the trees in the forest, we come from the lizard, the earthworm – and also the cabbage. In the heart of our cells, we still find a few molecules inherited from all those venerable ancestors, Concerning our closest relatives, our cousins, the heritage is much more impressive. When comparing human genes with those of chimpanzees, we found identical genes in both; it must be normal because there are a few resemblances between them and us. But how far goes that resemblance ? What is the percentage of our genes that are identical to the corresponding genes in the chimpanzee ? The answer is 99 % ! We are 99 % chimpanzee, and 1 % man ! We instinctively imagine that there is an inviolable frontier separating humans from animals. Humans are evidently the lords of the creation and the animals are only here to amuse and serve us…and feed us; we’ve been told : "… let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground." (genesis) Yet, 99 % of our genes, 99 % of our own beings are found on the other side of that frontier ! With this fascinating consequence that the closest relative to the chimpanzee is not another animal like the gorilla… but man !!
Makes you look at Cheeta’s antics with very different eyes …** Today’s original thought... 
|
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Aug 23, 2005 10:02:46 GMT -5
Pat Robertson = a model Christian.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 23, 2005 10:11:40 GMT -5
Pat Robertson = a model Christian. More like a model self-promoting politician. |
|
JACkory
Struggling Artist
Posts: 167
|
Post by JACkory on Aug 23, 2005 10:34:54 GMT -5
We instinctively imagine that there is an inviolable frontier separating humans from animals.
There IS an inviolable frontier that seperates humans from animals. It's called the Moral Law, and it is not "instinctively imagined". It is as real as the guilt you feel when you've wronged someone. It is as real as the indignation that you feel when you contemplate the events of September 11. It is as real as the revulsion that rises up within you when you consider something like beastiality (oh, but hey, we're just animals too, right?) or necrophilia or any number of things that blatantly disregard it. It is precisely what makes the vast majority of people shudder to think that they may be "99% chimpanzee and 1% man" regardless of their adherance to any particular ideology of creation, including evolution.
Oh but wait...the only ORIGINAL thought you offered was "Makes you look at Cheeta’s (sic) antics with very different eyes …"...
In which case I would say, no, I still think of the "Cheeta" as a "big cat" who would eat me if he was hungry enough.
Then of course I am bound to asscociate the "Cheeta" with that lovable Chester Cheetah whose image emblazoned on each and every package of Cheetos never fails to elicit a smile from yours truly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Aug 23, 2005 11:49:20 GMT -5
If it is true that Pat Robertson is a model self-promoting politician, how horrendous is it that a man with continuing serious political aspirations there actually thinks that advocating the murder of a duly elected foreign head of state is a likely means of career advancement
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Aug 23, 2005 12:07:10 GMT -5
Oh but wait...the only ORIGINAL thought you offered was "Makes you look at Cheeta’s (sic ) antics with very different eyes …"... In which case I would say, no, I still think of the "Cheeta" as a "big cat" who would eat me if he was hungry enough. Then of course I am bound to asscociate the "Cheeta" with that lovable Chester Cheetah whose image emblazoned on each and every package of Cheetos never fails to elicit a smile from yours truly. |
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Aug 23, 2005 12:08:08 GMT -5
If it is true that Pat Robertson is a model self-promoting politician, how horrendous is it that a man with continuing serious political aspirations there actually thinks that advocating the murder of a duly elected foreign head of state is a likely means of career advancement He's an asshole...an asshole who's using the media to propagate his message. |
|
