[Peace-discuss] Bellicose rhetoric???

Wed Nov 12 15:17:50 CST 2008

Perhaps we're suffering from Reverse Hitchcockism?

A better explanation might be hawks, of which I've seen more this year than in 
any of the last twenty.  --CGE

Morton K. Brussel wrote:
> I too have noticed the lack of birds, finches at our feeders, but other 
> species as well. --mkb
> 
> On Nov 12, 2008, at 12:19 PM, LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
> 
>> Yes, well it is funny you bring up birds;  I have not seen a single 
>> bird in
>> my yard or at my feeders since summer.  Usually they flock to the yard 
>> and
>> the feeders this time of year.  Has anyone else noticed the lack of 
>> birds?
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: C. G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu]
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 11:46 AM
>> To: LAURIE SOLOMON
>> Cc: 'E. Wayne Johnson'; 'Morton K. Brussel';
>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Bellicose rhetoric???
>>
>> The birds sing almost all night long:
>>
>>      * Some say that ever, 'gainst that season comes
>>        Wherein our Saviour's birth is celebrated,
>>        The bird of dawning singeth all night long;
>>        And then, they say, no spirit dare stir abroad,
>>        The nights are wholesome, then no planets strike,
>>        No fairy takes, nor witch hath power to charm,
>>        So hallow'd and so gracious is the time.
>>
>>      * So have I heard and do in part believe it.
>>
>> LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
>>> I guess now this is not only "Peace-Discuss" but "Peace and
>>> Religion-Discuss."
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: E. Wayne Johnson [mailto:ewj at pigs.ag]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 10:30 PM
>>> To: Morton K. Brussel
>>> Cc: C. G. Estabrook; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; LAURIE SOLOMON
>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Bellicose rhetoric???
>>>
>>> The fullness of God is manifest in the things that exist and in the
>>> infinity that characterizes existence itself.
>>>
>>> Morton K. Brussel wrote:
>>>> .That which we don't know is what People call god, which shows its
>>>> emptiness.
>>>>
>>>> --mkb
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 11, 2008, at 10:05 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I agree that we don't know the answer to the question, Why is there
>>>>> anything instead of nothing?
>>>>>
>>>>> But that answer (which we don't know) is "what people have called
>>>>> God," as Thomas Aquinas says.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
>>>>>> You can ask all you want; but that does not mean that there are any
>>>>>> answers
>>>>>> that are The Answer.  Thus, the exercise can turn into intellectual
>>>>>> masturbation, which may give some pleasure although it may not
>>>>>> furnish such
>>>>>> pleasure to all.
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
>>>>>> [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C. G.
>>>>>> Estabrook
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 9:00 PM
>>>>>> To: Morton K. Brussel
>>>>>> Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Bellicose rhetoric???
>>>>>> The universe just is, and we can't ask about it?
>>>>>> Morton K. Brussel wrote:
>>>>>>> I submit that gods have no substance to answer this question. They
>>>>>>> are totally insubstantial.
>>>>>>> My guess is there has never been "nothing". There's no need to
>>>>>>> question existence; it's axiomatic. --mkb
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Nov 11, 2008, at 8:27 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why is there anything instead of nothing, Mort?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Morton K. Brussel wrote:
>>>>>>>>> All this preaching on this list!  Perhaps I can insert the
>>>>>>>>> opinion that "God"
>>>>>>>>> (or gods) are totally empty concepts, explaining nothing, but
>>>>>>>>> giving rise to
>>>>>>>>> endless ratiocination.  --mkb
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 10, 2008, at 10:35 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> God is not a necessary component of morality for the simple
>>>>>>>>>> reason that God
>>>>>>>>>> -- the answer (which we do not know) to the question, "Why is 
>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>> anything instead of nothing?" -- is not a component of anything.
>>>>>>>>>> God is not a thing in the universe -- we can't point to
>>>>>>>>>> something in the universe as the reason for the existence of the
>>>>>>>>>> universe -- and God and the
>>>>>>>>>>  universe don't add up to two. (Two of what would that be?  Two
>>>>>>>>>> things?
>>>>>>>>>> But God is not thing in the universe, etc.)
>>>>>>>>>> Morality is a component of human nature (for the existence of
>>>>>>>>>> which God of
>>>>>>>>>> course is the reason, as for everything), as grammar is a
>>>>>>>>>> component of language. Just as an intelligent visitor from Mars
>>>>>>>>>> would think that all
>>>>>>>>>> humans were speaking one language with regional variations, so
>>>>>>>>>> human ethics
>>>>>>>>>>  might be regarded as the rules (or grammar) for humans' being
>>>>>>>>>> together --
>>>>>>>>>> with some interesting regional variations... (That's what makes
>>>>>>>>>> horse racing, or at least philosophical argument -- and
>>>>>>>>>> literature.)
>>>>>>>>>> Well over a thousand years of Christian philosophical reflection
>>>>>>>>>> took it as
>>>>>>>>>> a commonplace that the Decalogue is not a set of rules imposed
>>>>>>>>>> from outside, as it were, that might have been different, but
>>>>>>>>>> rather rational
>>>>>>>>>> conclusions from reflection on what it is to be human.  (They
>>>>>>>>>> did think it
>>>>>>>>>> was a little hard to derive the 3rd/4th Commandment -- there are
>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>> numbering systems -- this way.)
>>>>>>>>>> Christian theologians thought that, although ethics could be
>>>>>>>>>> descried rationally, that took effort (and time) -- hence all
>>>>>>>>>> that literature -- and
>>>>>>>>>> so God generously provided in the Ten Commandments as it were an
>>>>>>>>>> operating
>>>>>>>>>> manual ("documentation," we would say) for being human.
>>>>>>>>>> More on this from me (quoting others), if you want, at "The
>>>>>>>>>> Subversive Commandments,"
>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.counterpunch.org/estabrook03292005.html>. --CGE
>>>>>>>>>> John W. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> ... I'd be more interested in hearing one or both of you Bible
>>>>>>>>>>> scholars
>>>>>>>>>>> explain to Jenifer why God is a necessary component of
>>>>>>>>>>> morality.  Or
>>>>>>>>>>> conversely, how one can be moral without a belief in God. John
>>>>>>>>>>> Wason
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss