Monday, February 24, 2014

Karma and the Cardinal

Going but not yet gone. Cardinal George Pell - the most incompetent leader in Chrisendom?

Well he’s finally going.  Cardinal Pell, the leader of the Australian Catholic Church,  is being promoted to almost the very top.  George is being kicked upstairs to be the Vatican's "Grand Financial Inquisitor".  www.smh.com.au/national/cardinal-george-pell-named-by-pope-francis-to-head-vatican-finance-ministry-20140225-hvdn3.html
This Inquisition unlike its Spanish predecessor is reasonably welcome.  I say reasonably because I wonder if it will be as transparent as would be desirable.  There are allegations of corruption, nepotism and dysfunction in the Vatican made public by the Pope Benedict’s butler.  I mean, really, who cares?  So what if the Vatican is awash with sleaze and fraud.  That has been a centuries old tradition.  The allegations of the money laundering through the Vatican Bank by pious war lords and prayerful crooks exemplifies how Vatican finances are remote from both God and the good works required by the Bible.
Several issues emerge, however, from this appointment which requires the godless to drop their repugnance and gaze in wonder at byzantine world of Vatican finances.
The first point is the remarkable seniority of Cardinal Pell in the catholic stronghold.  We look at him as a doddering fool.  His public appearances are a wonderful catastrophe.  He appears remote, devoid of charisma and slow witted.  In short, his is atheism’s greatest friend.  And yet he is a member of the Group of 8 most senior Cardinals at the elbow of the Pope nudging him along.  It is incredible that such a low calibre man could achieve these dizzying heights.  What this tells me is that there is a leadership vacuum.  Catholicism is an organisation where leadership cannot be recruited from a competitive pool of qualified candidates.  It must recruit from a group of elderly men with great expertise in theological and liturgical matters but probably untrained in finance and management.  It is a recipe for disaster.  And we have seen this disaster unfold both here in Australia and across the world.
The second thing I feel is that Australia is diminished with the loss of Cardinal Pell.  He is such a lumbering fool, that Catholicism in Oz must be cheering from the rafters at his departure.  They must have wished him dead for some time.  Now he disappears into the bowels of the actuarial inquisition in Rome never to be seen again they would hope.  I, as an unbeliever, am gutted.  Never have I seen such a poor adversary as dumb foolish Pell.  It is a nightmare for me that he is gone and a wonderful opportunity for Australian Catholicism to somehow reinvent itself. 
Finally, Cardinal Pell’s elevation gives one pause for thought on the Indian notion of Karma found in Buddhist, Hindu and other eastern faiths.  Karma is a notion based on the justice of causality.  If one is good, then good things should be caused to happen.  My rather uninformed knowledge of Karma essentially boils down to this.  If a good/bad person has good/bad things happen, then I intone the word “Karma” even though I think that causation has no basis in fact.  Indeed, I feel that Karma is complete crap.  Would you say to the dying Syrian child, “Karma kid because you were naughty”? I don’t think so.  The notion that actions and intentions lead inexorably to a causal outcome is nonsense.  Bad things happen to good people and vice versa.
Great things have happened to Cardinal Pell and he doesn’t deserve them.  He presided over the demoralization and decline of the Church.  The Church is a basket case when he was its leader.  Is he fired?  No.  Do the normal processes of accountability apply so that the buck stops with him?  No.  Will he be subject to the competitive pressures of the labour market and be forced to resign?  No.  His last task before his Roman holiday is further testimony on child sex abuse.  It is a fucking joke.  Catholicism is in crisis in this country on his watch and he gets promoted.  Kids were abused and his record seems less than proactive in stopping the rot.  No, as a leader he was appalling and should be held accountable.  But he is promoted to ethereal heights.  Karma????
What is your view?
Was Cardinal Pell atheism’s greatest friend?
Is his departure good or bad?
Is his departure deserved or is he being kicked upstairs to be hidden?
Why is he so successful in Rome?
Over to you guys….



65 comments:

  1. MalcolmS7:32 AM

    Dick: "The first point is the remarkable seniority of Cardinal Pell in the catholic stronghold. We look at him as a doddering fool. His public appearances are a wonderful catastrophe. He appears remote, devoid of charisma and slow witted. In short, his is atheism’s greatest friend"

    I disagree with that although I agree with the general thrust of the post. Pell is not a "fool" and he is not "slow witted" although I entirely disagree with his worldview. Here is an example where, in my opinion, he demolishes one of the most famous of the New Atheists. It is Dawkins who looks "doddering" and "devoid of charisma." Pell simply gave standard theistic argument and Dawkins was most unconvincing and not up to the task with his refutations. I think it is Dawkins who is *not* "atheism’s greatest friend."

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD1QHO_AVZA

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "atheism’s greatest friend."

      That'll be you won't it tossrag...?

      lol

      Delete
    2. Dear Malcolm S,
      Yes the legacy of Dawkins is distinctly ambiguous. As a leader of the atheists he has gained credibility and improved morale for the movement. However, as a target for those of faith, he is one big target. He comes across as dogmatic, intolerant, intelligent but not emotionally so. He is by word for the critics of atheism. His type was parodied by Dickens as Mr Gradgrind in Hard Times (was it?) who was based on Bentham, the leading atheist of the 19th century. Dawkins is a very mixed blessing. Dick

      Delete
  2. "atheism’s greatest friend."

    That'll be you won't it tossrag...?

    lol

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whup.
      Put this in the wrong place...

      ( lol catchpa: heresies dageor )

      Delete
    2. MalcolmS6:01 PM

      Suck Karma magicsausagetosser.

      Once disembodied, now disemboweled :)

      Delete
    3. Hey look Relf!!

      We found something else that the idiot believes in.

      Honestly
      It's like shooting imaginary fish in a barrel... ;)

      Delete
  3. Zeddy once told me, "I got nuffink against Caffliks."

    http://www.nationstates.net/nation=new_zedland

    See?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I feel that Karma is complete crap. Would you say to the dying Syrian child, “Karma kid because you were naughty”? I don’t think so.

    It's because he was naughty in a previous life Dick.

    Gotta hand it to those `ligio's - If there's a workaround for the shortcomings of some idiotology, they'll find it.

    ( lol catchpa: ideanot small )

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes I forgot about previous lives. A grievous omission. Thanks for reminding me Pussy Cat.

      Delete
  5. Og amok8:30 PM

    Was Cardinal Pell atheism’s greatest friend?
    No, but he increased the troops

    Is his departure good or bad?
    Good for Australia, bad for Italy

    Is his departure deserved or is he being kicked upstairs to be hidden? Deserved? he will now have to work rest and play with the homosexual cabal running the joint, oh yes, deserved. (no insult to gays intended, just a comeuppance for a sexist git)

    Why is he so successful in Rome?
    He's a prick, what more qualifications do you need to join the greatest misogynistic, self-serving and corrupt dynasty ever created?

    ReplyDelete
  6. MalcolmS10:57 PM

    Interesting pic of Pell!

    Must have been a great party!

    He is still wearing his lippy :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trust you to notice.
      I think you've found your real calling!

      Well done!!
      Perhaps you can finally make a successful career out of your little skill!

      Delete
  7. RalphH 02/026:58 PM

    “……. Cardinal Pell’s elevation gives one pause for thought on the Indian notion of Karma found in Buddhist, Hindu and other eastern faiths. Karma is a notion based on the justice of causality. If one is good, then good things should be caused to happen. My rather uninformed knowledge of Karma essentially boils down to this. If a good/bad person has good/bad things happen, then I intone the word “Karma” even though I think that causation has no basis in fact. Indeed, I feel that Karma is complete crap. Would you say to the dying Syrian child, “Karma kid because you were naughty”? I don’t think so. The notion that actions and intentions lead inexorably to a causal outcome is nonsense. Bad things happen to good people and vice versa.” (Karma and the Cardinal - Dick Gross at 9:14 PM)

    Hi Dick, thanks for the new topic. Wiki defines ‘karma’ as follows:- “Karma is the executed "deed", "work", "action", or "act", and it is also the "object", the “intent”…… A good action creates good karma, as does good intent. A bad action creates bad karma, as does bad intent.”

    That sounds quite sensible and reasonable to me. There can’t be a good outcome without a good intent and a focussed action to fulfil that intent. I think it is a misunderstanding and misuse of the term to reason backwards as you have in the case of the Syrian child. I also think it’s a mistake to stereotype people into “good people” (and by derivation, ‘bad/evil people’).

    Humans are beings of choice. As a person makes good choices throughout their life they become a “good person” but if they ‘blow it’ and and revert to intending and doing ‘bad’ things, how can they still be a “good person”? - and vice-versa (see Ezekiel 33:12).

    “Another causality characteristic, shared by Karmic theories, is that like deeds (and desires), lead to like effects. Thus good karma produces good effect on the actor, while bad karma produces bad effect. This effect may be material, moral or emotional — that is, one's karma affects one's happiness and unhappiness. The effect of karma need not be immediate; the effect of karma can be later in one's current life, and in some schools it extends to future lives.” (Wiki)

    It seems to me that one can’t directly attribute individual good or bad outcomes in life to prior choices or actions. There is a cause behind every action and event but it may not be a direct cause of responsibility to the person involved. The free-will choices of others also effect the outcome.

    However, IMO, in the longer term i.e.the afterlife and the bigger picture, one’s ultimate happiness or unhappiness is directly linked to their individual free-will choices along the path of life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ralph: ... in the ... afterlife ... one’s ... happiness ... is directly linked to their ... free-will choices along the path of life.

      Well, if that’s true then what are you doing here? Why are you wasting your days in endless argument with a wrinkly old objectivist when you could be out helping the poor or something? What kind of choice is that? What is God going to say when your case comes before him on Judgement Day?

      If I was a Christian, and I believed there was stark choice between eternal paradise and eternal fire, I wouldn’t take any chances, man. I’d give all my dough to charity, swim to Africa (no money for a plane ride), cover myself with a very, very itchy sack cloth, and live the rest of my days in the service of the poor. Wouldn’t that be the logical thing to do?

      Delete
    2. MalcolmS6:45 PM

      Terry is spot on Ralph!

      Er... apart from the 'wrinkly' bit :)

      Many of the medieval saints used a rock for a pillow, drank only laundry water, rarely washed, refrained from medical attention, gave away their worldly wealth, swore themselves to chastity and plunged themselves into a snow heap whenever they felt sexual desire!

      You johnny-come-lately neo-Christians are falling down on the job a bit.

      Delete
    3. See that, Ralph? A rock for a pillow. That’s the commitment I’m talking about. There’s a guy who gets what Luke is saying at 18:21-25 about giving it all away to the poor if you want to get on that train to Jordan.

      You’re not walking the talk, mate. You’re sitting at a computer blogging endless drivel about what it means to be a Christian, when in fact Christians aren’t even supposed to have computers. You’re not even supposed to be in a room with electricity. You’re supposed to be in someplace like Ethiopia dressed in an itchy sack cloth and wiping your bum with bark from a thorn tree.

      Delete
    4. RalphH 04/022:36 PM

      “Well, if that’s true then what are you doing here? Why are you wasting your days in endless argument with a wrinkly old objectivist when you could be out helping the poor or something? What kind of choice is that? What is God going to say when your case comes before him on Judgement Day?” (Terry5:32 PM)

      Terry, why are you thinking in terms of medieval Christianity. I’m not a medieval Christian. I don’t believe they got it totally right even though many (if not most) were completely sincere. I’m sure it served them well at the time but our understanding of God increases as time moves on and human experience keeps compounding - and God reveals more of Himself.

      I’m a follower of Christ and try to take my cue directly from Christ (as God in human form) not from interpreters and commenters of the past. I don’t embrace a literalistic interpretation of the Bible because, among other reasons, it makes no sense in the light of modern scientific evidence. It’s not a secular textbook in any shape or form.

      It however makes heaps of sense when seen as a spiritual psychology (i.e. a psychology that supplements natural psychology which deals with the natural conscious level of the mind) to guide the betterment and healing of the individual and collective human race through infinite and recurring states of development.

      For example, Jesus did not say, “Blessed are the poor.” (a person can be poor because of their own laziness and stupidity and conversely, a person can be wealthy because they have worked hard, honestly and sincerely and hence deserve to enjoy the fruits of their labours). He said, “Blessed are the poor IN SPIRIT.” i.e anyone humble enough to believe that they don’t have and can’t get all the answers by themselves and are therefore willing to listen to and follow the instruction of God (the universal source of all true goodness and happiness).

      God doesn’t judge anyone. He’s set up a structure whereby people can judge themselves (IOW choose their eternal character for themselves). It’s only an appearance that God judges and it only appears that way to people who are not understanding or are rejecting God. When the perspective and assumptions are lacking the conclusion is sure to be awry.

      Any time I speak what I believe to be the truth about God and life, I am not “wasting my time”. It doesn’t matter who writes it off, it’s out there for anyone who wants to listen and if they do listen, I’ve helped them along the way. Any feedback can help me refine my ideas too.

      “If I was a Christian, and I believed there was stark choice between eternal paradise and eternal fire, I wouldn’t take any chances, man. I’d give all my dough to charity, swim to Africa (no money for a plane ride), cover myself with a very, very itchy sack cloth, and live the rest of my days in the service of the poor. Wouldn’t that be the logical thing to do?”

      No it wouldn’t be “the logical thing to do”, it would be quite stupid. The logical thing to do would be to embrace God’s spiritual principles of love and community in whatever business, recreation or activity you undertake (or are currently undertaking). IOW, always think of the other guy first (what contributes to his/their welfare and happiness), not to the exclusion of one’s own if that is sincere and non-selfish but getting one’s own desires in perspective.

      One cannot experience “eternal paradise”/happiness/inner peace unless one builds a loving, altruistic, outward looking character within oneself (as God commands for our benefit).

      Eternal fire is not an external fire that burns the skin. It is an inner fire (self imposed) of greed, jealousy, contempt and hatred that consumes the mind and heart when one comes to consider oneself as the most important person in the world.

      Delete
    5. RalphH 04/023:49 PM

      “Terry is spot on Ralph!

      Er... apart from the 'wrinkly' bit :)” (MalcolmS6:45 PM)

      Thanks for putting me right about “the wrinkly bit Malcolm”. That’ll probably come as you age further. But don’t worry about it - its quite normal for an advanced stage of life. Then, in the afterlife, (which I realise you don't believe in) our spiritual body (our character for good or ill) is determined by the state of our mind, so, if you’ve been a good boy, that won’t be a problem either.

      “Many of the medieval saints used a rock for a pillow, drank only laundry water, rarely washed, refrained from medical attention, gave away their worldly wealth, swore themselves to chastity and plunged themselves into a snow heap whenever they felt sexual desire!”

      I’m sure many of them had a lot of fun making martyrs of themselves but a lot of it was all pretty unnecessary and they might have done better just having a good useful job but who am I to judge? Not a lot of “snow heaps” in Australia are there?

      “You johnny-come-lately neo-Christians are falling down on the job a bit.”

      I’m sure a lot of “neo-Christians’ are “falling down on the job” but that would be those who claim to have faith but without reason (or contrary to reason). Thankfully that does not apply to everyone.

      Delete
    6. Ralph:

      Crap. Christ is all about the poor. No Christian can be in any doubt of what is expected of him in this regard. You are obliged to do whatever you can to help the poor. It follows that the more you do for the poor, the better your chances of making the train to Jordan. Any Christian who ignores this imperative is either stupid or unconvinced there is an afterlife.

      I think what you have done, wittingly or not, is found a way to shirk this obligation by interpreting the word ‘poor’ to mean ‘poor in spirit’. Thus are you able to avoid giving up your creature comforts, and can indulge yourself in blogging, in the hope that God, at the Day of Reckoning, will see it as evangelising, and duly reward you with that train ticket.

      That’s a risky strategy, old boy. If you’re serious about making it to paradise, why not do both? Go join a mission in Africa.

      Delete
    7. What? No waffly riposte from Ralph? Not like him, hey? Wonder where he's gone? Seen the light, perhaps? Sold his computer and swum to Africa? Hamba gahle, ikehlha.

      Delete
    8. "I don’t embrace a literalistic interpretation of the Bible..." Utter bullshit; of course you do! Ralph, you may not emabrace a literal interpretation of some parts of the bible, but to be a believer you must embrace other parts as the literal truth. If you didn't you couldn't possibly believe; the bible would just be another work of fantasy fiction (which it is).

      Delete
    9. RalphH 06/034:29 PM

      “Crap. Christ is all about the poor. No Christian can be in any doubt of what is expected of him in this regard. You are obliged to do whatever you can to help the poor. It follows that the more you do for the poor, the better your chances of making the train to Jordan. Any Christian who ignores this imperative is either stupid or unconvinced there is an afterlife.” (Terry4:15 PM)

      I disagree Terry. IMO, Christ is all about doing what is right and good. The “poor” obviously are in need of help for daily sustenance and security so doing what is right and good does to a large extent involve helping the poor. However, if helping a poor person empowers them to do evil then logically one would not help them. Additionally, many people who are not poor also need help in various ways.

      “I think what you have done, wittingly or not, is found a way to shirk this obligation by interpreting the word ‘poor’ to mean ‘poor in spirit’.”

      Matthew and Luke both list the Ten Blessings/the beatitudes. Matthew’s gospel says “poor in spirit”, Luke’s says “poor”. I can’t see it as a blessing to be poor, can you? But to be poor in spirit is to be humble and willing to learn - that is a blessing for anyone.

      In the Matthew, Mark and John gospels Jesus said “For you have the poor with you always, …” showing, I suggest, that the eradication of poverty was not at the head of his list of priorities.

      That’s not to say that he didn’t help the poor but he was not a social or political reformer. He was a spiritual reformer. Until or unless the inner will and intentions are changed external social and political change will be short-lived.

      “Thus are you able to avoid giving up your creature comforts, and can indulge yourself in blogging, in the hope that God, at the Day of Reckoning, will see it as evangelising, and duly reward you with that train ticket.”

      Your simplistic idea of heaven (a train ticket to Jordan) has no interest for me. I don’t believe that heaven (or eternal happiness) or just plain happiness is a reward. It’s a result of right living (which involves recognising and being grateful to the source of all goodness and the principles that establish and lead to goodness/usefulness/happiness).

      “That’s a risky strategy, old boy. If you’re serious about making it to paradise, why not do both? Go join a mission in Africa.”

      I’d love to go to Africa (I have a niece who did volunteering at an orphanage in Kenya a few years ago) but family circumstances, finances and health are not conducive.

      Delete
    10. MalcolmS6:54 PM

      RalphH: "I’d love to go to Africa (I have a niece who did volunteering at an orphanage in Kenya a few years ago) but family circumstances, finances and health are not conducive"

      All the more reason to go!

      What could be a better example of self-sacrifice in the name of spreading the "word"?

      Think big Ralph! Think Martin Luther King Jr and Gandhi!

      Surely "family circumstances, finances and health" are not important when acting for the cause of which you are so certain.

      Go on Ralph - don't be so "selfish" :)

      Delete
    11. Ralph: Christ is all about doing what is right and good.

      If, as you said earlier, you take your cues from Christ and not from the interpreters of the Bible, then how do you know what Christ considers to be right and wrong? Do you have a direct line to the Big Guy? No, of course you don’t. The fact is that you yourself are one of those interpreters. And you interpret Christ in a way that suits you. Which is why you are sitting on your bum blogging instead of doing Christ’s work in Africa.

      Delete
    12. RalphH 07/034:10 AM

      “*”I don’t embrace a literalistic interpretation of the Bible…”* (RH) Utter bullshit; of course you do! Ralph, you may not emabrace a literal interpretation of some parts of the bible, but to be a believer you must embrace other parts as the literal truth. If you didn't you couldn't possibly believe; the bible would just be another work of fantasy fiction (which it is).” (Kate2:37 PM)

      Nice try Kate but you’re so wrong about so many points. The Bible is a spiritual story, (the story of the human mind and how it operates) encapsulated within a natural story (or a series of natural stories).

      Compare something like Aesop's Fables. They are moral and ethical lessons woven into natural stories. Much of the literal story is not true but some of it is. However the literally true things do not add to the moral/ethical principles (a different set of literal things could have been used to achieve the same end).

      There are many literally true things in the Bible which can lead one in to discover the parallel, inner truth that applies to the mind. The link is function, purpose or usefulness. E.g. water cleanses the body of dirt - truth, it’s spiritual counterpart, cleanses the mind of falsity (spiritual dirt). But even those things which are not literally true do not detract from the overall purpose which is to gain an insight into what is (or needs to be) going on at an inner level of functioning to attain true happiness/peace of mind.

      The Bible is not a work of fiction or fantasy but it appears to be so to those who do not understand what it is or it’s purpose and judge it purely on it’s literal sense.

      Delete
    13. MalcolmS6:37 AM

      RalphH: "The Bible is a spiritual story, (the story of the human mind and how it operates)..."

      How little you know of the human mind and how it operates.

      Delete
    14. MalcolmS6:41 AM

      BTW Ralph

      On the theme of "the human mind and how it operates" I note you have still not provided the 'genus' of your definition of man yet! As discussed at MalcolmS 6:29 AM on the "A Deathly Discussion" thread.

      Still... waiting... waiting...

      Delete
    15. RalphH 08/036:11 PM

      “BTW Ralph

      On the theme of "the human mind and how it operates" I note you have still not provided the 'genus' of your definition of man yet! As discussed at MalcolmS 6:29 AM on the "A Deathly Discussion" thread.

      Still... waiting... waiting…” (MalcolmS6:41 AM)

      Not sure what you’re on about Malcolm. Can you give me an example - your idea? Without that, the closest suggestion I can make is Luke’s genealogy (Luke 3:23-38) with emphasis on verse 38.

      I’m sure you have ideas about the operation of “the human mind” but, IMO, without religion it is impossible to fathom the inner reaches of it.

      Delete
    16. MalcolmS8:02 PM

      RalphH

      MS: "On the theme of "the human mind and how it operates" I note you have still not provided the 'genus' of your definition of man yet! As discussed at MalcolmS 6:29 AM on the "A Deathly Discussion" thread"

      RH: "Not sure what you’re on about Malcolm. Can you give me an example - your idea? Without that, the closest suggestion I can make is Luke’s genealogy (Luke 3:23-38) with emphasis on verse 38"

      LOL Thanks Ralph, that's the best laugh I've had in a long time! Did you refer to the post I suggested? It has nothing to do with "Luke’s genealogy."

      You had claimed:

      "IMO *rational animals* is a contradiction Malcolm. What distinguishes the human is the rational faculty (animals just don’t have it) so it’s incorrect to classify humans with animals"

      To which I replied:

      "That's a fundamental error demonstrating your ignorance of epistemology. The definition, *man is a rational animal,* dates back to Aristotle. Any definition consists of a genus[in this case 'animal'- the class of thing to which man belongs] and a differentia [in this case 'rational' - the attribute which differentiates it from other members of the genus]. All valid definitions take this form. If you still object to "animal," then, you should provide your own genus for man which you have not done!"

      What I am asking/asked is, if 'animal' is an incorrect genus, what is the correct one?

      Still... waiting... waiting...

      Delete
    17. Ralph: The Bible is the story of the human mind and how it operates.

      Ha, ha, ha. What you ought to have said is Bible ‘interpretation’ is a story of the human mind and how it operates.

      The Bible is the work of semi-literate, superstitious ignoramuses. That people living in this day and age take guidance from it says more about the people than the book.

      If there is a god, I’d like to think that what he’s done by giving you lot this moronic guide is played a practical joke. He’s up there now with his angels laughing his nuts off at how seriously you all take the thing.

      Either that or it is you who are playing the practical joke. Who in his right mind can say stuff like ‘the Bible leads one to discover the parallel, inner truth that applies to the mind’? You’re bonkers, you are.

      Delete
    18. Mal: How little you know of the human mind and how it operates.

      That comes from having your head in one book all the time. And in that regard you two are similar. Which explains why you, too, know bugger all about the human mind.

      Delete
    19. Ralph: What distinguishes the human is the rational faculty (animals just don’t have it) …

      I don’t know about that, mate. Where’s the rational faculty in fighting wars, smoking cigarettes, taking drugs, listening to Abba and believing the Bible. Having you ever seen a baboon reading the Bible?

      ?

      Come to think of it …

      Delete
    20. MalcolmS5:13 PM

      Terry: "Having[sic] you ever seen a baboon reading the Bible?"

      Come now dopey - it'a long weekend and you should be out playing with the kids!

      They could teach you how to peel a banana :)

      Delete
    21. Mal[sic]: What I am asking/asked is, if 'animal' is an incorrect genus, what is the correct one?

      And what he is saying/said is ‘angel’. Or at least that’s what I take him to be saying/said.

      God, you see/saw, made us specially. We alone among all the beings in the Universe have ... wait for it ... rational faculties. And the animals … well, bugger the animals. They’re not special like us. They aren’t allowed into Heaven. Only we go to Heaven. Assuming, of course, that we don’t/didn’t do anything to piss god off while we are/were here on Earth.

      It says/said so in the Bible. But not literally. It's written in a kind of code that only gifted people like Ralph can decipher.

      Delete
    22. MalcolmS7:50 PM

      Terry: "And what he is saying/said is ‘angel’. Or at least that’s what I take him to be saying/said"

      I have never seen him claim that. Where does he do that? If he does he is wrong since man is *not* an angel [even if they existed] but I think you just made it up!

      All I am asking Ralph is to say what the 'genus' of his definition of man is - since he objects to the genus I use, i.e., *animal*.

      Delete
    23. Mal[sic]:

      Of course I made it up. I’m ridiculing/ridiculed you. Ralph believes he and his kind were made by god for a special purpose, and that animals are a separate thing which exist only for our pleasure. Trying to define man in your terms is meaningless to him, as it should be.

      It’s also amusing to watch two people arguing about something neither of them understands. A bit like watching two drunks trying to open a locked door.

      Delete
    24. MalcolmS9:40 PM

      Terry: "Of course I made it up"

      Thanks once again for confirming your irrelevance. It's appreciated.

      Delete
    25. Mal[sic]:

      No surprise there. If there’s anyone who would appreciate irrelevance it’s you. You wallow in it night and day. You could well be the only klutz alive who’s making a concerted effort to get another klutz to define something in Aristotelian terms.

      Delete
    26. MalcolmS10:48 PM

      Standard dictionary terms will do fine thanks - especially as it's the same thing dopey :)

      Delete
    27. Mal[sic]:

      Then just say ‘dictionary definition’. References to ‘genus’ and ‘differentia’ are unnecessary.

      Delete
    28. RalphH 10/026:40 PM

      “LOL Thanks Ralph, that's the best laugh I've had in a long time! Did you refer to the post I suggested? It has nothing to do with "Luke’s genealogy.” ” (MalcolmS8:02 PM)

      Laughter is good for the soul Malcolm, but that doesn’t work if the soul is merely consciousness. ( http://www.quotegarden.com/laughter.html )

      “..... The definition, *man is a rational animal,* dates back to Aristotle. Any definition consists of a genus[in this case 'animal'- the class of thing to which man belongs] and a differentia [in this case 'rational' - the attribute which differentiates it from other members of the genus]. All valid definitions take this form. If you still object to "animal," then, you should provide your own genus for man which you have not done!"

      What I am asking/asked is, if 'animal' is an incorrect genus, what is the correct one?

      Still... waiting... waiting…”

      Back to Aristotle is all that far and who’s to say that Aristotle was right! I looked up genus in Wiki and was presented with “ hierarchy of biological classification’s”. I would agree that we (man/human) belongs to the ‘animal Kingdom’ but i think the genus would probably be ‘homo’ something.

      Delete
    29. MalcolmS6:45 PM

      Terry: "Then just say ‘dictionary definition’. References to ‘genus’ and ‘differentia’ are unnecessary"

      They are certainly necessary.

      Ralph is familiar with dictionary definitions yet had "defined" man by giving differentia only and claimed he did not know what was wrong with that.

      His problem is solved by recognising that genus and differentia are necessary for proper definition.

      Thought you would have known that dopey - even though Ralph didn't. At least he wasn't stupid enough to provide the genus *angel* :)

      Delete
    30. MalcolmS8:02 PM

      RalphH: "Back to Aristotle is all that far and who’s to say that Aristotle was right!"

      Anyone who has studied him knows that he was correct on definition. He was the first to systematically study the subject - what we call definition he called *essence.* He was the father of definition.

      "I would agree that we (man/human) belongs to the ‘animal Kingdom’"

      At last!! Anything that belongs to the 'animal kingdom' is an animal Ralph. There! Doesn't that feel better? :)

      *Man is the rational animal* is the proper definition used in the context of a general audience such as you and I. Although definition is always contextual. For example a modern philosopher may define man as a rational being because he is operating within a broader context. A narrower context may be used also. For example a zoologist may properly define man as the rational mammal in order to place him in his specific area of expertise.

      Delete
    31. MalcolmS8:16 PM

      RalphH: "Laughter is good for the soul Malcolm, but that doesn’t work if the soul is merely consciousness"

      The *soul,* if it has meaning, always pertains to consciousness in some form [as does laughter].

      The "merely" is your appendage Ralph.

      Delete
    32. Mal[sic]: Any definition consists of a genus[in this case 'animal'- the class of thing to which man belongs] ...

      Ralph: genus ... a “ hierarchy of biological classification’s”. ... (man/human) belongs to the ‘animal Kingdom’ but i think the genus would probably be ‘homo’ something.

      Keep going, boys. This is enthralling. You’re a pair of geniuses, you are. Someone ought to nominate you for the Darwin Awards.

      Delete
    33. MalcolmS10:28 PM

      Terry: "This is enthralling. You’re a pair of geniuses"

      Thanks for the thumbs up dopey but you're the last person on Earth capable of recognising genius.

      Delete
    34. *Man is the rational animal* is the proper definition used in the context of a general audience such as you and I.

      "General Audience"? "General Audience"!?

      lol... You aren't anywhere near "General Audience".

      If "Colonel Klink" and "Major Misunderstanding" had an illicit love child that'd be you.

      "Private Parts"

      roflmao ;)

      Delete
    35. MalcolmS11:23 PM

      magicsausagetosser: ""General Audience"? "General Audience"!?"

      Sheesh! Thanks for that!

      I was so missing your input :)

      Delete
    36. RalphH 11/037:33 AM

      “*”I would agree that we (man/human) belongs to the ‘animal Kingdom’”* (RH)

      At last!! Anything that belongs to the 'animal kingdom' is an animal Ralph. There! Doesn't that feel better? :)” (MalcolmS8:02 PM)

      That’s an extremely broad definition of animal Malcolm, far more broad than a genus. There are basically three kingdoms - animal, vegetable and mineral - an animal in that sequence is any living, mobile creature. There are a whole range of distinctions from insects to reptiles, birds and mammals. There is one thing that sets ‘man’ apart from all animals i.e. his/her rational faculty.

      The rational faculty is not a product of Nature. It is a quantum leap which comes from a higher/more interior source. Man is only an animal as to his body and it is not that body that is the essential of the human but the mind/spirit. Since this does not apply to any other living creature, ‘man’ is in a unique category.

      Delete
    37. Ralph and Mal[sic]:

      This is like watching an old Laurel and Hardy movie. You two are regular clowns. Drunks searching for the light switch. You need to take this one to the stage, old codgers. Dick might be able to help you with that.

      Delete
    38. Og amok7:22 PM

      @Terry "This is like watching an old Laurel and Hardy movie."
      I was thinking something along the lines of
      The Animal Vegetable Mineral Man
      http://www.imdb.com/media/rm628000256/ch0231397?ref_=chmi_mi_all_sf_1

      Delete
    39. MalcolmS7:27 PM

      RalphH: "That’s an extremely broad definition of animal Malcolm. There are basically three kingdoms - animal, vegetable and mineral - an animal in that sequence is any living, mobile creature"

      Yes, so you could define *animal* as a living organism[genus] which is mobile[differentia]. That's the same principle as defining man - with a genus and differentia.

      "There are a whole range of distinctions from insects to reptiles, birds and mammals"

      Correct, and they all have definitions.

      "There is one thing that sets ‘man’ apart from all animals i.e. his/her rational faculty"

      Precisely! It is the rational faculty which differentiates [differentia - get it?] him from all other animals.

      "The rational faculty is not a product of Nature"

      The rational faculty is as natural as any of man's other attributes.

      "It is a quantum leap which comes from a higher/more interior source"

      No, you just made that up! It was a natural evolutionary process which resulted in a more complex brain than those from which man evolved. Obviously such a brain resulted in a different form of consciousness than that of other conscious animals. All perfectly natural!

      "Man is only an animal as to his body and it is not that body that is the essential of the human but the mind/spirit"

      Actually his body is just as *real* [and natural] as his consciousness. You are correct that his rational faculty is the "essential" which differentiates him from other animals which explains why it is the *differentia* in the definition of man.

      "Since this does not apply to any other living creature, ‘man’ is in a unique category"

      Which is exactly why man has a unique definition - and why all other living creatures have a unique definition.

      Here endeth the lesson :)

      Delete
    40. Mal[sic] to Ralph: Here endeth the lesson :)

      Blind leading the blind.

      Delete
    41. RalphH 12/032:47 PM

      “Yes, so you could define *animal* as a living organism[genus] which is mobile[differentia]. That's the same principle as defining man - with a genus and differentia.” (MalcolmS7:27 PM)

      My point Malcolm, which you disagree with, is that the human element (a rational faculty) is in no respect ‘animal’. A human is not an animal with a rational faculty, it’s a (potentially) rational being with an animal body.

      “*”The rational faculty is not a product of Nature”* (RH)

      The rational faculty is as natural as any of man's other attributes.”

      The definition of ‘rational’ conflicts with that suggestion. The concept ‘rational’ has it’s basis in the term ratio. It deals with the ratio or relationship between two things - essentially the natural (the world of physical things) and the spiritual (the inner world of the mind). If there were only one world there would be no ratio/no rational.

      “No, you just made that up! It was a natural evolutionary process which resulted in a more complex brain than those from which man evolved. Obviously such a brain resulted in a different form of consciousness than that of other conscious animals. All perfectly natural!”

      So you do believe in different levels of consciousness but can’t see that a ‘higher’ consciousness requires a higher level of being. There is no gradual advance or evolution of a rational faculty. It’s either there or it’s not.

      “Actually (man’s) body is just as *real* [and natural] as his consciousness. You are correct that his rational faculty is the "essential" which differentiates him from other animals which explains why it is the *differentia* in the definition of man.”

      IMO, it is *real* only as a temporal appendage. It has no life in and of itself. That which is dependant on something else for it’s existence is real but not as real as that which exists in and of itself. The only entity that does so exist, is defined as God. The human mind, which is capable of recognising and acknowledging God could therefore be said to be more real than the body which is merely an interface directed by the mind.

      “Here endeth the lesson :)”

      The lesson usually comes before the sermon. What you mean is, “Here endeth the sermon.” i.e. your opinion.

      Delete
    42. Og Amok: I was thinking something along the lines of The Animal Vegetable Mineral Man.

      Bravo, brother Og. We now eagerly await the attempt by our resident clowns to figure his particular genus and differentia.

      Delete
    43. MalcolmS8:02 AM

      RalphH: "A human is not an animal with a rational faculty"

      On the contrary. That's exactly what it is.

      "it’s a (potentially) rational being with an animal body"

      That's true, too, but so what? A (potentially) rational being necessarily has a rational faculty.

      "“*”The rational faculty is not a product of Nature”* (RH) The rational faculty is as natural as any of man's other attributes.[MS]” The definition of ‘rational’ conflicts with that suggestion[RH]"

      No, it doesn't. The definition of *rational faculty* is that part of consciousness that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses. That's natural!

      “So you do believe in different levels of consciousness but can’t see that a ‘higher’ consciousness requires a higher level of being"

      It requires no such thing. By ‘higher’ we mean that man's consciousness is conceptual[abstract] as distinct from 'lower' conscious animals where consciousness is perceptual or lower again where it is only sensory. All forms are entirely natural. You can identify several levels of consciousness but only one level of being.

      "There is no gradual advance or evolution of a rational faculty. It’s either there or it’s not"

      That's incorrect. The evolution of an entirely different species is gradual and frequently with intermediary stages. Read Darwin.

      “IMO, it [man’s body] is *real* only as a temporal appendage. It has no life in and of itself. That which is dependant on something else for it’s existence is real but not as real as that which exists in and of itself"

      You just made that up! Man's body is as *real* as man's consciousness. Furthermore, man's consciousness cannot exist disembodied from man's body[brain] - in exactly the same way as you can't disembody the *red* from a ripe tomato!

      Delete
    44. Ralph: There is no gradual advance or evolution of a rational faculty. It’s either there or it’s not.

      How did it get there? When did it get there?

      Delete
  8. Og amok: He's a prick, what more qualifications do you need to join the greatest misogynistic, self-serving and corrupt dynasty ever created?

    How about being an arsehole? Wouldn’t this be a more desirable qualification in that particular institution?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Og amok4:46 PM

      Damn, I missed that one, or as the Pope would say...
      http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/mar/03/pope-francis-swears-vatican-blessing-video

      Delete
    2. Ha, ha, ha. Nice one, mate. He probably had on his mind the last Berlusconi party he attended.

      Delete
  9. Did anyone see Shaun Micaleff last night? He said something along the lines of "Ausralian manufacturing is going offshore and now so is our Cardinal industry". Priceless. Shipping Pell off is no loss to our country; what a horrible old prick he is.

    Dick, you're right - Karma is "complete crap", but then so is any idea that is based on the notion of some god that sits back, silently judging us and sending retribution, or not, both to the deserved and undeserved. What an indescriminate god and the antithesis of a loving being. That our resident bigotted theist believes this is possible is just plain funny in the light of his repeated assertion that we've been granted "free will" - utter tosh - if you believe the boogey man is sitting back in spitefull and menacing judgement then "free will" vanishes in a puff of ridicule. As do all claims of gods, miracles and virgin births...

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yes Kate, I am a person of a sceptical disposition. I don't believe in karma, God and as the next blog will demonstrate, complementary medicines unsupported by scientific evidence. There are similar aspects of faith here. Dick

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MalcolmS7:45 PM

      Make up your mind dopey :)

      Delete

Followers