First Blog

  The Pig and I The question today is about the farm-raised pig from its birth to eventual harvesting. What can we say from a moral, sanctity of life or existential basis? This is an age-old problem of eating meat, particularly meat that is farm-raised. At first blush, you might think it is immoral to slaughter animals and eat them. However, this is only a more refined way of ancient hunting. We now even farm-raise salmon, shrimp, and other fish. Watching the nature shows, we feel pity for the seal attacked by killer whales, but that same seal consumes kilos of fish to reach its size. Or feel for the walrus, hunted by Eskimos, yet feeding on its vast gardens of mussels and clams to reach its multi-ton weight. Many are the contradictions of the morality arguments. In the animal world, few babies survive their first year. Some predators live exactly where the prey travels or resides. Abstractly, the lion farm raises the gazelle, and consumes them as needed. Or consider the Nile cro

  Interesting observations and facts about religions - a bullet lecture. ·         They can be accepted, understood, and believed at all intelligence levels. ·         They allow multiple interpretations. ·         They encourage decent relations between people. ·         They posit an answer to the most basic question, “Why we are?” ·         They offer all believers a pathway to eternal peace. ·         They require faith without physical evidence. ·         They allow and suggest miracles have a divine origin. ·         They need the advent of historical prophets. ·         They reject contemporary prophets. ·         They need martyrs. ·         They require or hope for, secular signs.

Inconsistencies with God and more Impossible Problems.  In religion, the argument from inconsistent revelations is an argument against the existence of God. It asserts that it is unlikely that God exists because many theologians and faithful adherents have produced conflicting and mutually exclusive revelations.   While the common argument states that since a person not privy to any particular revelation, he/she must either accept it or reject it based solely upon the authority of its proponent.    Indeed, there is the question of authority or faith. The argument continues that because there is no way for a mortal to resolve these conflicting claims by any form of validation, it is wise to reserve judgment.   That is, rejecting God’s existence is the proper and natural recourse.  This argument clearly is based on the existence of a God that reveals himself clearly and consistently to all, that these revelations remain constant without reinterpretation and without change.

I love evolution theory ; I love creationism .  These are active and competing theories of human and life's existence, one based on contemporary scientific methodology and the other based on traditional, though religious beliefs.   Both involve a level supplemented by plausibility arguments. Both try to tell us where we are on a chronological scale and within a broad scheme of events.  The first tells us where we came from, how long it took, what were the steps, and ultimately how we got here.  It doesn't explain how it happened, but does assume it did happen.    The current evolution theory is consistent, contiguous, though evolving and incomplete.     Science should explain the how - but hasn't done so yet.  Science conjectures, theorizes, i.e. guesses on at the marvelous processes.  The problems are difficult.   In contrast, the creationist (i.e. religious) viewpoint explains the origins, with the "how" being a Devine intervention.  With the how "establi