.ll 72
.fo off
.co on 
.ce ((Editor's comments in double parenthesis - Homer))
 
.ce ADR - 312
.ce
 
.ce Copyright (C) Homer Wilson Smith
.ce Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes
 
======================================================================== 149
Date:         Mon, 26 Jun 89 21:42:34 EDT
From:         Homer 
Subject:      Re: Homer's Ravings: An Experiment in Stupidity
To:           Adore-l list 
In-Reply-To:  Message of Wed, 19 Apr 89 23:37:00 CDT from 

>
>        Parents do NOT have the RIGHT to create life, they merely have the
>ABILITY to do so. Yes, this means that parents also have the ability to
>kill their children. This does not give them the right. They do not have
>this right. No one does. Not even you.
>

     Ok, you are saying something of import here.  Clearly people
have the ABILITY to give and take life.  Clearly.

     But you say they do not have the RIGHT to give life, and there
fore also do not have the RIGHT to TAKE life.  This also makes sense,
but leaves me in a quandry as to what mechanism parents are allowed
to give life at all.  Or is all giving life a SIN?

     If parents do not have the RIGHT to give life, then what should
be done or thought about the fact that they do it all the time.

     If parents DO have the RIGHT to give life, then I submit they
also have the right to TAKE life.

>
>Who said we had the right to kill the animals in the first place? Bad
>premise!!!!! Again, having the ability to do something does not make it
>a right. Even if it is something done with regularity.

     Saying that we do not have the right to kill animals, leads
one to the idea that one should not kill animals.  Is this not so?
Thus all meat eating, and clothing made from animals is wrong and
always has been even when we were cave men.

     Could this not also be extended to plant life as well, and
virii and germs and bugs that kill our food?

>
>        Better than a world of assholes such as yourself who run around
>preaching that it's okay to kill each other since the person is not the
>body.

     Preaching that it is OK to kill someone, is not the same thing
as preaching that one should do it.  Clearly, if people think it is
ok there will be a lot of fringe types who will then go do it.
Thus we make laws saying it is not ok to kill a body.

     But it is like killing a car.  As long as it belongs to someone,
then we can no go destroy it, there are property laws against such things,
but the OWNER of the car can do what he likes to the car.  It is no
mortal sin to kill a car.  Nor is it a mortal sin to kill a horse as
long as it is your own.  All life lives again, even the horse, so all
that is 'destroyed' is an outward form.  The inward life goes an gets
another.  Of course the inward life does not like being killed and may
be wary of you forever more.  Killing a horse is not like killing  car.
But neither is like killing a spirit which cant be done anyhow.

     In the last analysis, bodies are dresses, to be worn, used,
worked, bred, and hopefully not abused.  But the spirit
IN the body is Immortal, even the body spirit is immortal,
and thus no permanent damage is done in the Eternal Scheme of Things.

     No permanent damage CAN be done in the Eternal Scheme of Things,
and so the game of life takes on a slightly less serious aspect.

     If you think you ARE a body, and live but once, then things
become very very serious indeed, but its a nightmare, and nothing
more.

>        The body is just as important to the person as the soul. Without
>it, the soul loses all access to sensory stimuli, time, communication with
>other people-- the factors that are necessary to grow and actually live.
>
     Wrong.  Bodies inhibit communication.  Without them and with a
little guts, spirits can communicate directly.  We are all connected
at source.  The external universe does not exist at all, so is not
responsible for anything including communication.

     People take on bodies so that they can BELIEVE they are mortal
to escape the DISASTER they THINK their Eternity has become.
Dying can look good to a being who has fallen too far below
responsibility for things.

>
>>     If people can chose to create life, why can they not
>>chose to take life?  Escpecially if it is the life they
>>created it?
>
>
>        I have already made the reason for this totally clear. Ability does
>not equal right.

     You have not made this totally clear.  You have merely siad
that people don't have the right to do either.  Which is logically
consistant but does not address the fact they are doing it all the time.
>
>>     Just as women should not be allowed to vote on whether men
>>should go to war or not, men should not be allowed to vote on
>>abortion.
>
>        This is the closest you have come to making a good point. However,
>you have once again failed. Child-murder is the concern of both parents.
>
     Yes it is the concern of both parents, especially if the father
has to support the mother, but I don't see many females supporting your
position that the father should have as much say in the matter
as the woman.

     If the father leaves, the woman gets the child.  This can ruin
the mother and the child.  This is where realizing that bodies
are just prime rib comes into play.  Let's say there is a spirit
hangin around the mother just dying to be her child.  She marries
a real loser male and gets pregnant.  The male secretly leaves
with a tart in the middle of the night when the woman is
16 weeks pregnant.

     The SPIRIT waiting to have that womman as a mother would
now be motivated to NOT take over that body.  If the mother aborted
the fetus, waited until a better marriage was arranged, got pregnant
again, then the spirit and woman could get together in a whole
family as mother and child and have a good life.

     If we were OUT of our bodies, and could see and talk to spirits
directly, such situations would be discussed with regularity between
prospective parent and child.
>
>        You seem so fanatic about the idea that the body is an unneeded
>hunk of meat. What are your motivations behind this belief? And if your
>belief is true, then why do we even have a body?
>

      Motivation does not enter into scientific research.

     The data is true although too outrageous for most.

     We are in bodies due to a long history of spiritual
ignorance about their nature, hurting them by accident,
using them for sexual pleasure when we had nothing better to do,
falling eventually to the place where we feel we can only make up
for our existance is by taking care of them full time and forgetting
who we really are as immortal beings.

     Its a propitiation kind of thing.  Operation of the goal to 'Give
my body a good life.'

 Homer               Adore-l list         6/26/89*Homer's Ravings: An Experimen