Sunday, July 1, 2012

Malm Asks: Will you commit adultery with the whore because she is going to do it anyway?




The apostle just cannot get over the fact that many COGers go out and eat in restaurants on Saturdays.  That just riles him into a royal lather.  The apostle equates going to Burger King for a quick bite to eat before that 2 hour drive home, is as if you were hooking up with the local whore.  On second thought, given the track record of some of the COG leaders have/had with keeping their pants zipped, this really might be an issue.


And that verse goes straight to the issue of going out and buying in restaurants on the Sabbath. Neither be partaker of other men’s sins. You are NOT to participate in other people’s sin. You don’t say, “They’re going to do it anyway, I’ll participate.” Nonsense: You are to adhere to a higher standard. You are to set an example and you are not to partake of other men’s sins.

Will you commit adultery with the whore because she is going to do it anyway?  Then why pollute the Sabbath with the Sabbath polluters?  That excuse justifies ALL sins!  No matter what sin, there will be someone else doing it.  Quite frankly, that excuse is infantile.  We are to become like God, to internalize HIS nature and to keep his commandments with zeal:  we are not to comply with the wickedness of this world and to seek to go back into the evil that we were delivered out of by such a terrible sacrifice

34 comments:

Anonymous said...

Did Malm use air conditioning (or, for that matter, electricity) in his home yesterday?

If so, he was responsible for making utility workers work on the Sabbath. He can't use the "they were going to distribute it anyway" argument for food and then reject it for the electricity that powers his air conditioning and other household appliances.

So, was Rabbi Malm a hypocrite yesterday, or was he a hot and sweaty Pharisee?

Anonymous said...

Quite frankly, believing in Malm's god is infantile.

Assistant Deacon said...

Well, Jimbo posted to his blog on June 30 (Saturday)-- in the morning, apparently -- so somebody was working, somewhere, so that he could do so.

What a hypocrite.

Allen C. Dexter said...

Ho hum! I get really tired of this Sabbath drivel. It's really very simple.

1. No god created anything in seven days.

2. That fact makes the Sabbath totally irrelevant.

3, All my years of sabbath observence were a waste of time I could have put to better use.

Yesterday, I drove over 100 miles to Flagstaff and started a couple out on what I hope will be happy married life together and got paid well for doing so. If Malm wants to castigate me for doing so on his chosen sabbath, he can kiss my wrinkled up old behind.

Steve Kisack said...

I wonder if Malm used his telephone yesterday. There were workers who had to man those circuits to make sure everything was up and running properly. "Well, they would have been there anyway."

What about turning on the water? "Well, they would have been working at the water plant anyway."

What about watching the news? "Well, they would have been reporting anyway."

What if he had a heart attack and needed an ambulance? "Well, they would have been working anyway."

What if an intruder would have broken into his house? Would he call the police? "Well, they would have been on duty anyway".

Pick and choose, Malm.

Steve Kisack said...

Oh, I forgot one Jimmy. Did you get your mail out of your mail box yesterday?
"Well, they were going to deliver it anyway."

Anonymous said...

Malm works on his posts Friday nights and then gets back on his computer on the Sabbath and posts his latest entry. He rages at those who dare to get some food on the Sabbath, because the people are working anyway, while he uses electricity, uses his computer, and loads of other things that require humans to be watching over the process. He is a typical Church of God hypocrite!

Douglas Becker said...

It really would nice if the Armstrongists were consistent with their keeping of the Sabbath and neither let anyone work or allow anyone to work for them: Eating out in restaurants is certainly not consistent with Sabbath keeping per Old Testament testaments such as Ezra and Nehemiah.

Then again, there's a whole lot of inconsistencies within the cult, starting with the fact that British Israelism is stupid and the church history is a fraud.

And there's nothing like maintaining heresies of a dead false prophet.

Frankly, they have to solve the false prophecy problem first before they have any chance of having one shred of credibility.

And not even then.

Andrew said...

Yep. The orthodox Jews do a much better job of observing an extreme sabbath rest than Malm does, so I don't it is funny that he's so high on his hobby horse over his own comparatively lax sabbath observance. If Malm thinks extreme fastidiousness to obey every jot and tittle is the way to appease the wrath of the great sabbath god, the Jews put him to shame, and the sabbath god will very disappointed in Malm's inferior performance. Won't Malm be shocked when he dies and goes to Mt. Olympus, or Mt. Sinai, or where ever the sabbath god lives.

Douglas Becker said...

Will you commit adultery with the whore because she is going to do it anyway?

No, because you have to pay for it.

Why do that, when you can do it for free?

Aren't there dating sites for that sort of thing?

(And why eat out, when it's cheaper to eat in, or, hey, let's throw a potluck! Share the food, just like they did [gasp, choke] in the New Testament! Hey, would it be OK to have fresh ears of corn just sitting in a field nearby, ready to be gleaned?)

Douglas Becker said...

And say, just who does this Malm think he is anyway, since Dennis Fischer covered this topic at his website:

http://blowthetrumpet.org/

years ago.

And there you can even get a copy of "The Sabbath Test" in its third edition!

Hey, Malm, you're a little late.

Welcome (belatedly) to the party.

(We're assuming he blatantly copied Art Braidic's ideas and is now selling them as if he were personally taught these things by Jesus Christ. Say, where have we heard that before? Plagiarism has produced his best original works!)

Anonymous said...

In Malm's booklet, Just What Do You Mean- Using Zeal to Not Have Sex With Hookers on the Sabbath?,.... on page 3, I found this-

I, the mighty Holy-Spirit-infused Apostle have explained on pages one and two that "We are to keep God's commandments with zeal."

You may ask, But Apostle Malm, how am I to use "zeal" to NOT proposition/boink hookers on the Sabbath?

Excellent question!
I, the mighty Holy-Spirit-infused Apostle have your answer.
Here's what I do- Every Sabbath, I ride my tricycle to the bad part of town where the hookers hang out. I actually ride my tricycle right up to hooker and yell(with zeal), "I WILL NOT HAVE SEX WITH YOU ON THE SABBATH!", and quickly ride away(with zeal) on my tricycle before the hooker can bonk me over the head with her purse full of condoms.
For extra zeal, I even ring the little bell on my tricycle(with zeal), as I make my getaway.
Sometimes, on my way home, I'll even pull my tricycle into the drive-through at the Burger King and yell(with zeal), "YOU ARE SUPERSIZED SINNERS!" into the speaker.


I must admit, I am too afraid to turn to page 4 of Malm's booklet, for fear of bad tricycle dreams!

-Norm

Andrew said...

Will you commit adultery with the whore because she is going to do it anyway?

You can commit adultery if you're married, but who ever heard of a married whore? She can only fornicate. So much for "she's gonna do it anyway."

Pros and cons of committing adultery with the whore:
Cons:
1) Intimacy is the one thing that isn't for sale.
2) You have to pay for it and making time is expensive.
3) Risk of STD infection. Also at risk when committing adultery for free.

Pros:
1) Intimacy is the one thing that isn't for sale. You're not paying for sex, you're paying her to not call your wife afterwards.
2) If you've got the money honey, she's got the time. Drop of a hat.
3) Woohoo! Free day!

Pros and cons of Sabbath Observance:
Cons:
1) god has no idea how holy you are.
2) Forced wasting of 1/7 of your life when you could be accomplishing something
3) No risk of STD infection, unless you're actually committing adultery, something that no sabbath observer would ever do, right?

Pros:

Jace said...

@ Andrew

That was pretty damn funny :-D

Byker Bob said...

You have to wonder if when Malm eats in a restaurant on one of the other six days, he realizes that his pancakes are grilled on the same grill that pork sausage is being or was being grilled on.

Does he know that the Vitamin D in commercially prepared milk comes from porcine sources?

You can try to be a legalist, but you can't really be successful. No way will it qualify you for an Armstrongist place of safety, or for the Kingdom.

BB

Allen C. Dexter said...

BB's comment just drives home the fact that no one, I mean absolutely no one, can live in this world and follow the Biblical dietary laws as intended. Just about every product we get is probably contaminated somewhere along the line with something that would be "unclean" biblically.

Those ancient priests knew what they were doing when they set out to isolate their subjects from the rest of the world and insure that they would be forced to be separate. It's still working and as a rabbi once commented, the purpose was to keep the people "holy" and separate.

Worked for me while I was caught up in it.

Anonymous said...

Ok, I'll admit it; I couldn't help myself, and peeked at page 4 of Malm's booklet, Just What Do You Mean- Using Zeal to Not Have Sex With Hookers on the Sabbath?, and here's what he says-

Once, on the Sabbath, I was riding my tricycle home after yelling at a hooker and the guy at Burger King, when I came under attack by Satan himself! In this case, Satan took the form of a partially eaten pork chop that was laying on the side of the road. My tricycle wheel hit that satanic pork chop and sent me and my tricycle careening into a ditch on the side of the road! Truly, I was being tested by the Almighty! I was clearly stuck in a ditch on the Sabbath, so I did the right thing, which was to lay there with my tricycle on top of me until after sundown. After all, neither me nor my tricycle is an ox! Just as Satan had tempted Jesus in the wilderness, I too was being tempted in the wilderness on the side of Route 66! It is truly a miracle how I was able to survive, and is due to my extreme righteousness, my zeal to obey God's laws and also because I have the Holy Spirit.

Norm

Anonymous said...

Allen,

I remember studying the dietary laws in my search to "prove" whether my ideology (HWA's Ideology) was Biblically consistent.

That was a very scary moment- I remember it clearly. I told myself, "I am going to study the Bible without any aids (no Armstrong pamphlets nor mainstream Christian study "guides") and see what is true and what isn't. If this means that the Baptists are right, then so be it." I literally felt a wave of fear wash over me. I was so addicted to the idea of being one of God's Elect. But I was tired of the cognitive dissonance that came with what was written in the NT versus what I had been taught (and you must be "taught" Armstrongism, because it certainly isn't in the Bible). I was tired of being kicked by the goads ; ).

Anyway, while the Sabbath issue as well as Grace/Law were difficult (until the moment I started taking the Apostle Paul at face value instead of relying on HWA/GTA/Ron Dart's spin or interpretation of Paul's writings), the issue of dietary laws was incredibly simple. The OT basically hits you over the head as to WHY God told the Israelites to refrain from bacon and boiled shrimp. It was entirely for the purpose of separating the Israelites from the Heathen. And it worked well, as you point out. It enforced, both physically and mentally, the separation between Jew and Gentile. The scriptures are incredibly clear on this. To say otherwise, you have to ignore the scriptures and fabricate your own interpretation (which Armstrongism requires).

There is absolutely no Biblical evidence whatsoever that supports the claim that these laws were given for health reasons. None. In fact the Bible seems to go out of its way to explain otherwise. Add to this the fact that the rest of humanity is testament to the fact that unclean meat is no more unhealthy than clean meat, makes people who obey the dietary laws for health reasons look really ignorant.

Paul R.

Andrew said...

It is true that the bible just says "don't" and doesn't give any reason why, probably in other cases also besides just this one. So you're correct about that, no argument there. The reason why is left open to interpretation.

But there is some biological evidence. For example, in med students' nutrition courses they teach that chicken and fish take one to two hours to digest in your stomach, beef takes about four, and pork takes about eight. Pork is difficult to digest, unlike the other white meat. Also, doctors tell people with AIDS or other immune disorders not to eat clams, oysters, mussels, and the like because they lower your immune system. Personally, I'd rather eat something that raises my immune system than lowers it.

People who don't eat pork or shellfish for dietary/health reasons are NOT necessarily ignorant. There are medically recognized differences between both pork and shellfish that might cause someone to decide to generally leave these two things out of their diet, although I don't know about shrimp and lobster.

That being said, I would like to clarify that a health argument is NOT a biblical or religious argument and there's a big difference between abstaining from something in general and abstaining from it *religiously*. If you decide to order the bacon cheeseburger one day, so long as your stomach is fine with it, you're not going to hell later because you disappointed the deity.

It might be true that someone who abstains *religiously* for dietary/health reasons may in fact have their wires crossed.

Anonymous said...

“But there is some biological evidence. For example, in med students' nutrition courses they teach that chicken and fish take one to two hours to digest in your stomach, beef takes about four, and pork takes about eight. Pork is difficult to digest, unlike the other white meat.”

Some fibrous vegetables are never fully digested. Is this “biological evidence” that fibrous vegetables are not as healthy as pork? Also, the rates of pork digestion vary widely based upon the cooking times and preparation. But even then, so what? Why is digestion rate necessarily correlated with health? I’m also trying to track down the source of your numbers and can’t find anything conclusive.


“Also, doctors tell people with AIDS or other immune disorders not to eat clams, oysters, mussels, and the like because they lower your immune system.”

Again, I am searching PubMed for sources but I cannot find anything. Not that it may not be there, but haven’t come across anything yet. In fact, as far as shellfish inherently lowering your immune system, I can’t find anything conclusive from a simple web search.

It always comes down to this, though. Unsupported claims, or examples of detrimental health effects (that can be avoided by cooking) while ignoring equally detrimental effects in “clean” animals or plants or whatever. There is no “biological evidence” that “clean meat” is generally healthier than “unclean meat.”

“People who don't eat pork or shellfish for dietary/health reasons are NOT necessarily ignorant.”

Sure they are. Ignorant meaning ignorant, not necessarily stupid.

“There are medically recognized differences between both pork and shellfish…”

Like what? Having what impact on human health? Are these differences specific to pork and shellfish, or are they shared with other animals? Do pork and shellfish have health benefits? Can entire populations eat them for thousands of years and have no discernable differences in disease rates than populations who don’t eat them?

Paul R.

Anonymous said...

Whoops

Andrew said...

Has Google --> Knows Everything!

Nonignorant Man strikes again!

Holy shit dude, eat whatever you want.

Jace said...

"Holy shit dude, eat whatever you want."

AHA! Angry cussing rage! ;-)

Anyway, my take on the shellfish and pork discussion:

Being born into Armstrongism, I never (knowingly) ate "unclean meats" until last year. The first thing I tried after giving up religion was BBQ pulled pork (Smokey Bones for those who live in the southeast USA)

Damn, was it good! I've since tried ribs, chops, and of course, the obligatory bacon.

But I think that was just something I needed to do. A hurdle I had to jump, get it out of my system so to speak. Now that it's no big deal for me, I rarely ever go out of my way to order pork. I frequent another BBQ joint (Sonny's, again southeast) and almost always end up ordering smoked turkey. I'll get the Baked Beans or the Mashed Potatoes, both of which have bacon bits, but almost never order pork.

And I think the reason for it is this: I've seen what pigs eat. How they eat. Honestly, it's disgusting. They will eat just about anything they're fed. Garbage, feces, you name it. Now, don't get me wrong. Chickens are the same exact way, but at the end of the day, I'm pretty sure that chickens bred for eating are fed cornmeal. Pigs on the other hand... Just watch the episode of dirty jobs where Rowe hits the pig farm... WOW.

And I think I carry that mentality over into shellfish also. I mean, they sit at the bottom and filter out all the shit. No, not because some god designed them to, but that's still what they are. Filters. And yeah, the thought of eating natures filter kinda grosses me out.

Are their health benefits or problems to be had from either of these? Maybe, maybe not. Just going on what I know of their eating habits, I'll probably stay away from shellfish anyway.

Now frog legs, shark, and Alligator are three things I am very much interested in trying one of these days! Lobster, not so much lol.

Jace said...

Doh! *are there, not their. Herp-a derp!

Anonymous said...

Jace,

I seriously doubt that the pork industry feeds their pigs, under the eyes of the Federal Government, shite and urine and garbage while chickens are fed cornmeal. Think about it for a minute. I haven't seen what pigs eat but I have raised chickens and as you point out, they are just as bad. The question is whether that organic "garbage" is transferred to your stomach. I would avoid both chickens and pigs not because of their organic diet but because of the hormones and antibiotics that are fed to them.

Regarding shellfish, yes they filter. But again, is that shite transferred to your stomach as shite? No, it is not. A shellfish is no different than a chicken in this regard.

Andrew: Way to go. I'm just asking you to provide some evidence for your assertions, that's all. If this is an object of ridicule for you, then you share alot in common with Armstrongites as well.

Paul R.

Andrew said...

Paul,

Let me begin by saying that in my original post on this subject, I was not attacking you or anyone, merely providing an alternative point of view. Perhaps this is an extremely touchy subject with you. It is not a touchy subject with me.

However, I feel like you attacked me in response. Actually, I feel rather harshly judged by you, and over what? Over my personal dietary choices? When you come after me like that, even when you say you don't mean stupid when you say ignorant, everything else about your communication radiates "stupid," so therefore I don't believe you. I believe you meant stupid. Furthermore, when you use logic such as, since vegetables containing indigestible fiber cannot be digested, it must be really bad for you, obviously you must think I am *extremely* stupid.

Question: Do you make everyone in your life dig up primary research to defend every statement they make? If yes, do you have any friends left? I don't have a lot of time right now to find primary sources to defend things I've heard in the past and thought the source reputable. I am sure you have never made any statement whatsoever without a host of journal articles in you pocket to back it up. But since you are so demanding, I will take some time to do so, even though I am probably wasting my time.


Shellfish:

Can contain the pathogens that cause: cholera, gastroenteritis, Hepatitis A, Vibrio vulnificus, and the toxin that causes paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP). These bacteria and viruses are harmful to humans, but not to shellfish.

Thorough cooking destroys these bacteria and viruses but does not destroy the toxin that causes paralytic shellfish poisoning. If contaminated shellfish are eaten raw, or the shellfish have not been cooked sufficiently (at least 5-7 minutes after the shells have opened), an individual may become ill from the bacteria or viruses. People with immune disorders, the very young and the very old are more susceptible to infection when exposed to these pathogens. Vibrio vulnificus may cause illness from handling even without ingestion if it infects an open wound.

See:

Ballentine, C. 1984. “For Oyster and Clam Lovers, the Water Must Be Clean.” FDA Consumer, Vol. 18, No. 8.

Ballentine, C. 1985. “Pollution Narrows Shellfish Harvest.” FDA Consumer, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 10–13.

Food and Drug Administration. 1993. “Important Information for People with Immune Disorders.” DHHS Publication No. (FDA) 93-2267. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Hicks, D. T. 1994 (revised). “A Consumer Guide to Safe Seafood Handling.” MAS Bulletin. Newark, DE: University of Delaware Sea Grant College Program.

National Marine Fisheries Institute. 1988. “Food Safety: Fish and Shellfish, Raw Seafood.” Washington, DC: National Marine Fisheries Institute.

Zimmerman, D. R. 1986. “The Cop on the Boat: Tightening the Net Against Unsafe Shellfish.” FDA Consumer, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 29–31.

Andrew said...

Pork:

The digestion times of meats is something that was related to me by a friend who was doing their coursework to become a doctor. That is not the sort of fact that a journal article is going to contain, but a medical textbook might. The internet is full of "facts" about the digestion times of meats, up to a year or longer, which is obviously spurious. However, lets say, for arguments sake, that I'm dead wrong about this, and my friend lied to me, or that his medical professor lied to him, or whatever. That way you can be at least halfway happy, you can gloat and feel superior.

However, if you get pork tapeworm cysts throughout your body from some improperly prepared pork, don't tell me, I don't want to know. A significant percentage of the population in Latin America is infected with pork tapeworm cysts, and the incidence of it is rising in the US, mostly because of the immigration of infected people. It can be transmitted either by eating undercooked infected meat or through contact with infected feces. Beef and fish tapeworms cannot leave the digestive tract, so they are safe by comparison.


I know, you will most likely say that nothing I have said proves anything, you could catch mad cow disease from beef, or you could catch scombroid from tuna, or salmonella from eggs. You could catch E.coli from eating just about anything, even spinach! So therefore, there is still no difference between a pig, an oyster, a cow, a tuna, a chicken, or even vegetables. Since anything could become contaminated with something, therefore the risks of eating all things is exactly the same. So if you don't eat pork and oysters too, then you're a stupid, stupid Armstrongite.

If I tell you you're right, will you go away? None of this will change my personal dietary choices BTW. Why you care so much? Nevermind, I don't even want to know.

Rest assured, this has been a mistake I will not make with you twice.

Anonymous said...

Andrew sez:

"Let me begin by saying that in my original post on this subject, I was not attacking you or anyone, merely providing an alternative point of view. Perhaps this is an extremely touchy subject with you. It is not a touchy subject with me."

Andrew previously sez:

"Has Google --> Knows Everything!

Nonignorant Man strikes again!

Holy shit dude, eat whatever you want."


Paul R.

Anonymous said...

"Since anything could become contaminated with something, therefore the risks of eating all things is exactly the same. So if you don't eat pork and oysters too, then you're a stupid, stupid Armstrongite."


As you wish.


Paul R.

Jace said...

@ Paul R

"I seriously doubt that the pork industry feeds their pigs, under the eyes of the Federal Government, shite and urine and garbage while chickens are fed cornmeal."

I would agree, they are not intentionally fed feces or urine. But honestly, does the pig farmer go behind them with a pooper scooper? Of course not, and you and I both know they will absolutely eat scat. It happens. As for garbage, did you ever see the episode of Dirty Jobs I'm talking about? The pig feed was almost entirely made up of table scraps from restaurants across the country. It comes in on trucks, en mass. They showed, in the episode, the farmers having to go through and sort out all sorts of garbage. Food wrappers, dinner napkins, even silverware! They don't go over it with a fine tooth comb either so I can say with nearly 100% certainty, some trash gets through. They lap up everything in the trough.

Now, as for Chickens, I'm making a bit of an assumption. I spent a summer on a farm growing up. I watched chickens eat (they are ruthless) I saw a half a dozen of them descend upon a lizard that made the mistake of getting close to them. I couldn't believe my eyes! Anyway, I digress.

My assumption is based in part, on watching the recent 4 part HBO documentary, the weight of the nation. The cattle industry feeds their cows almost nothing but cornmeal. Hay is cheaper. Grass is free. But they go for cornmeal. Why? It fattens those cows up in a big way. My assumption was based in part on my experience feeding chickens myself (cornmeal) and the fact that it's probably good for business. Of course I could be wrong.

Lastly, you're right about one thing: Does the shit they eat, end up in what we eat? Like I said, I don't know. I think andrew raised some serious points about shellfish, but I guess I don't really care either way. The thought of it grosses me out. That's enough for me.

I don't have any attachment to these foods anyway. They're not my favorite dishes so it's not like I'm missing out on anything. I grew up not eating them, just like I grew up not keeping Xmas. I'm an atheist now but I still don't plan on making a habit out of keeping unless I enter a serious relationship and that becomes an issue.

The freedom to eat these foods, however, is the sweetest part of all. That's all I needed really.

Anonymous said...

Jace,

I completely understand your point about the thought of what pigs and shellfish eat turning you away. And I have been toying with vegetarianism off and on for a while, so I don't have a stake in it, really. I just like to know what is true, and what isn't, that's all. All of us were given some false information (ignorance or lies?) concerning pigs and shellfish and I just want to let people know that there is not a bit of truth to it (the protein of these creatures being inherently unhealthy as compared to other animal protein).

Andrew inadvertently summed it up better than I can when he said:

".....you could catch mad cow disease from beef, or you could catch scombroid from tuna, or salmonella from eggs. You could catch E.coli from eating just about anything, even spinach! So therefore, there is still no difference between a pig, an oyster, a cow, a tuna, a chicken, or even vegetables. Since anything could become contaminated with something, therefore the risks of eating all things is exactly the same."

But in regards to digestion, everything gets broken down into molecules. In regards to trichinosis, and shellfish poisoning, see Andrew's concise statement above. I think the major concern is the meat industry, as you point out, and pollution. There are all kinds of stuff in all meats that we would be better off not eating.

I can do without pork, but I do love shrimp....

Paul R

Allen C. Dexter said...

I can still hear Herb thunder about the "garbage cans of the ocean" and how filthy pigs were. I ate it up back then. What a dummy I was!

In this world, as was already pointed out, everything gets recycled. We use composted manure and other materials to fertilize our gardens and crops. It makes them healthy. We're not eating what we used to fertilize them, we're eating the crops.

Whatever I eat or any other creature or plant utilizes gets reduced to the molecular level and my body is geared to absorb those molecular level things in the quantities it needs. What's left over goes down the sewer, broken down and dispersed through the environment, in my case through our septic tank. I feed that tank special bacteria periodically to hasten the process.

As to some vegetable matter taking more time to digest, isn't that referred to as fiber and isn't that why we eat things like bran flakes? Our digestive systems need a certain amount of it to function properly.

In short, what is excrement of one creature always ends up being the square meal of some other living thing, either animal or plant. It all gets broken down and avoiding something just because of what it exists on isn't really rational.

Yeah, it's religious and it has psycological components, but you already know how I feel about those subjects, if you have read many of my comments.

Retired Prof said...

Allen, when I'm wearing my storytelling hat, I tell a ramshackle narrative about a couple of experiences that brought home to me the point you make above. The key statement expressing my epiphany (a Catholic word for "revelation" applied to fiction by James Joyce)at the heart of the story is "Every animal and every plant on this green earth can be seen as a means of assembling and concentrating a quantity of organic material that will nourish some other form of life."

In the story I reject the metaphor of the food chain, a series of static links, and substitute a stream. Nutrients have been flowing through living things for more than three billion years--ever since the most complex biological community on the planet was a mat of anaerobic bacterial scum. Every earthling--animal or plant--is a transient eddy in that stream. Each of us will eventually dissipate and merge back into the stream; our constituent atoms will then flow into other plants and animals.

Said that way, it sounds sort of mystical. It's not. It's entirely material--as Allen pointed out, molecular. I get as much satisfaction out of thinking about the process as others claim to get from mystical experiences.

Allen C. Dexter said...

Prof, I appreciate your comment. When we consider the entire universe, everything gets recycled over and over. Whether or not the Higgs Boson is an actual particle (it probably is), everything goes back to base hydrogen, however that is constructed, and starts evolving from there.

Physics and evolution is so much more wondrous and exciting than childish fairy tales about gods poofing things into existence. Nobody every tries to answer the question of who poofed that being into existence. Somehow, he or it could just magically always be, but the universe couldn't.

Eventually, we may be able to answer the question as to why existence exists at all. I doubt I will see it, but I'm beyond grabbing the first stupid answer that came along in our stumbling search.