Life, The Universe, And Everything; Continued

[Grandpa Harley]

For continuity

 

So, what do Brian's look like? Graham Chapman?

[Japedo]

For continuity

 

 

 

Your thread topic name is freakin hilarious..

[Grandpa Harley]

I'm all about accuracy...

[Deva]

Your thread topic name is freakin hilarious..

 

Yes, OMG absolutely hysterical!!

[BuddyFerris]

I'm all about accuracy...

Hello, Grandpa,

Since you started the thread, any particular direction you'd like to go?

Buddy

[Grandpa Harley]

none at all...

 

Feel free to do with it as you will...

[Grandpa Harley]

Actually, thinking on it, I'd like to know why you think that you're the only one with a back bone... you ignored that pretty well...

[BuddyFerris]

none at all...

 

Feel free to do with it as you will...

A gracious offer, considering I managed to hit a nerve last time around; truce, at least for the moment?

 

I was reading this morning and noticed I could hear some movie star interview on TV in the next room. I was physically tense, just from hearing the voice. It took me awhile to notice that he hadn't said anything objectionable, but I was annoyed. I figured out that I was put off just by his association with the entertainment industry. Once I got past that, he's actually an interesting fellow, and probably an OK guy.

 

I think I have days like that here; guilt by association. Let me offer in advance my intent to give no insult and offer no persuasion or subtext. I am interested in how conclusions are achieved. I may well be as bad as you suggest at communication. That said, if you could grant me that benefit of the doubt and let me know where I overstep the bounds of profitable conversation, I'll do my best to keep it on track. I don't know that we'll agree on much, but I do appreciate your thoughtful approach when it shows. Of course, it is the lion's den, so I'll not complain about the recreational abuse.

 

Hope you had a good weekend.

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

Actually, thinking on it, I'd like to know why you think that you're the only one with a back bone... you ignored that pretty well...

My comment was an attempt to elicit a statement of position from those who were critiquing my personal standard without expressing one of their own. Dave offered some thoughts on how to elicit thought for the purpose of getting understanding; on review, he's probably right. I'm much more direct than needed.

 

Also on review, I noted again your thought line on both biblical and statistical positions with a strong grasp of reality woven in. You have some clear thinking which I wouldn't achieve on my own.

Buddy

[Grandpa Harley]

The only reason a Christian come here is with an ulterior motive of spreading his poisonous beliefs, so I'm afraid the admiration is not mutual... I've said this before, but how would you think of a Smirnoff Salesman turning up to an AA meeting to hand out samples? Well, Tovarich, everyone here has tried the cult, and have got out. Some of us easier than others, and not one of us without some scars. I got out early, and it cost me in hide and retarding my educational progression for some years, since the bitch teacher claimed I couldn't read. And my horror story is not very horrific when you see how folk have been bullied, assaulted, abused and disowned by their families, screwed over for them not having an imaginary friend. The obscenities have even shocked me at times. So, stay, go, do as you will... but always remember you represent something vile and repugnant.

[Dhampir]

Ouch!

[BuddyFerris]

The only reason a Christian come here is with an ulterior motive of spreading his poisonous beliefs, so I'm afraid the admiration is not mutual... I've said this before, but how would you think of a Smirnoff Salesman turning up to an AA meeting to hand out samples? Well, Tovarich, everyone here has tried the cult, and have got out. Some of us easier than others, and not one of us without some scars. I got out early, and it cost me in hide and retarding my educational progression for some years, since the bitch teacher claimed I couldn't read. And my horror story is not very horrific when you see how folk have been bullied, assaulted, abused and disowned by their families, screwed over for them not having an imaginary friend. The obscenities have even shocked me at times. So, stay, go, do as you will... but always remember you represent something vile and repugnant.

Understood.

Your closing comment suggests a question; are there not any positive accounts? Does it always go that way, that family and friends are harsh or too awkward to be civil? Makes you wonder how much of our personal identity is wrapped up in our ideology.

 

From your list, the first three ('bullied, assaulted, and abused') could almost be negotiated into well intended response (just almost), but the 'disowned' step is hard to grasp. I've got family scattered around the country, cousins who've pulled pretty much every stunt imaginable from comic to criminal, and the family hasn't pulled back from them. Maybe they're a different breed; dustbowl, depression, and WW survivors.

 

Your 'only reason' comment is a bit narrow. I could probably think of a few others. Starting with yours:

- Here I go, therefore, to teach all them heathen the error of their ways.

- (to be recited with a Crystal Cathedral smile) I have found this well of darkness and fear and bring the light of joy...

- What poor, benighted individuals these must be who will surely be returned to the fold by my superior reasoning.

 

OK, now we've got that out of the way, here are some less malignant reasons...

- maybe these folks know something I don't, or

- perhaps there's more to thought than I'll get here in church, or

- I wonder if this crowd arrived at their decision from circumstance or conscience, or

- this looks like an interesting discussion, or

- how the heck did he get to that conclusion, or

- Ha!, I didn't hear that in Sunday school, or

- Nuts, I didn't know I looked like that to others, or

- this many ants couldn't be wrong, must be a picnic.

 

I understand your somewhat jaundiced perspective on why a Christian might post here; I've read a few of the 'churchworker' folks. They're not the reps I would have sent.

 

Happy Monday.

Buddy

When I retire, it'll be one day at a time. I'm retiring from Mondays first.

[Rime]

I'm not so sure vile and repugnant is an accurate representation for Buddy or several of my friends and the folks over at FSTDT. Most of them understand the dangers of being a fundamentalist with the insane reasoning of someone who threw out their common sense to make themselves holier vessels.

 

On the other hand, GrampaHarley, I can understand the kinds of scars you have from people who thought that hating unbelievers is the right thing to do. Even, or especially, if they're members of your own family. I get that way occasionally when I've heard too many "prophecies" and lousy apologetics. I listened to one last night from G.K. Chesterson. I think the title "Apostle of Common Sense" is a misnomer.

[Grandpa Harley]

In my old job, servicing soulless multinational companies in IDT and converging technology, there was a three letter acronym - FUD. Fear, Uncertainty, Dread. They were designs to play on the primal emotions of the customer to make them either adopt you, or not adopt another suppler for the tech needs. It's called 'Cynical Marketing' by anyone with at least a nominal conscience. The marketing applied by the various religions of the world are the same.

 

In the end, a stoat remains a stoat no matter how nicely it offers to guard the eggs and chicks.

 

The 'less malign' list is a good primer on how a stoat can try to appear to be different to what he is... Doesn't mean there's not the 'great commission' sub-text... it's like the suborning of the word 'conversation' by the Emergent Movement to imply something more than discussing beer, football, and the bar maid's breasts... there is the sub-text of spiritual 'superiority' and still trying to pyramid sell their god, just by product use rather than overt prosletysing... the FUD of 'if it works for him, it could work for me'...

 

As to your list of why people are nasty to the de-converted... I can do no better than say 'by [its] fruits ye shall know'... Christianity has two primary goals, despite the PR:

 

1) Assimilate as many people as possible. In the past this has been by force and by FUD. Now the religionist have less temporal power, it's mostly by FUD.

 

2) Hang on to as many people as possible. In the past, when they had more temporal power, they had inquistions etc. Now, their power is diluted, they do it by social engineering their congregation. Reading here, it's almost impossible for a friendship to survive a de-conversion. Whole congregations, often lead by the minister or his agents (it's almost always a he), are encouraged to ostracise people who leave, only communicate with them to try and get them back to the fold. You may claim it's a 'blip' but sitting here in the cheap seats, my battle with the Christ-child long in the past and in a country where I can say 'I don't believe in God' and no one gives a good damn, I see a pattern.

 

Spin it how you may, when communities are geared up to victimise someone because they don't have an imaginary friend, you're looking a toxic idea, one that's based on the worst form tribalism and primitive thinking. It panders to the whole 'you're different, and that's BAD' part of the human brain... the one where the word for 'enemy' and 'not of the tribe' are interchangeable.

 

Thus, a stoat remains a stoat, while ever it keeps up the stoat behaviours. When the mask slipped on the previous incarnation of this thread, then I'm afraid you established yourself as an egg stealer. The way of things. A committed Christian comes here with no good motive in mind for the battle scarred and bruised of Ex-Cs, just the idea of brownie points with his personal daemon.

 

In conclusion, the good people of Ex-Cs need another god-botherer like they need a second arse hole... it's neither comfortable nor convenient, other than as a terrible warning and reminder of the mind set they left... and if the Catherine Aird line^* is the best one can achieve, it's probably better to go somewhere more 'ecumenical' than here

 

 

* - If you can't be a good example then you'll just have to be a terrible warning. (I think Dorothy Parker said it first, but memory is a bad librarian, and a great editor)

[Rime]

Eek! No edit button. I'm going to have to do my replies in wordpad before I decide to add them here.

 

I haven't read much of the related threads, so I'm hoping that I'm not going to get owned for looking like a tourist. So far, Buddy looks like he wants to discuss, not gather up the lost sheep. That would be a fundie. I remember there was one who wanted to shut down FSTDT with apologetics because he couldn't convert anyone after 6 months of preaching with stuff he rescued from the toilets of theology.

 

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. End story, him and his army received a big "fail" stamp and left the forums with their tails between their legs. Serves them right for thinking they were the Tribulation Force. In the end, they only showed that their beliefs hadn't turned them into better people and added mortar to the unbeliever's towers of disbelief.

[BuddyFerris]

I'm not so sure vile and repugnant is an accurate representation for Buddy or several of my friends and the folks over at FSTDT. Most of them understand the dangers of being a fundamentalist with the insane reasoning of someone who threw out their common sense to make themselves holier vessels.

 

On the other hand, GrampaHarley, I can understand the kinds of scars you have from people who thought that hating unbelievers is the right thing to do. Even, or especially, if they're members of your own family. I get that way occasionally when I've heard too many "prophecies" and lousy apologetics. I listened to one last night from G.K. Chesterson. I think the title "Apostle of Common Sense" is a misnomer.

Thanks, Rime; I think. Being pulled back from the brink of 'vile and repugnant' is a step in the right direction. What was the Chesterson piece? I read some of his fiction years (and I mean years) ago and don't remember him being particular obnoxious.

 

I took a look at your fstdt reference, top 100. The first was funny, but as I read down the list, it became progressively more painful as silliness gave way to lives awash in ignorance. Hadn't seen most of that before; don't know that I'm better for having done so. If they were politicians, we'd vote them out of office. Congress shall make no law... but a minimum IQ before being allowed to speak in public might be helpful.

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

In my old job, servicing soulless multinational companies in IDT and converging technology, there was a three letter acronym - FUD. Fear, Uncertainty, Dread. They were designs to play on the primal emotions of the customer to make them either adopt you, or not adopt another suppler for the tech needs. It's called 'Cynical Marketing' by anyone with at least a nominal conscience. The marketing applied by the various religions of the world are the same.

 

In the end, a stoat remains a stoat no matter how nicely it offers to guard the eggs and chicks.

 

The 'less malign' list is a good primer on how a stoat can try to appear to be different to what he is... Doesn't mean there's not the 'great commission' sub-text... it's like the suborning of the word 'conversation' by the Emergent Movement to imply something more than discussing beer, football, and the bar maid's breasts... there is the sub-text of spiritual 'superiority' and still trying to pyramid sell their god, just by product use rather than overt prosletysing... the FUD of 'if it works for him, it could work for me'...

 

As to your list of why people are nasty to the de-converted... I can do no better than say 'by [its] fruits ye shall know'... Christianity has two primary goals, despite the PR:

 

1) Assimilate as many people as possible. In the past this has been by force and by FUD. Now the religionist have less temporal power, it's mostly by FUD.

 

2) Hang on to as many people as possible. In the past, when they had more temporal power, they had inquistions etc. Now, their power is diluted, they do it by social engineering their congregation. Reading here, it's almost impossible for a friendship to survive a de-conversion. Whole congregations, often lead by the minister or his agents (it's almost always a he), are encouraged to ostracise people who leave, only communicate with them to try and get them back to the fold. You may claim it's a 'blip' but sitting here in the cheap seats, my battle with the Christ-child long in the past and in a country where I can say 'I don't believe in God' and no one gives a good damn, I see a pattern.

 

Spin it how you may, when communities are geared up to victimise someone because they don't have an imaginary friend, you're looking a toxic idea, one that's based on the worst form tribalism and primitive thinking. It panders to the whole 'you're different, and that's BAD' part of the human brain... the one where the word for 'enemy' and 'not of the tribe' are interchangeable.

 

Thus, a stoat remains a stoat, while ever it keeps up the stoat behaviours. When the mask slipped on the previous incarnation of this thread, then I'm afraid you established yourself as an egg stealer. The way of things. A committed Christian comes here with no good motive in mind for the battle scarred and bruised of Ex-Cs, just the idea of brownie points with his personal daemon.

 

In conclusion, the good people of Ex-Cs need another god-botherer like they need a second arse hole... it's neither comfortable nor convenient, other than as a terrible warning and reminder of the mind set they left... and if the Catherine Aird line^* is the best one can achieve, it's probably better to go somewhere more 'ecumenical' than here

 

 

* - If you can't be a good example then you'll just have to be a terrible warning. (I think Dorothy Parker said it first, but memory is a bad librarian, and a great editor)

Well, Grandpa,

No one will ever accuse you of lacking focus. Your FUD evangelism description is useful, as are your observations on preacher's instructing congregants to shun others. The ostracism process is unfortunately still alive and well in some churches. We get a lot of their castoffs, often single mom's and mixed-race couples who just don't have a place in the churches that lag 50 years behind their community's reality. The process of ostracism isn't confined to churches, though. It's common across most ideological boundaries, and the most brutal may be those that are primarily socio-political. A group member who doesn't toe the line on every issue is likely to be publicly slaughtered. It's visible from kindergarten forward.

 

I've noted with humor and just a little sadness how the super-spiritualists can see a demon in every sneeze and sniffle, and they can 'see' prophetically the 'meaning' of every news article and world event. As Dano (or was it Mankey) has said, sometimes it just is what it is. There may not be a great-commission subtext in every line a Christian writes; it may be just a sneeze.

 

I won't press the issues of my motives. Another time, perhaps, when the pot's not boiling over. I had to look up 'stoat' to appreciate the metaphor. The little sucker's a weasel for pete's sake.

Buddy

[Legion]

I won't press the issues of my motives. Another time, perhaps, when the pot's not boiling over.

Buddy this pot is always going to be boiling. Why not tell us your motives now? Are you trying to put a different face on Christianity than the one we have known?

 

You won't tell us why you still believe, but why not tell us your motives?

[BuddyFerris]

I won't press the issues of my motives. Another time, perhaps, when the pot's not boiling over.

Buddy this pot is always going to be boiling. Why not tell us your motives now? Are you trying to put a different face on Christianity than the one we have known?

 

You won't tell us why you still believe, but why not tell us your motives?

You heard them personally, and I've answered the question at least a couple of times. Note the paragraph that preceded your quote:

 

"I've noted with humor and just a little sadness how the super-spiritualists can see a demon in every sneeze and sniffle, and they can 'see' prophetically the 'meaning' of every news article and world event. As Dano (or was it Mankey) has said, sometimes it just is what it is. There may not be a great-commission subtext in every line a Christian writes; it may be just a sneeze."

 

That's a politely worded observation that not every motive ascribed to an acquaintance on the basis of affiliation is necessarily accurate.

 

My motives are as described, without deception intended, without subtext, without subversive agenda. I have no facade to let slip. My motives are purely selfish; I enjoy the intellectual exchange; I enjoy the personal contact and development of rapport; I profit from being engaged with people that think, and who, in the process of doing so, reach different conclusions than I from the same information. I hope to be of similar use to others (no, not to evangelize them.)

 

You'll note that I'm careful what I say and how it's phrased. That's not to obscure. It's because if I'm not careful, I'll say the magic word, and someone here will turn into an avenging warrior. If I mention that it's like the Three Stooges skit where everybody goes nuts when they hear 'Niagara Falls', someone will be offended, so I won't mention it.

 

Dano has a list of difficult questions I'd like to hear more about, but the presumption of underlying agenda make the exchange difficult. Need examples?

Buddy

[Legion]

My motives are as described, without deception intended, without subtext, without subversive agenda. I have no facade to let slip. My motives are purely selfish; I enjoy the intellectual exchange; I enjoy the personal contact and development of rapport; I profit from being engaged with people that think, and who, in the process of doing so, reach different conclusions than I from the same information. I hope to be of similar use to others (no, not to evangelize them.)

Fair enough Buddy. I don’t harbor the animosity towards you that some here seem to hold. However I think that your use of language is presenting some real difficulties. I think you can be eloquent at times, but at others you are verbose. This has the effect of making it seem as if you are hiding something, because your unnecessarily adorned language makes it difficult to grasp what you are really saying.

 

I am sometimes guilty of the same thing. I think short sentences and small words are often preferable to the alternative.

 

What conclusions have we reached that differ from yours? You say we have the same information. What information?

[BuddyFerris]

My motives are as described, without deception intended, without subtext, without subversive agenda. I have no facade to let slip. My motives are purely selfish; I enjoy the intellectual exchange; I enjoy the personal contact and development of rapport; I profit from being engaged with people that think, and who, in the process of doing so, reach different conclusions than I from the same information. I hope to be of similar use to others (no, not to evangelize them.)

Fair enough Buddy. I don’t harbor the animosity towards you that some here seem to hold. However I think that your use of language is presenting some real difficulties. I think you can be eloquent at times, but at others you are verbose. This has the effect of making it seem as if you are hiding something, because your unnecessarily adorned language makes it difficult to grasp what you are really saying.

 

I am sometimes guilty of the same thing. I think short sentences and small words are often preferable to the alternative.

 

What conclusions have we reached that differ from yours? You say we have the same information. What information?

No problem, Legion. Short sentences, small words. With different backgrounds and different bents, we see things differently.

 

- AntlerMan likes our chances for continuous improvement. He's persuaded that humanity is better off as the generations go by. We agree that individuals can make a difference; some do good and noble works. We disagree on the likelihood of truly good and just government. I disagree based on the evidence to date. He disagrees with me based on the evidence to date. Could be an interesting topic.

 

- Dano has a list of difficult and painful questions.

"Buddies belief is that human life is sacred," (I do), "and not one potential pregnancy should be kept from going full term." (I don't. Presumes a conviction not held.).

"In a world where there are already so many people ..., Buddy has somehow become more moral than his very own God." (mixed arguments, awkward connection)

 

- Japedo brought up the 'baby as parasite' illustration. Although by biological definition of a parasite (phylogenetically unrelated) a baby doesn't qualify, still it's a strong metaphor and hints at an uncommon mindset. I'd like to hear more of her thoughts that lead her to that position.

 

- AntlerMan expects our future world to be bright; GrandpaHarley expects his personal future to be bleak. Christians are generally lumped together as pessimists. The future looks the opposite to me, personally.

 

- DevaLight suggests that there are few regrets after terminating a pregnancy. GrandpaHarley suggests that they are already in Hell from the start. What little I know agrees with Grandpa. Not a lot to discuss there, but a lot of pieces could be added to the picture.

 

Buddy

[Antlerman]

- AntlerMan likes our chances for continuous improvement. He's persuaded that humanity is better off as the generations go by. We agree that individuals can make a difference; some do good and noble works. We disagree on the likelihood of truly good and just government. I disagree based on the evidence to date. He disagrees with me based on the evidence to date. Could be an interesting topic.

 

- AntlerMan expects our future world to be bright; GrandpaHarley expects his personal future to be bleak. Christians are generally lumped together as pessimists. The future looks the opposite to me, personally.

Did I hear my name?

 

Not quite how I would put it. I believe humans are capable of improvement, but we may also take terrible steps backwards as is evidenced by the rise of religious fundamentalism. How much further would we be if the Church had not suppressed knowledge, persecuted philosophers, and turned the clock of progress back into darkness - time and time again?

 

I don't have any delusions that man is capable of finding perfection in government or in their existence. I do not believe that to be a realistic expectation. This comes back to my perfectionism points I brought up that we never got back to discuss together. Perfection is something that does not exist anywhere, and should not be the standard by which success if gauged. Christianity is perfectionist and consequently leads to pessimism in man's efforts in striving for ideals. Ideals should serve as goals, but the failure to achieve them 100% is not the measure of the value of the successes gained.

 

I believe ideals are goals, Christians believe ideals are reality beyond the ether-regions of space and we stand damned for not achieving them. My belief allows for hope in man's efforts, which is the best approach since so far there is no God out there with his sleeves rolled up doing the work of building housing for anyone. Christian beliefs judge all of man’s efforts as used menstrual rags and condemn them to hell for failure to achieve perfection.

 

So no, I don't see a linear progression to be realistic. But I do judge the value of humanity in its belief in ideals to try their utmost to live by, and their ability to forgive in shortcomings. That forgiveness comes from a human heart, and therefore has greater value than from some mostly intangible personified ideal. Christians believe man is not capable of perfection. I deny that should be the measure of success. Christians turn to a God to save them from imperfection. I turn to man to make his most sincere best effort. And that is the standard on which to judge success. Perfection does not exist. Integrity and sincerity do. That approach is both healthy and realisitic. Pefectionsim is not and is ultimatly pessimisitic.

[Japedo]

- Japedo brought up the 'baby as parasite' illustration. Although by biological definition of a parasite (phylogenetically unrelated) a baby doesn't qualify, still it's a strong metaphor and hints at an uncommon mindset. I'd like to hear more of her thoughts that lead her to that position.

 

 

 

Again, as I stated before a zygote or embryo isn't a 'baby'. It has a potential of becoming one. The mother has free right to not want her body to host the embryo. For the entire gestational process she puts strain on her physical and mental being at risk. (Depending on the person of course.) While some will find this a most joyous occasion, others breakdown and can't /don't want to do it. Who are we to judge anyone about their personal choice and bodies?

 

 

The mother is a host to another life, I'm sorry if that terminology is uncomfortable for you. The Zygote, Embryo, Fetus is 100% Dependant on it's mother. It gets all of it's nutrients, from the mother. The mother must make conscious choices of what she eats, drinks and does for the entire duration of caring the fetus. The mother's body is working over time supporting more then just herself. I'm a mother of 4 kids, (one set of twins). Being pregnant isn't easy, nor should it be forced upon anyone.

[Grandpa Harley]

My motives are as described, without deception intended, without subtext, without subversive agenda. I have no facade to let slip. My motives are purely selfish; I enjoy the intellectual exchange; I enjoy the personal contact and development of rapport; I profit from being engaged with people that think, and who, in the process of doing so, reach different conclusions than I from the same information. I hope to be of similar use to others (no, not to evangelize them.)

Fair enough Buddy. I don’t harbor the animosity towards you that some here seem to hold. However I think that your use of language is presenting some real difficulties. I think you can be eloquent at times, but at others you are verbose. This has the effect of making it seem as if you are hiding something, because your unnecessarily adorned language makes it difficult to grasp what you are really saying.

 

I am sometimes guilty of the same thing. I think short sentences and small words are often preferable to the alternative.

 

What conclusions have we reached that differ from yours? You say we have the same information. What information?

 

I don't have a problem with rattle snakes on a personal level, in fact they're fine in their place...I just don't want to share space.

 

and even with the denials and protestations, the tale of the Scorpion and the Frog springs to mind

 

One day, a scorpion looked around at the mountain where he lived and decided that he wanted a change. So he set out on a journey through the forests and hills. He climbed over rocks and under vines and kept going until he reached a river.

 

The river was wide and swift, and the scorpion stopped to reconsider the situation. He couldn't see any way across. So he ran upriver and then checked downriver, all the while thinking that he might have to turn back.

 

Suddenly, he saw a frog sitting in the rushes by the bank of the stream on the other side of the river. He decided to ask the frog for help getting across the stream.

 

"Hellooo Mr. Frog!" called the scorpion across the water, "Would you be so kind as to give me a ride on your back across the river?"

 

"Well now, Mr. Scorpion! How do I know that if I try to help you, you wont try to kill me?" asked the frog hesitantly.

 

"Because," the scorpion replied, "If I try to kill you, then I would die too, for you see I cannot swim!"

 

Now this seemed to make sense to the frog. But he asked. "What about when I get close to the bank? You could still try to kill me and get back to the shore!"

 

"This is true," agreed the scorpion, "But then I wouldn't be able to get to the other side of the river!"

 

"Alright then...how do I know you wont just wait till we get to the other side and THEN kill me?" said the frog.

 

"Ahh...," crooned the scorpion, "Because you see, once you've taken me to the other side of this river, I will be so grateful for your help, that it would hardly be fair to reward you with death, now would it?!"

 

So the frog agreed to take the scorpion across the river. He swam over to the bank and settled himself near the mud to pick up his passenger. The scorpion crawled onto the frog's back, his sharp claws prickling into the frog's soft hide, and the frog slid into the river. The muddy water swirled around them, but the frog stayed near the surface so the scorpion would not drown. He kicked strongly through the first half of the stream, his flippers paddling wildly against the current.

 

Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from the frog's back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs.

 

"You fool!" croaked the frog, "Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?"

 

The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drownings frog's back.

 

"I could not help myself. It is my nature."

 

Then they both sank into the muddy waters of the swiftly flowing river.

[Legion]

Look here Gramps, I have very selfish reasons for being kind to Buddy. He went and purchased “Life Itself†by Robert Rosen. He is bright enough and he is unlikely to be steeped in the machine metaphor that so dominates biology at the moment.

 

I need help. And I am desperate. Any that I can find that can help me understand this work is going to get special treatment from me.

 

I need your help too Gramps.