[continued from previous message]   
      
   [317] Recently, at an abattoir on the outskirts of Lucerne, Switzerland, a cow   
   escaped. Half-mad with fright, but acting in a fashion to which every   
   townsperson could relate, that cow ran right through the city center with the   
   angry butchers in hot    
   pursuit. Finally cornered at the edge of Lucerne’s beautiful lake, the cow   
   still did not surrender to what she knew would be her certain death. Instead   
   she turned and jumped into the lake, and swam out to the middle of that large   
   body of water. There,    
   where she could go no farther from the inimical human beings – who she, no   
   doubt, imagined were awaiting her at every point on the shoreline – there, at   
   the farthest spot to which she could flee, the cow was captured and forced   
   into submission. That cow    
   was killed the same day. For weeks afterward, the people of Lucerne could not   
   forget this dramatic event, which made everyone conscious of the tremendous   
   suffering required to support human society's meat-eating habits.   
      
   [318] Matthew 12:10-14.   
      
   [319] Luke 12:24-28.   
      
   [320] Nowadays we do find some laws existing which pertain to the preservation   
   of endangered species, but these laws are in no way adequately enforced.   
   Moreover, such statutes are still based primarily on the same self-serving   
   principles which caused    
   Moses to permit the plunder of a bird's nest while simultaneously prohibitting   
   the capture or killing of the mother hen. (See Deuteronomy 22:6-7.) Even today   
   the gratuitous slaughter of animals is not treated as the moral equivalent of   
   murder – a concept    
   that applies only when the victim is a human being.   
      
   [321] Actually, Judaism and Christianity sought to establish a world for the   
   enjoyment of men only, but this subject has been discussed in Chapter 8   
   “Women, Be Thou Subject?”   
      
   [322] Although this exact quotation is not found in the New Testament, it is a   
   reasonable portrayal of Jesus' marketplace value system. It can easily be   
   derived by collating Matthew 10:29-31 with Luke 12:6-7.   
      
   [323] Matthew 15:21-28; Mark 7:24-30.   
      
   [324] Numbers 31:6-18; Joshua 6:21, 8:24-29, 11:6-14.   
      
   [325] Human beings often underestimate the importance of a certain entity,   
   simply because its proper utility value is unknown. Similarly, human beings   
   often imagine that a particular entity is “worthless”, simply because its   
   proper existential value is    
   unknown. To clarify this value system, let us inspect the following examples   
   of positive and negative, utility and existential value – for human beings and   
   according to present conditions.   
      
   A cow has positive utility value for us, because human beings may take from   
   the cow milk, a commodity nutritionally and medicinally valuable to us.   
   Conversely, a poisonous mushroom is generally considered to have negative   
   utility value for us, because    
   human beings may mistakenly eat the poisonous mushroom, and become seriously   
   ill or die in consequence.   
      
   A fig tree has positive utility value for us, because it may be cultivated for   
   its figs, and even its wood may be used for various constructive purposes.   
   But, like the cow, a fig tree also has positive existential value for human   
   beings, because its very    
   existence is a boon to human beings. So long as the fig tree is alive, it   
   supports human beings as a friend, by offering shade from the hot sun and   
   fruit in its proper season. In contrast, a man-eating tiger has negative   
   existential value to us, because,    
   to live in close proximity to such a creature, poses a mortal danger to human   
   beings.   
      
   Every entity may be evaluated in terms of both its existential and its utility   
   value, and that measurement may be made either in individual or in collective   
   terms, or in both individual and collective terms. So, for example, poisonous   
   snakes and spiders    
   are collectively taken as having negative existential value to human beings,   
   but some individual poisonous snakes or spiders have a positive utility value,   
   because their venom may be extracted and utilized for scientific research, or   
   to manufacture an    
   antidote for the illness which comes from various snake or spider bites.   
      
   Before concluding this brief explication of the utility and existential value   
   systems, it must be noted that utility value and existential value need not be   
   measured in terms of their direct relation to human beings. Grass, in its   
   collective form, may    
   have primarily a decorative utility value for human beings, but it is also   
   food for a cow and medicine for a dog. Even the mosquitoes and tsetse flies,   
   which have a clearly negative existential value for human beings, somehow help   
   to maintain the    
   equilibrium of this universe. And, though we may kill a mosquito which is   
   biting us, the very act of that mosquito to suck our blood is proof that it   
   wanted to live rather than to die. We should not forget that, from a cosmic   
   outlook, every entity has a    
   positive existential value for this universe as a whole, and also for that   
   entity itself. That is why it is a crime for human beings to contemplate the   
   destruction of any creature except as a necessary pre-requisite for our own   
   self-preservation. And,    
   even then, it is preferable that we safeguard our existence by such methods   
   which do not disturb the existence of even those creatures that may be   
   considered individually or collectively as our born enemies. This principle,   
   in combination with the    
   affirmative spirit of all-round benevolence, is the ethical cornerstone of a   
   healthy ecological existence.   
      
   [326] The standard doctrine of the Trinity was among the first to be   
   formulated by the bishops in their Ecumenical Councils, the earliest of which   
   was held at Nicaea in 325. The Trinity was declared at Constantinople in the   
   year 381, just one year after    
   the Emperor Theodosius proclaimed Christianity as the state religion. The   
   double nature of Jesus – both human and divine – was not officially recognized   
   until 541 at Chalcedon. In a similar way, the immaculate conception of Mary   
   was defined in 1854; the    
   infallibility (ex cathedra) of the Pope was declared in 1870; and the bodily   
   assumption of Mary was finally discovered in 1950.   
      
   [327] According to the most recent Code of Canon Law signed by Pope John Paul   
   II, there are only two mandatory Catholic holy days which must be celebrated   
   during the year – Christmas, and one feast dedicated to the Virgin Mary, on   
   whatever day the local    
   church finds convenient.   
      
   [328] Exodus 14:23-25; 1 Chronicles 11:9, 17:7, 19:7-8; 2 Chronicles 14:8-10.   
   It should be understood that the word “host” meant “army” and that “Lord of   
   Hosts” was another way of saying “God of War”.   
      
   [329] Judges 2:11-13, 3:5-7; 1 Kings 11:1-6; 2 Kings 18:1-8, 21:1-9.   
      
   [330] In Chapter 3 “In the Beginning”, it was pointed out that even today   
   Judaeo-Christian monotheism accepts the existence of a lesser divinity known   
   as Satan and posits an untenable separation between the Creator and the   
   Creation.   
      
   [331] 1 Kings 6:1.   
      
   [332] Exodus 3:1-6.   
      
   [333] Joshua 10:12-14.   
      
   [334] Exodus 2:15-22, 18:1-27.   
      
   Here again one may reasonably suspect a non-Hebrew source for some of the   
   ethical and administrative content of Judaism. Jethro, who was the priest of   
   Midian and Moses' respected father-in-law, made a tremendous contribution to   
   the Jewish religion with    
   his timely and practical advice to Moses on these subjects. In any event, the   
   ethical and administrative systems of early Judaism were not greatly different   
   from those prevalent among many other Semitic tribes at the time.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)