There's no real difference between insults and compliments, it's actually just all in my head? — All sight

Yes, it's all in our head. We CHOOSE how to experience anything anybody says in our direction. That's good news, because it means we need not be victims, unless we CHOOSE to be.

It appears you want to conduct a moral crusade. If true, ok, go for it, I don't object. But that's not going to solve the problem of emotional distress in social interactions. 2,000 years of Judeo-Christian moralizing has clearly failed to stop people from saying ugly things to each other.

This is a philosophy forum, so please examine the evidence. There's no evidence that you or anybody else is going to be able to manage what human beings say to each other.

If your goal is to judge people and tell them how they ought to live, ok, a moral crusade seems a good mechanism for that.

If your goal is to relieve the emotional distress that we sometimes feel when people say unpleasant things in our direction, you are on the wrong course. The solution lies not in the speaker's words, but in the mind of those who hear them.

Your problem is that, as a Science-Worshipper, you firmly, faithfully, and unshakably believe that matter is all of reality, and science covers all. — Michael Ossipoff

What's interesting about this phenomena is that it illustrates how faith is a human issue, not a religious issue. We tend to feel more comfortable as humans if we feel we know what's going on. If we can't believe in one explanation, if we've lost confidence in one authority, we're likely to go running in to the arms of some other explanation, some other authority.

Those who argue vehemently for their own preferred authority, whether it be religious or secular, are folks with a strong need to have an answer from someone they trust. They usually don't want their chosen answer interrupted by competing answers. They usually don't want their chosen authority challenged, because upsets the apple cart of "knowing" that they've carefully assembled in their minds.

There's no fundamental difference between vehement theists and vehement atheists, it's the same process at work in both cases. It's just matter of waving different colored fantasy knowing flags.

I don't understand your solution. Is it just replacing thought with activity? — Posty McPostface

Ok, sorry, my bad. Will try again....

Replacing thought with activity could be one way to look at it. My favorite example is surfing. As we're racing across the face of a wave with the threat of tons of water falling on our head, the situation demands our full attention. Our brain is totally consumed with moment to moment balance calculations. There's no mental bandwidth available for thinking about ourselves, thus there is no suffering.

In this example, the activity of surfing is forcing us in to a "be here now" focus. Thought has been turned off temporarily, and thus neither the sufferer or the suffering can exist, because they're both made of thought.

Note how the above example is a purely mechanical solution. It didn't involve analyzing my life, my situation, my thoughts, my feelings etc. It didn't involve understanding anything.

What happened instead is that the activity of surfing temporarily turned off thought. And because psychological suffering is made entirely of thought, turning off thought also turned off suffering.

Another example. I've eaten 7 pieces of pizza, and now my stomach is suffering. So I stop eating pizza. Simple and obvious, right? Nothing complicated or sophisticated going on here.

It's the same thing if I've "eaten" too many thoughts, especially thoughts about myself. The solution is to take a break from thinking, or more realistically, to find some method of reducing the volume of thought. If surfing isn't available, there are a million other ways of accomplishing the same thing.

What I'm attempting to do is add another way of looking at suffering to the conversation. I'm attempting to frame it as a purely mechanical problem, because that opens the door to purely mechanical solutions, which tend to be very simple and accessible.

Say they start blaring an annoying commercial on my TV. I hit the mute button, right? Like that. Each of us just needs to find the mute button for our mind, that's all.

I can't help but feel as though this is all done out of some sense of urgency or impending doom. So much anxiety and struggles. It shouldn't be this hard or is that life for you? — Posty McPostface

1) Urgency - made of thought.
2) Impending doom - made of thought.
3) Anxiety - made of thought.
3) Struggles - made of thought.
4) Hard - made of thought.

See the pattern?

It's not what we're thinking that is the issue, but that we are thinking. It's a mechanical problem, like when your stomach is empty.

Analysis => Thought => Suffering

When we're physically hungry we don't turn it in to a big complicated problem, we go get something to eat.

When we're experiencing psychic hunger, there's no need to turn it in to a big complicated problem. Just take a break from thinking. Turn the volume of the inner TV down.

I have no idea if this will help, but here's what I've got to put on the table.

Forget about analyzing the problem. That just generates more thought, which is the source of the problem.

Instead, keep it as simple and mechanical as possible.

1) Suffering is made of thought.
2) If we're not thinking, we can't suffer.
3) Simple.

Look for simple mechanical exercises that reduce the volume of thought, and apply as needed.

As example, when you eat lunch today you don't expect that meal to permanently solve the problem of physical hunger. You're hungry now, you eat now, problem solved, for now. Simple, sensible, realistic.

Same thing for psychic hunger. If you're suffering now, do exercises to reduce thought now, problem solved, for now. Simple, sensible, realistic.

Manage your brain with the same simple obvious common sense with which you manage your stomach. Don't complicate it, because complications create more thought, and thus more suffering.

Find exercises that work in reducing the volume of thought. Don't worry about why they work, or how they work, and all of that.

Ignore this post. Forget about this thread. Run from anybody who wants to do a sophisticated analysis of the problem. Run faster from anybody who thinks they're a guru, or even worse, a psychologist. :smile:

If the exercises work, do them as needed.

If the exercises don't work, find some that do.

If you're hungry, eat.

Keep it simple.

I was on a Catholic forum once and asked this question in another form.

I asked, if my father stole a neighbor's car and then gave the car to me in his will, do I have a moral obligation to return the car. Everyone said yes.

So then I asked, what if it was my grandfather who stole the car. Everyone said yes again.

So then I asked, what if it was my great-grandfather? Now everyone is getting impatient, and tell me that receiving stolen property is wrong, Wrong, WRONG, period. Ok, they're being consistent.

And then I was naughty and asked...

Should we give North America back to the Indians?

The thread somehow magically died at that point. What a surprise! :smile:

Loving people from a distance doesn't do much. — All sight

It doesn't do much for the people at a distance, but it does a lot for the person loving. It helps that person find peace within their own mind, making it less likely they will be contributing to conflict. Physician, heal thyself.

Love is the answer. — All sight

Ok, fair enough. But love does not necessarily involve an attempt to manage what other people are doing or saying. So for example, if I deliberately insult you you have the option of having compassion for my sad situation, and privately hoping that I feel better soon. You have the option of seeing that my insult is my problem, and there is no need to make it your problem.

Being abusive is hardly a winning strategy — All sight

It could be a winning strategy IF we use the occasion to examine why we are experiencing words typed by strangers on the Internuts as abuse.

Doesn't this than apply to you as well? Why aren't you just managing your brain? Why aren't you following this advice? — All sight

Um, how do you know I'm not?? Upon what basis are you asking this question?

I'm not sure you understand my post, perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

There are two parties to the transaction, the person offering offense and the person taking offense. There is no obligation to take offense. There is no law of physics which requires it. It's a voluntary choice. So we don't have to be victims of what someone says in our direction, right? Please note that choosing not to be a victim really has nothing to do with the person offering offense.

It seems your opening post is an attempt to manage what rude people say in public. Are you aware that there is a near infinite number of rude people in the world and that you have exactly no chance of ever managing them all? Assuming you are so aware, then I'm suggesting such an operation is not really too logical. Understandable, normal, well-intentioned, but not full logical.

What I'm suggesting is that we spend less time worrying about what someone else is saying, and more time focused on how we are experiencing what they are saying.

We agree on the goal of reducing emotional disturbance. I'm just saying that moralism is not the most rational and effective way to do that.

Is this any clearer?

So it is appropriate? I am at fault for caring, or being concerned with it? — All sight

I'm not blaming you for anything, and your question is surely a very normal one. I'm attempting to reply with what I hope is a "unnormal" challenge, for that is how I see the purpose of philosophy.

I'm attempting to be rational and helpful. None of us wish to experience emotional distress. So what is the most effective way to approach that goal?

1) I could attempt to manage everyone on the Internet by threatening them with blame and shame if they say things that upset me. That's a couple of billion people I now have to manage.

OR:

2) I could instead attempt to manage the brain that is hearing what's been written or said, my brain. That's one person I have to manage, the one person I have the most control over.

Should I succeed in managing my brain, the mind that is hearing what everyone is saying, then I need not worry about what the billion people might say to me. They might love me, they might hate me, and whatever the case, that is their situation to deal with.

Most people seem to approach this issue through the lens of morality, with a focus on the writer. I'm attempting to approach the issue through the lens of reason, with the focus on the reader.

I believe that both the cosmological and ontological arguments are the application of reason. — Rank Amateur

Yes, they are, agreed. But that doesn't prove that reason is relevant to the God question, that it is a qualified methodology for this set of questions.

With respect, what you're experiencing is FAITH in the infinite scope of human reason. You are in very good company in doing so, but um, faith is still faith.

It is really appropriate to be abusive? — All sight

Let's flip the question around.

Is it appropriate to be a fantasy victim?

Is it appropriate to not take responsibility for one's own emotional experience of the Internet?

Is it appropriate for me to expect you, a total stranger somewhere in the world, to worry yourself about the management of my brain?

Is is appropriate for me to try to protect my ego by attempting to manage the words of everyone on the Internuts via a blame and shame manipulation by guilt campaign, instead of focusing my efforts on managing the one brain I have the most access to, my own?

Here's an example from science to illustrate.

As you may know (I didn't until recently) time runs at different rates at different locations. This isn't a theory, it's been proven. I can provide more detail if requested.

The fact that time does not run at a fixed pace everywhere isn't especially relevant to normal human scale experience because we live in a very fixed location, the surface of the Earth, and the time rate differences between say, sea level and the top of a mountain, are so small (billionths of a second) that they have little practical impact.

However, this time rate fluctuation has to be programmed in to GPS satellites or they wouldn't work. GPS satellites are far enough away from the surface of the Earth that the time rate fluctuation begins to matter.

The point here is that things that are simple, obvious and useful at human scale don't automatically apply to ANY scale. And the God idea is basically referencing the very largest of scales, it's a theory about the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere.

Hope this makes my challenge a bit more clear.

think such discussions can be more than entertainment. I do however prefer to state the proposition as therefore it is reasonable to believe God is vs God is. And that is the value of such discussions. For both the theist and the atheist to test their beliefs are reasonable, and acknowledge the other belief is reasonable as well. — Rank Amateur

Again, please prove that reason is relevant to the subject of gods. Until that's done, isn't the question of whether any opinion on the subject of God is reasonable basically meaningless?

As example, here's a hypothetical challenge:

Does your opinion about God comply with what my ouija board indicates?

Given that we likely agree that ouija boards have no authority or credibility in relation to the God issue, isn't my challenge pointless? If I wanted to make my ouija board challenge meaningful, wouldn't I first have to prove that ouija boards are somehow qualified to speak to the God issue?

The point here is that while reason is clearly very useful for very many things, that doesn't automatically make it relevant and useful to every subject, particularly those vastly beyond human scale, such as the God proposal. It wouldn't be good philosophy to simply assume such a thing on faith, right?

Some PAEDOPHILES raped a lot of children. — Pattern-chaser

Some paedophile priests raped a lot of children.

The word "priests" should be included to make clear that this is happening in the Catholic Church to a degree that it's not happening in say, the Teamster's Union, schools, the NFL, any other Christian denomination etc.

The word "priests" is important because it focuses on the betrayal of trust which is the heart of the injury. You know, these aren't random weirdo guys in raincoats who attracted kids to their car with the promise of candy. The rapists in this case are those whom the kids should have been able to trust above all others. Now these kids probably don't trust anybody, and that's a big deal, a special kind of injury.

We are in agreement. — Pattern-chaser

I'm not sure that's even allowed on philosophy forums, so you're probably in violation of some rule. :smile: Just kidding...

Are we in agreement? Should the nuns take over the management of the Catholic Church?

The church is not responsible for paedophiles. They are responsible for covering up instead of prevention. — Pattern-chaser

Once the bishops knew that a priest was a child rapist, and did not immediately report that priest to the police, those bishops became party to the crime.

It's reasonable to accuse "The Church" of being party to these crimes, because we are not talking about this or that bishop, but rather an organized global conspiracy that went on for decades in many different jurisdictions.

The laity became party to the crime once they learned of the coverup, and kept donating funds to the Church and lending it their moral support and credibility by attending mass etc.

Please note a couple of things if you would please:

1) I'm not attacking Catholicism, but the corrupt clergy. They are not the same thing.

2) A comprehensive sweeping convincing solution which would restore the credibility of the Church is available, put the nuns in charge of everything. The nuns are every bit as Catholic as the male clergy. The failure to take such a decisive step shows YET AGAIN that the male clergy are more interested in themselves than they are in what's good for the Church.

3) I have endless generations of Catholic DNA up my family tree, and was born and raised Catholic, baptized and confirmed etc. I don't hate Catholics or Catholicism. I hate the out of control incompetence and unspeakable corruption which puts this ancient religion in danger of collapsing in our lifetimes.

You asked us to "direct your ire at those who deserve it." And that's exactly what I'm doing.

Some priests raped a LOT of children. They need to go, to jail, or to the gallows, I'm not fussy.

The rest of the male clergy raped the Church, either by helping the rapists, or by looking the other way. They need to go too. Let them clean bedpans for a few centuries as the nuns have been doing since the beginning. This exercise in humility will be good for their souls.

And it would restore the credibility of the Church.

If the Catholic community is not capable of clear minded decisive action on this scale, it would be better if the whole thing melted away to be replaced by other Christian denominations.

That makes you a fool by your own standard. — Sapientia

Please dial down the volume of your ego. Thank you.

...or would be, if reason, logic, science, etc. were universally-applicable. — Michael Ossipoff

Yes, that's it. Until we prove that human reason is universally applicable, logic dancing is essentially meaningless (except as entertainment as agreed above). As example, there's little point to chanting Bible verses to prove a point about God until such time as there is proof the Bible is anything more than just a pile of human opinion.

Many or most vocal Internet atheists are actually heretics to their own chosen methodology. They're eager to apply reason to the other fellow's beliefs, but not to their own, which reveals they're not actually interested in reason at all, but have instead confused it with ideology.

In most cases the arguments are between die-hard adherents of the opposing points of view, and the lack of resolution doesn't matter. The argument is had for the pure joy of intellectual sparring - like a jousting match but less lethal. — andrewk

Yes, agreed. If we declare the purpose of the God debate to be entertainment then the goal is achieved, at least in the context of Internet forums.

Also, such a definition suggests the participants aren't actually all that interested in the question itself, and thus it shouldn't be a surprise if the inquiry never really goes anywhere except to where it's already been a million times.

This is uncalled-for! It isn't the fault of the Catholic church, or any church, or gym teachers, choir masters or sports coaches - and so on, and on... - that their professions give access to children. — Pattern-chaser

Um, with respect, you appear not to be following the Catholic rape scandal too closely. The investigations very clearly reveal that it was precisely the fault of Catholic Church officials that the child rapists retained their access to children. The Pennsylvania investigation showed that there was a longstanding systematic effort by the Church to coverup these crimes and protect the rapists, and it's all documented in detail in carefully hidden Church documents which have now been revealed.

Apologies, but the child rape scandal is very much the fault of the Catholic Church, including the laity who have contented themselves with sanctimonious hand wringing, and have yet to overthrow the clerical class.

There is a solution which could preserve the Catholic faith while solving these problems in a convincing manner. The priests and nuns should switch places. The nuns should be put in charge of everything, and the priests should work in support roles.

But this will never happen, because anybody capable of such decisive thinking probably left the Church long ago, just as I did.

Not exactly on topic, but for what it's worth I've recently signed up to the music streaming service Calm Radio. They appear to have an excellent classical music section, organized both by instrument and composer. I'm learning from the experience in ways I hadn't before.

I'm saying that the set of people who undergo a philosophical education is larger than the set of people who undergo a professional philosophical education. — Moliere

Ah ok, I now get the distinction you are trying to make. I was lumping everyone with a philosophy PhD in to a single pot. I'm still not sure how a "professional philosophy education" differs from something else, but am interested to learn more as your time permits.

In case it's not already blaringly obvious, I don't have any kind of philosophy education, unless you wish to count my attendance at Netflix University. :smile: Point being, I'm viewing academic philosophy from the outside, and don't claim to have a complete view.

Ha, ha, watch out everybody, he's not as academical as our esteemed colleagues. Funny! Welcome you darn achromatist.

My apologies, I attempted it. Just that there is an aspect of the human condition they are addressing which requires that one is in some sense already familiar with what is being talked about for it to make any sense at all. — All sight

Ok, no problem, and no apology required. I'm just inviting you to continue with the point you were making if you wish, and letting you know I seem to require some amount of translation.

That's still different, though -- a religious education doesn't make priests, and a philosophical education doesn't make philosophers. — Moliere

Hmm... It seems we're talking past each other. Most of the folks I'm referring to have PhDs in philosophy and are working in the profession. Some of them are working on their philosophy degrees with the hope of entering the profession. But anyway, we don't have to beat this to death.

But it seems, we as human beings have some inherent drive to understand our reason for existence. So, what are we to do? Use the tools we have, as feeble as they might be? Or throw up our hands and ignore the drive? — Rank Amateur

So what are we to do? This seems to be an excellent question.

The God debate has been going on in some form or another since the very beginning of theism (often the debate has been a private one) and we're at the same place we were when we started. In the very beginning some people believed, some people didn't, and others weren't sure. And this is just where we still are today, after at least centuries of discussion which has often been led by some of the best minds among us on all sides.

So what are we to do? Keep on doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results? Endlessly recycle the same arguments to no result? Pretend we're accomplishing something while the evidence argues strongly to the contrary?

Imagine that you are trying to fix your car. You think you know what the problem is, so you proceed to apply the suggested solution. And it doesn't work. So you try again. Still doesn't work. So you try yet again, this time with more cursing. :smile: Still doesn't work. At some point in this process you are going to stop what you're doing, stand back, and begin questioning your core assumption.

The core assumption of the God debate, a point of agreement between both theists and atheists, is that the point of the inquiry should be to establish a knowing, an answer.

What if that assumption is wrong? Might that explain why the God debate has experienced a consistent pattern of failure?

Well, factually speaking I don't know if religion is really any good at directing people's behaviors, either. — Moliere

It seems clear that religion at least influences some people's behavior some of the time. But sadly, not always for the better.

Also, I'd say there's a difference between a blog of academics -- a social gathering of people in a profession -- and the actual educational process. — Moliere

I wouldn't call the blog in question a social gathering so much, as there is very little back and forth discussion such as we see here. It's more a case of members sharing their latest article and then vanishing. Anyway, the articles taken as a whole (written by many different PhDs) seem to offer at least some window in to the educational process these folks have been exposed to.

As example, diversity appears to be a very trendy topic in academic philosophy at the moment. Every single article appears to argue for diversity, and I've yet to see one that argues that old white men should continue to dominate philosophy as they have for thousands of years. It doesn't seem to trouble anyone that the group consensus is not being challenged.

Before we continue with all this wonderful logic dancing, could somebody please prove that human logic would be at all relevant to anything the scale of a god?

It seems that discussions such as this one pretty much always assume without questioning that reason is relevant, and then proceed in earnest based on that assumption. That process might be compared to a theology convention where everyone takes it to be an obvious given that the Bible is the word of God, and then from that unquestioned assumption proceed to have a Bible verse interpretation debate.

If you're an atheist, imagine you are at that theology convention. You probably won't get sucked in to the Bible verse interpretation debate, because you will first ask for proof that the Bible is anything more than a pile of human opinions. That is, you will reasonably challenge the authority the entire debate is built upon before agreeing to engage the Bible verse interpretations.

That's what I'm asking for, before we dive in to logic dancing could someone please demonstrate that something as small as human reason would be at all relevant to something the scale of gods?

In a modern philosophical education, while the teacher will of course harbor beliefs of their own that will influence the class, the attempt is made to expose students to many ideas that are often contradictory. The end-goal is to get students to think about ideas, arguments, and be able to articulate the ideas and arguments well but to think on their own in choosing said beliefs. — Moliere

I agree this is the theory of how it's supposed to work. I'm not sure this is how it's actually working in practice. I've been spending a lot of time on a group blog for academic philosophers, and it reads more like the chanting of group consensus dogmas. I don't find much interest in challenging the status quo.

Aha, thanks to you I was able to teach my stupid friend how to do this! What a dolt, I swear he needs a brain transplant. Thank you! :smile:

Hi PatternChaser, nice to meet you.

Just read your profile. Wow, we have a lot in common. I particularly enjoyed your favorite quote.

To further respond, I think what's happening is that progress is shoving everybody closer together so that the boundary between "their problems" and "our problems" is being steadily erased.

As example, in most Western cities at least, the sewer system is provided not just to the rich neighborhoods, but the poor neighborhoods too, out of the realization that when it comes to communicable disease we are all in this together.

This evolving mindset would likely solve the problem over the long run, but there's a pretty good chance we won't make it to the long run.

I don't know if you're just playing devil's advocate, but I think that you're right, both here most prominently, but also in the motion that Christianity speaks directly to the reality of the human condition, — All sight

For what it's worth, I do sincerely believe that 1) love works, and that 2) Christianity speaks directly to the reality of the human condition, and that 3) this is largely why Christianity is still with us after 2,000 years.

However, there's of course more to Christianity's survival. Christianity has benefited from the relentless marketing of a compelling story. The life of Jesus, with it's rags to riches to rags to riches (born in a manger, become a prominent prophet, get killed, go to heaven) story line has all the elements of a compelling story.

Marketing matters, a lot. Consider Apple computers, which are really not that different than Windows computers. But, Steve Jobs the marketer created this wonderful story about the Mac which was brilliantly self flattering to his customers. To this day there are armies of passionate little apple fan boys across the net who are defending this story with a passion little different than the evangelical Christian.

...and it is through this basis that the divisions I mentioned arise. — All sight

I'll admit I don't really understand where you're going with this. I'm not arguing, just admitting I don't really get it. Any chance you can translate what you're trying to say out of 2,000 year old Paul parable language in to some description that's a bit more accessible? Thanks.

I think, instead of 'superior', we should say, "religion is more popular than philosophy." I think it's because religion seeks to accommodate people using the least degree of qualification and then allows them to progress from there. — BrianW

Yes, religion typically seeks to serve all human beings, and not just that tiny class of self deluded folks who have somehow come to the self flattering conclusion that they are superior to the religious. :smile:

You are of course right that religion is more popular than philosophy. That's because religion, on average generally speaking, is doing a better job of serving people than philosophy is. And that's because religion is realistically aimed at where human beings really live, in their emotions, whereas philosophy is more based upon the illusion that human beings are logic machines.

We aspire to reason, and should aspire to reason, but we basically suck at it, as proven by the thousands of hydrogen bombs we've aimed down our own throats, a reality we rarely find interesting enough to discuss.

Religion sees us as we actually are.

Philosophy sees us as we wish we were.

Religion is based on prophecy, ritual, magic, authority, and belief. — Bitter Crank

Ok, given that this is a philosophy forum, I'll do my job as a wannabe philosopher and play the devil's advocate. Also, I'll confine my comments to Christianity, not because I am Christian, but because this is what most of are most familiar with and Christianity is usually what we are referring to when we Westerners reference religion.

First, Christianity is not exclusively about ideology, a fact almost always ignored on philosophy and atheism forums, a consistent social reality which tends to reveal that many of Christianity's critics are not qualified to be critics because they don't really care to understand what they are attempting to debunk, distracted as they are by the joy of challenging.

Second, if Christianity was based exclusively on ideology, it would have never lasted 2,000 years and still be going strong in many places all over the planet.

What keeps Christianity going is:

1) The experience of love works, a fact which can be confirmed by anyone of any belief in their own personal experience without reference to any outside authority.

2) Christianity has been the most persistent and consistent spokesman for this fact in Western culture.

Let's try to be objective for a bit. Imagine that Christianity (or any major religion) was a creature in the forest. Nature is continually creating new life forms and those that survive over the long run are those species best adapted to the environment, right?

Christianity has survived so long because it is well adapted to the human environment. This is not a theory, the reality of 2,000 years of Christian experience proves it.

Christianity has survived so long because it is realistic about the human condition.

1) Christianity gets that human beings seek relief from psychological suffering, and the experience of love provides such a relief.

2) Christianity gets that human beings have an incurable need to know everything and everything, including the obviously unknowable, and so Christianity serves that need by presenting a compelling story reinforced by tradition and authority.

Before we look down our noses at the story Christians have created, please note that atheists (especially the adamant ones) have done exactly the same thing. They have created a fantasy knowing out of nothing, and then at least some atheists cling passionately and evangelically to this fantasy knowing as if their lives depended on it. All the same absurd excesses which have arisen in Christianity are also present in atheist culture.

Point being, Christianity is realistic in it's understanding that human beings require some kind of story to explain this place we find ourselves in, and the story they have created has proven to have long legs, ie. is well adapted to the environment.

What complicates any analysis is that Christianity is HUGE, including billions of human beings, and so it contains within itself everything good and bad that human beings are capable of. Thus it's impossible to label this major religion, or any major religion, with any simple minded analysis. Anyone who says "Christianity is good" or "Christianity is bad" obviously has little idea what they are talking about because the situation is far more complicated than that.

So hath this Devil burped.....

...it's the extreme that is the problem. — Pattern-chaser

Agreed. We need to be working at reducing the extremes. We might call a solution "socialism at the extremes, and capitalism in the middle".

SOCIALISM: The top 20% percent should be more heavily taxed with the funds redirected towards creating education and job opportunities for the lowest 20%.

CAPITALISM: For the middle 60% things should work much as they already do, so that everybody has an incentive to produce and improve their situation.

The overall goal should be to create a middle class society.

And now here's the catch. On a global scale, we are the top 20%. On a global scale the "middle class" would likely be a lifestyle unacceptable to most of us. Pointing being, heavily taxing the rich sounds great, until we realize that we are the rich.

Ok then andrewk, so I hear you saying, or perhaps trying not to say, the following...

It does however mean that any statements of DISBELIEF in the trinity, or indeed about any aspect of God whatsoever, must be acknowledged by those making them to be pure items of faith, not reasoned as they are so often presented to be.

Probably because Catholic Charities is not funded by, or for the most part performed by individual Catholics. — Bitter Crank

I'm certainly not claiming that there is no connection between the individual in the pew and Catholic Charities: donations are where the church's money to operate comes from. — Bitter Crank

Hmm....

Most Protestants and Catholics are not reminded about Matthew 25:35-40 anywhere close to often enough. — Bitter Crank

More precisely, most human beings are not reminded of this advice anywhere close to often enough, including yours truly.

Banno may be saying that Christianity would be more appealing and impressive if the focus was kept on the experience of love instead of ideology. If that's his point, I agree.

Here's an example. Catholic Charities is the second leading provider of social services to the needy in the United States, topped only by the federal government. To me, that's impressive.

But I've spent years exploring the Catholic web and it's almost impossible to find discussion among Catholics of this amazing accomplishment. Everybody seems to want to discuss and debate ideology instead. Not such a good plan, in my view.

Why is a religion so good at commanding people to behave a certain way and philosophy, which relishes in how people ought to behave. — Posty McPostface

This seems a good question. I don't have a perfect answer other than to suggest that religion works on the level of emotion to a significant degree, and that's where the real action is.

We might compare humans to an M&M candy. There's a thin hard shell of reason on the outside, obscuring a much larger soft and squishy center. Generally speaking, religion addresses the reality of the larger soft and squishy center, whereas philosophy typically confines itself to the surface.

On the other hand, the Catholic clergy sex scandal suggests that religion isn't always as good at "commanding people to behave in a certain way" as it may appear.