Well, they have to though, don't they? Otherwise the God they worship would be jealous, despotic and bloodthirsty.

Christians, on the other hand, may more easily be literal in their interpretation of the New Testament, but if they are they show themselves to be jealous, despotic and bloodthirsty. The Old Testament God, interpreted literally, is one actual Christians understand quite well. — Ciceronianus the White

What might be very important to this belief system is the belief in God and inheritance. This was not a problem when they were nomadic sheepherders but it became a problem when they settled and became farmers. At this point, the line of inheritance is even more important. This is the problem in Isreal today. There is no justification for Israel without the belief that a God gave land to a set of people, and that this land, including slaves, is rightfully owned through a line of inheritance. Before this, linage established the individual's place in society, not merit hiring. They fought a war with the Greeks because the Greeks had conquered the territory and were assigning jobs by merit instead of lineage.

We might ask why was it ever necessary to sacrifice animals, and how did a person come to holding the position of the official over the sacrifice and why was the temple essential to the sacrificing. There are Zionist Christians and Jews and this is a serious international problem. What we believe really matters.

First, if addressing me please do not confuse me with someone else. Second. I have never claimed either Christianity or the Bible is either a lie or true. Third, a lie is a judgment made about a certain kind of proposition. I am unaware that either the Bible or Christianity in whole or any part is the kind of proposition that might properly be called a lie. — tim wood

Plain and simple why is "Belief in god is necessary for being good" a true statement?

That would be the most obvious lie of Christianity and if there is no reason for believing in Satan and demons that would be another lie in the Bible and Christianity. Deifying Jesus, calling him a God, and tieing him to the God in the Garden of Eden, and Satan, is believing in supernatural powers, and the belief that these supernatural powers affect our lives is another lie. This is about believing in the supernatural and being superstitious or not.

I want to add, this an open discussion and I attempt to be inclusive. It is not a private discussion between 2 people. Sticking the points being made will make this a better process.

Religious texts were originally held in the possession of priests who interpreted them for the lay community. Scriptural interpretation was probably later influenced by politics and even the otherwise good bits ended up being distorted. This is why mankind have devised new religious systems every now and then when the old ones no longer served the intended purpose. But political systems can be just as bad or even worse, as can be seen in the case of communism. — Apollodorus

This was not always so. There was no written of God until after the Hebrews/Jews (?) were taken into captivity by Babylon. And obviously, these people did not accept the changes made with the New Testament, and before there could be a New Testament, the power structure of Rome, had to determine which side of the fight about when Jesus became a god or if he did become a god is the right one? As the religion moved north it was changed by barbarians without an ancient city culture and written word.

Today people seem to think the Bible is the written word of God, with absolutely no knowledge of all the changes in consciousness that the religion has gone through. Not until our bellies were full did God become a loving God instead of a fearsome and punishing God. Notions of evil and demons have also changed and I am rather disappointed that no one has addressed my question "What is evil".

It's the claim of ordinary existence and reality as a matter of fact that becomes a problem. Facts require evidence, beliefs don't. — tim wood

Please, support the notion of Satan and demons if you want to claim Christianity is not a lie. That is how you use the word "lie". The word "myth" might be a better word. The Bible is a mythology that should not be taken literally.

Well, they have to though, don't they? Otherwise the God they worship would be jealous, despotic and bloodthirsty.

Christians, on the other hand, may more easily be literal in their interpretation of the New Testament, but if they are they show themselves to be jealous, despotic and bloodthirsty. The Old Testament God, interpreted literally, is one actual Christians understand quite well. — Ciceronianus the White

There is a changing of values of the old testament as the people shift from being nomadic herders, as dependent on God as leaves blowing in the wind, to an agrarian society with private ownership of land and food-producing trees and fields, with increasing wealth that is dependent on individual effort and individual wealth to buy more land (a violation to God!). Later, in some places, this became more cosmopolitan city living.

The God of David is a war God. Now the people are paying taxes and expected to defend their land. These are no longer herders dependent on a God to guide them to water or send birds to feed them.

Curiously I rarely met any literalist Bible believers in the 1970's; we were always taught that the Bible was an allegory and according to Theologian David Bentley Hart, this was a strong tradition for centuries, with literalists being a comparatively new thing. Sounds counterintuitive. These days literal believers are everywhere. I guess the internet makes them a viable worldwide community and emboldens their thinking. I wonder if people head towards the comfort of fundamentalism's certainty when they fear the world, and with science comes little else but continual change. — Tom Storm

Bingo with literalists being a comparatively new thing. Education for technology is about being exacting and correct and relying on authority. And I believe you are right about the psychological reason for clinging to fundamentalism. This is so in Afghanistan (fundamentalist Muslims) and the US (fundamentalist Christians) or in Israel (Jew).

One source of information I have says in the US we cling to Christianity or Democrats. :lol: I didn't think I would ever say it but I think the Democratic party has swung too far to the left and here comes your statement that about the problem showing up in politics. I think the democrats are creating an unhealthy reliance of government and Tocqueville wrote of that danger in 1830. Has everyone read "Democracy in America" and the despote Tocqueville said all Christian democracies would become?

Communism is taking care of everyone and isn't that a Christian goal? At the moment taking care of everyone also seems to be a Democratic goal. The Prussian model of bureaucracy makes this possible, and education for technology plus overpopulation makes it necessary. Oh dear, I am afraid my reply is not very philosophical because it is very materialistic. Ideals take form, we are the body of Christ or communism, and the form shapes society. Anyway it can be argued Christianity makes people weak and when they become dependent on the beast, that may not be a good thing?

Plato and other ancient philosophers used myths to illustrate certain points they were making and I believe that some religious texts are doing the same. Different people draw different teachings from them according to their own level of maturity and understanding. As long as they don't get any crazy ideas or don't turn to fanaticism, I don't have a problem with that. — Apollodorus

And here is the problem. I think Jews interpret the Bible more abstractly than Christians. It is the literal interpretation of the Bible that gets people into trouble.

I love it when science proves the truth of what is said in the Bible. Yes, climate change killed the frogs and increased the insects as the Biblical story tells us. Yes, a wall fell down. I have a preacher nephew who became outraged when I sent him the scientific proof of the Bible stories. I thought it would please him, but no! Science destroys the superstitious understanding of the events and that made him furious. He and others like him, see that as Satan's work to destroy faith in God.

Believing a lie is not being good.

What is the lie? Anyone who believes s/he knows God's truth and that those who do not hold the same truth, do not know God, is not allowing others the liberty to determine truth for her or him self. Only when we remain unsure of our understanding of God's truth can we grant others the liberty of determining truth of one's self.

Christianity began with Christians killing Christians because they disagreed with each other and for most of our history they have been killing each other until science and democracy changed that.

An atheist is more apt to trust science, so there is an understanding of why wearing masks and keeping distance and washing hands is important, or understanding what we are doing that is destroying life on the planet. We can be as unwilling to allow others the liberty of believing the wrong thing as a Christian. False beliefs that spread disease and destroy our planet are not something we can tolerate.

Protestants began with the belief that science would reveal God's truth and had they stayed with that belief, the God issue would not be as important as it is today. Reason, is the controlling force of the universe, logos, is about discovering the reason for why things are as they are, or science bringing us to God's truth. All people have attempted to know God's truth because our survival depends on it. They just did not have the scientific method of knowing truth. But when science began exposing the things said in the bible that we should not believe, Protestants turn against science. Protestants depended on a literal interpretation of the Bible and that is disastrous. They wanted to correct Catholicism by interpreting the Bible literally and they backed their way into a corner they can not get out of off.

How we interpret the Bible depends largely on our education. Liberal education prepared everyone to think abstractly and this makes mythology, stories, parables, not literally God's truth. A god did not make a man of mud and a woman from his rib. Christians who interpret the Bible literally have trouble with science, and education for technology dropped education for abstract thinking and we are in a mess now! Interpreting the Bible literally pits people against science and that works against our survival, turning those who rely on science firmly against religious folks. Who is the liar? Science and Satan or the religious community that denies science?

That reminds me of a friend of mine who every time she loses or misplaces something she prays to St Anthony (or whoever) and next day she surely finds it.

But you are perfectly right. I don't believe in blind belief in anything. Religious leaders need to remember that they are just priests not saints or prophets and either (a) stay out of politics or (b) if they do get involved in politics or public life then they have a duty to inform themselves of the facts and not imagine that if they know the scriptures they know everything.

Fanaticism and lack of judgement is as bad in religion as it is in politics and all areas of life. And atheists can be as fanatical as theists even though they may not admit it or even not be aware of it. — Apollodorus

I also have an uncanny ability to find missing things, however, I do not pray to a saint of god for help. I also do not consider myself to be an atheist. I just find the religious writings unbelievable. I have attempted to know many religions/philosophies and I see the same basic truths in all of them. I also have always had spiritual experiences even possible experience with those who have crossed over. I love logos, reason, the ruling force of the universe and firmly believe things will go well when we have the right reasoning and do not go well when we do not have right reasoning. We are part of something much larger than ourselves.

However, there was a time when everyone was a god/ goddess' favorite and arguing that one has the only true god and telling stories such as the Garden of Eden story and believing it is literally true, sets off my alarm bells, and all my arguments against that idea.

The claim was made that "the right of others to hold their own beliefs" is being denied. This is simply not true. The accusation is made here and elsewhere whenever the accuser's own views are challenged and cannot be adequately defended. As if to question with these views is to deny the right to hold them.

I won't speculate as to whether the accusations of persecution are actually believed or are merely rhetorical, but I think it should be viewed in light of the repeated claim here and elsewhere of having won the argument. It has not, the argument has been evaded and this is just another evasive tactic. — Fooloso4

Oh yes, I clearly see evidence of the argument being evaded.

And I am someone who denies others the right to believe what they believe because wrong thinking can lead to very bad things. With Covid and global warming and making matters worse by believing a god protects us and takes care of us, like a father takes care of children, is not okay! It as wrong as bleeding people to death, believing that is how to cure them of what ails them.

The greatest cause of "evil" is ignorance and we must not tolerate it.

Not at all. It is a lie. I simply identify it as such and make a further observation based on my experience with that individual. Were it mere invective, then you correct. But it is not. and I invite you to consider that. — tim wood

What is the lie? Would you please put what you are talking about in your post? If you want to talk about a lie, you need to say what that lie is.

don't think you are the only one who is confused by this thread. However, it all becomes clear if you consider the political agenda behind it.

As for "non-believers", I think they are a kind of people who believe in all sorts of things but deny the right of others to hold their own beliefs. — Apollodorus

Yes, I deny the right of others to have their own beliefs because wrong reasoning can have bad consequences.

:lol: A drier coin receptor is not working. One of my good neighbors said she will pray for it and tells me that works every time. I am okay with testing that belief. That test is not as bad as ministers telling their flocks to trust in God and not science when Covid is taking people's lives. I much rather test that belief with something that does not kill people. One Oregon church that attempted to sue our governor and force an end to the shutdown, is associated with at least 74 cases of Covid. What did those people do to not warrant God's protection? What about all the people who got Covid because someone spread it in the community? How many people vote, risking the lives of others is okay and what happens is the will of God, not human stupidity? How about global warming because of human behavior, is that something we can ignore as we pray our home will not go up in flames this summer?

This is a lie. And actually a vicious lie. I'd go on, but in the end, all that is useful to know about a liar is that he lies. And it doesn't do much good to tell him, because he is inevitably his own first victim. — tim wood

Wow, you are very emotional, aren't you? Believing something that is not true does not make a person a liar. At least I never considered calling religious people liars, but I suppose if we are not superstitious we could think those who are superstitious are liars. However, I don't think calling people liars will ever come to any good. I am strongly against calling people liars. Some forums have a rule against name-calling. It sure does not promote good reasoning.

And of course, what do you suppose "is" means?
If by "is" you mean an unquestioned presupposition of your thinking, then it's all yours. On the other hand if you mean something else, then what do you mean?
— tim wood — tim wood

Ah, thanks to the organization of this forum, I think I found your question.

An unquestioned presupposition is fast thinking. This can lead to holding a false belief, such as believing the quest for knowledge is a sin for which a god punished all of humanity by denying them the Garden of Eden. A belief associated with a powerful demon that lies to us and causes us to go against the will of God. This belief, unfortunately, has terrible political consequences as we have just experienced because of Covid. A time when we need to rely on science instead of a book written before we had much understanding of science and believed in supernatural forces of good and evil. Science has done more to end evil than that book.

Yeah, I know, "evil" too immature a concept for grownups to think about. But I also know this. You who claim to know a lot - more than me - refuse to answer a simple question, after refusing to answer some not-that-simple questions, being instead dismissive, deflecting, mocking, condescending, offensive - anything at all not to answer. So you're a weasel. Being thus uncivil, you are not entitled to civility. So FUCK YOU, weasel. And that will be my reply to you until and unless you rejoin reasonable discussion. Questions asked, not answered, pending. Your move, weasel . — tim wood

I already asked what is evil? Now I need to ask what is your question because I would love to give answering it a shot. I suspect the argument you are having is the result of not knowing the difference between fast and slow thinking.

It would be nice if when we reply to a post we attack the thought not the person, and reply with arguments that are comprehensive to anyone and do not require knowing what was said in the previous post. That would be, "you said this ___________ and I disagree because ___________. What matters is not how much a person knows, but how well a person presents an argument. In your mundane life, you may be a brain surgeon or astrophysicist but that does not help us here in an argument of what we must know to have good judgment.

Merkwurdichliebe
1.8k
Moral awareness, and becoming an autonomous moral agent, isn't particularly related to theism.
— jorndoe

This is a great point. I would add, that for the religiously inclined, moral awareness and the concept of becoming an autonomous moral agent is a prerequisite for religion and observing the demands of one's faith, but the connection ends there. Religion and morality are as comparable as ethics and art - and philosophy weaves its way through all three. — Merkwurdichliebe

But the whole point of religion is having faith that one knows the will of God and is protected by this God as long as one does not do something that needs to be punished. Reason has nothing to do with it. Unless we want to say believing the people with the strongest god win wars and if we want protection we must worship that god and please that god and hope that god accepts us as his/her people, is good reasoning.

Daniel Kahneman's explanation of fast and slow thinking is essential here. If what we believe is true is not the result of slow thinking, it has a high chance of being a false belief. https://www.shortform.com/summary/thinking-fast-and-slow-summary-daniel-kahneman?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIz5Ll3p2S8QIVtzytBh3FiwbSEAAYASAAEgJj1_D_BwE

Olivier5
2.1k
that still doesn't make evil absolute
— Merkwurdichliebe

What would it take for evil to be legitimately described as "absolute", in your opinion? — Olivier5

What is evil? Is the plague evil or the will of God? Are the Mongols evil or did God send them to punish us? Why are the Muslims winning wars with Christians? Quick determine what the evil is and what we must do to avoid the wrath of God or we are all doomed.

I am totally confused by this thread. What is a non-believer? Everyone believes in something and it seems dishonest to me to label someone a non-believer. Maybe that is a fair thing to do to people who do not believe in Satan and his demons, but really, doesn't honesty require defining what a person does not believe? There may be good reasons for believing in one god and not another, and good reasons for believing in Satan and his demons, but those reasons need to be spelled out and the labeling needs to be dropped because it promotes a lie. The lie that you know truth and the other does not because the labeling completely bypasses reasoning. That is a serious religious problem and a political problem.

Reason is the controlling force of the universe. You either have good reasoning or you don't. The consequences of bad reasoning are bad. That just is the way it is and not understanding that is an error in logic.

Really? Exactly? — TheMadFool

I was agreeing with Jack. If our souls depend on the planet we live on, when it dies so do our souls. Now, this may not be true because our souls may not exist, and if they do, they may not depend on the planet living.

/quote/ can they wander

I do not know. I just know if our souls do depend on our planet, they would die with the planet.

Why not? I don't recall there being a moratorium on wandering.

The whole argument is built on conjecture and is abstract without empirical information. The argument depends on the notion that we have souls and they are dependent on the planet.

Are you sure?

Am I sure we all tend to be good people? That argument is based on the fact we are social animals. Social animals depend on each other for survival, and that means it is important to be valued by the group because if we not valued by the group our chance of survival is not very good, so it innate to us to figure out the rules for being valued. Humans think about what they think, so they have a conscience, but all social animals have an internal system of feelings of ease or uneasiness that tend to determine their relationship with others.

Immediately Einstien comes to mind
— Athena

Have you ever thought why?

Because Einstien said imagination is important and he did thought experiments to figure out his theories. As far as we know, animals do not have imaginations, and imaging what could be is unique to humans. However, it seems dogs do have dreams and that is a form of imagination. Hum, :chin: oh dear, is there a distinct line to be drawn between imagining "what if" as humans do and dreaming?

I used to wonder more about time and infinity more than I do now, because I feel that as concepts they are so interrelated with other aspects of life and reality. But, time is mysterious. Generally, people seem to feel that time is speeding in their subjective experience. During the last year I often feel as if it is slowed down, but that is probably due to lockdown and because I had to move twice. Also, I only joined this forum last year, but I feel as though it has been about five years. I think that this is because I have felt that it has lead me to do so much thinking. What is your experience of time? — Jack Cummins

I have read some of Hall's books such as Beyond Culture and our concept of time is cultural. Telling native people a dam must be completed by September may have no meaning to them. Say the dam must be completed before the rains come, makes perfect sense. In some cultures, it may seem presumptuous to agree to meet next week at 2 o'clock because what happens is dependent on nature or the will of a god, so the correct way to think of meeting at 2 o'clock is " if god is willing".

Furthermore, time is intangible but we treat it as though it is tangible. If it is 3 o'clock right now, depends on where you are. That is not so because nature makes it so, but it is so because we have agreed on time zones and the 12 hour clock.

But now the 12-hour clock! Where on your body do you have the number 12? Can you find the number 3? What do these numbers have to do with 60 and pi? Now there are some real mysteries! The facts may not seem mystical at all, but for me, they are totally and literally awesome! I would say the language of god is math.

Son of a gun, in all these years I have not come across anyone with knowledge of the oil-banking-economy reality. I learned of it through a geologist who wrote "Geodestiny". How did you come to that information? Why did you pay attention to it?

That explanation of the take over of the Soviet Union is fascinating. How many people are aware of the banking and business deals that actually rule the world? We think of our national leaders and perhaps what the masses believe, but the real power and control are not the subject of our news. That is not what the masses are directed to pay attention to.

Okay, and do computers ask questions? Does any other animal ask questions? For sure many animals are curious, but do they question what consciousness is?

Your reply also makes me think of questions about time and infinity. It seems to me you have said there are infinite questions and answers.

I think you are making some very good points there. Marx was an authoritarian, domineering, and argumentative person from the start. He studied law and philosophy and tried to use philosophical arguments and legalistic language to impose his views on others. But that didn’t work out, he fell into disrepute at university and could never get an academic job. So, he turned to journalism but his revolutionary rhetoric got his paper (funded by wealthy bankers and industrialists) closed down. He then turned to revolutionary activities, used his father’s inheritance to fund insurrection in Belgium where many German factory workers lived, which failed, and he was on the run from the police ever after. — Apollodorus

I think that is a typical problem today. People thinking the right information and the right argument is what leadership is about, getting angrier and angrier when no one accepts them as a leader. This comes with education for technology but is not the result of liberal education.

In 1847 Marx and Engels set up the Communist League in London to promote violent revolution among German workers living in England who had links to workers’ organizations in Germany and other European countries. Their plan was to infiltrate the socialist labor movement, join the Democrats to seize power from the Conservatives, and then overthrow the Democrats and install a Socialist regime run by the Communist League, i.e., by themselves.

Isn't that in line with Hitler's road to power? Except Hitler appealed to the people by going throughout the country and finding out exactly what made people angry and then used that information to gain their support. It was not all, his idea imposed on others, but more skillful emotional manipulation.

The whole Marxist ideology was constructed for that particular purpose, to incite people to insurrection, whilst hiding the leadership’s true intentions of assuming power for themselves. They wrote the Communist Manifesto (1848) to promote their ideology. All the central concepts of Marxist political theory were formulated in ambiguous, suggestive, and misleading language.

And I think a recent leader was doing the same thing, only this time strongly opposing socialism, turning socialism into a strong playing card for the opposition.

So, Marx and Engels’ “revolution” is a myth, a fairy tale, and a hoax. It never happened, because nobody believed in it and very few had actually heard of it. Marx then turned to writing his economic theory and after about twenty years published the first volume of Capital (1867) but nobody bought that either. It was long after his death that Engels and other German socialists, with the help of the London Fabians and Russian Marxists, managed to spread the ideology of revolution to Russia where in October 1917 Lenin, Trotsky, and a few other Marxist ideologists seized power with the help of radicalized factory workers and some elements of the armed forces - all of whom were later liquidated by Stalin.

Essentially, this is what Marxist political theory can be reduced to, an ideological tool for seizing power. It has absolutely no viable political program or anything except total state control and dictatorship of the Communist Party (a self-appointed intellectual elite), not of the working classes who are simply reduced to servants of the state. Marxism comes to power through a mixture of deception and force of arms.

Your explanation is interesting and I am impressed by what communism had to do with giving Hitler power. It is like the US push for socialism and the opposite party pushing against it. People are reacting against each other and excessively willing to follow leaders, like an emotional melee not really an intellectual movement. Hilter was against communism.

Engels’ definition of revolution was “the most authoritarian thing that exists; it is the act, whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon; and the victorious party must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries” - Engels, F., “On Authority”, 1874, MEW, Band. 18, s. 308.

Oh my goodness your highlight of this reveals the tragedy of what happened. The American Revolution was a revolution of consciousness. Not exactly all of it was a revolution of consciousness because not everyone was literate. However, many of the leaders were literate in Greek and Roman classics and the philosophy of their time and they did create a new form of government built on an understanding of Athens and Rome.

Marx was also suffering from a skin disease that was causing frequent episodes of self-loathing and alienation and making him fly into a rage and behave like a tyrant even in his own home. You can almost hear his anger and frustration in some of his writings and this was reflected in the violent language that he was using to attack everyone that contradicted him.

That is sad and I don't think he was the only person with a personality/mental disorder that people have followed. Neitzche's superman is appealing to males, but really is that the thinking that is good for civilizations?

Mao was just a brainwashed farmer and a Soviet Russian puppet. He was worthless without Russian backing. After the death of Stalin, the Russians started a de-Stalinization program to make Russia’s Communist dictatorship slightly more moderate. Mao went in the opposite direction and turned more and more dictatorial and bloodthirsty.

Oh dear, that is really sad but so typical. Looking back on my observations of life it seems few people learn to handle power well. Of course, I am thinking of what happens in families where the head of a household may be a tyrant because he does not know better or when the woman dominates she may be the tyrant especially in her role as mother. When we do not learn better, we do not do better. This is tragic when the person is in a strong national leadership role.

My bell went off- time for me to run. I hope to get back to you later.

I think the mysteries of philosophy are not really about coming up with any definitive answers, or questions about metaphysics, but about not ruling out the scope of imagination. — Jack Cummins

In reading the different philosophers, I have been amazed by the questions they have asked. Perhaps the most important thing is discovering how to ask good questions. Not all of the philosophers asked good questions.

For example, Marx had a hard time supporting himself, so his focus is on commodities. Weber asked better questions and tells us more about human nature and the nature of leadership. And to me, absent in philosophy, is the voice of women coming from the perspective of caregiving.

What does a story about cultural bias have to do with being unable to solve something that is intented to be an unending discovery? — Tiberiusmoon

China kind of got frozen in time because of a cultural bias for tradition. I think Christianity and Islam can both hold people in the past. That is being a conservative.

Capitalism and communism seem to hold people as commodities that either contribute to the national economy or deduct from it. The young and the old have no value but the young can be made valuable with education, while the old are just a drain on society.

Women who stay home to care for the family, and our elders, once had value but I don't think that is true today. Especially the old are outdated and worthless.

Strangely, I have always been far more attuned to reflection than facts. I always had far more difficulty with rote learning than speculation. I think that may because I was an only child, so I was spent more time alone than most children. I also didn't like sports, so spent a lot of time reading, drawing and listening to rock music, by the time I was about 10.

I think that we are becoming far ' too technologically correct', as I think we discussed on the thread you created. But, I think that it has a particular bearing on philosophy. People are becoming so accustomed to Wikipedia, and other sources. I sometimes think a lot of people almost treat Wikipedia like the best living philosopher in the world, knowing all the answers instantly. I also believe that the public can edit, it to include latest information. I use it as a basis for an overview of a topic, but that doing one's own research is better. If everyone relies on Wiki as the guide, there is a danger that people will begin to think too much alike, and there will be less creative and genuine thinking. — Jack Cummins

In a thread started by Apollodorus, I realized communism turns everyone into a commodity and destroys human values. Marx and Engels find fault with a woman doing for others without being "paid" for what she does. Her pay is love, not money. Her pay is making people happy and helping them succeed in life, and being appreciated and socially valued.

Capitalism may or may not do the same thing. You express concern for our human uniqueness and that is essential to valuing human beings. Help me out here.

You ask about our mysteries and perhaps the greatest mystery is the human mind and consciousness. I think communism and capitalism are thinking of people as commodities that add to or take away from the national economy. That is not exactly a human value, because our human value is our uniqueness and our relationships and our sense of well-being if have a mansion or only the clothes on our backs.

I think there is a big difference between communism and what Plato or the US Founding Fathers had in mind. Plato proposed rule by good and wise governors precisely to combat tyranny. America had been a British Crown Colony, so rule by one party either under a king or president wasn’t such an unusual prospect. As long as democracy is secured, it doesn’t really matter.

By contrast, communism advocates abolition of private property, total state control, and dictatorship.
Marx and Engels believed that between capitalist and communist society lay the period of revolutionary transformation of the one into the other and that to this corresponded a political transition period in which the state could be nothing but the “revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat” (Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875, MECW, vol. 24., p. 95).

Engels wrote: “Do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat” (“Introduction”, 18 Mar. 1891, The Civil War In France, 1871, MEW, Band 22, s. 199).

In the Paris Commune of 1871, armed revolutionaries, some of whom were members of Marx and Engels’ International, had seized the French capital and imposed a reign of terror in which many citizens were summarily executed – including the Archbishop of Paris who had been taken hostage – and much of the city was burned to the ground. Marx and Engels at the time celebrated the Commune as “the most glorious deed of our party” and the “glorious harbinger of a new society” (Marx, Letter to Dr. Kugelmann, 12 Apr. 1871, MECW, vol. 44, p. 131; Marx, “Third Address to the General Council of the International”, 30 May 1871, MECW, vol. 22, p. 230).

The Communists murdered many millions of innocent people in Russia, China, Eastern Europe, and other places. — Apollodorus

I am struggling to understand why anyone would think eliminating the industrial leaders would be a good thing. Marx wasn't even capable of supporting himself. Why would anyone think he could create a healthy economy for a whole nation? To be an industrial leader, first a person has to have a good idea, and the ability to promote that idea and get others to invest in it. Then create an organization that turns the idea into a reality and markets it to a population. At no point in the process does a person take a weapon and start killing people. What went so wrong that made people think a violent revolution is how to achieve anything of value?

China has become different under Western influence. The biggest influence was probably Soviet Communism. After the economic collapse of the Soviet Union, China nearly went down the same road but decided to take a leaf from Lenin’s book and introduced some elements of capitalism under strict state control. This was followed by massive investments and credit from America and Europe and allowed China to become an empire again, but an atheist and national socialist one instead of traditional Chinese. This is already creating big problems for a lot of small countries and even a few big ones.

Moa is a good example of a charismatic leader with no merit. He had the power to rule but not the ability. Science is essential to democracy. We once understood this but don't seem to understand that now because half of us followed a leader who ignores science, proving what happened in China can happen in the US. That is quite frightening to me. Only democracy is protected in the classroom is it protected and I think the US stopped doing that.

Well, if that’s the path humanity wants to go, then there isn’t much we can do about it. Personally, though, I don’t see anything fundamentally wrong with having men and women. A bit of tradition isn’t always bad. If animals can be male and female without problems I don’t see why humans should be different.

My comment about men becoming as women was a response to you saying

If we take “equality” to its logical conclusion, then women should stop having children and become men.

I think both of us agree having both sexes and tolerance for gender differences is a good thing. Personally, I think the traditional family of a man who supports the family and a woman who stays home to care for the family has great value. However, within this traditional family structure, everyone needs to be supported for self-actualization and this would involve sharing responsibilities. :grin: Cooperative families making a cooperative nation.

People tend to agree on some things and disagree on others. However, I think the discussion was trying to establish whether Communism in its Fabian form is a good thing and, in connection with that, what form of government we think would be the ideal one.

I believe we agreed on keeping private property. This would rule out communism. Anything else you think we agree on?

I lost interest in communism when I read it "liberated women" with a propaganda campaign declaring full-time homemakers are not valuable citizens. In the US we shortened this to "just a housewife" and effectively destroyed the value of full-time homemakers.

When the communist destroyed the value of full-time homemakers women got jobs in order to be valued citizens and they began working like men. The state had to provide child care, because someone has to care for the children.

The flood of women into the workforce increased the size of a cheap source of labor and this increased the economy. However, the divorce rate soared and so did the abortion rate. Women were not fairing better, because, with both the responsibility of caring for children and having to work, they did not have the time and energy to get an education and advance a career. Not until my X walked out and I had to care for the children and support them too, did I appreciate the value of a full-time homemaker. It would have been wonderful to come home to a clean home, a cooked dinner, and have someone else resolve all the problems that come with having children, so I could just eat and relax. I realized if the only thing I had to do was focus on supporting the family, then I would have the time and energy to develop a career. In old books about family, it was stressed how the woman should manage things so her husband was free to what he needed to do to support the family. My point is, single mothers are not liberated, women unless they can pay someone to care for the children and the home and the relations that a full-time homemaker cares for. When women are forced to both care for the children and support them, they tend to fall into poverty, and this becomes a state burden. It becomes counterproductive.

That makes communism the worst possible thing for family values and a society that values humans. We are proving Capitalism can be just as destructive to family and human values.

I think Marx and Engels needed the voice of a woman who thought her role in society as a homemaker was extremely valuable. I think the men had an exaggerated sense of their own importance.

According to Marxist feminists, women's liberation can only be achieved by dismantling the capitalist systems in which they contend much of women's labor is uncompensated. — Wikipedia

:rage: Darn right much of women's labor is not monetarily compensated for. Caring for people freely because that is what a good woman does, is not a bad thing. Turning a woman into a commodity whose function is dependent on a monetary reward destroys our human values,

:chin: Perhaps that goes with thinking a violent revolution and killing industrial leaders is a good thing, because everyone is reduced to a commodity. No one's unique human value is respected.

Humanity is defective and aberrant to the natural order of things. The future just involves more and more programmed social behavior, where people will become less and less free and not even realize it because they have been manipulated into accepting servitude. — darthbarracuda

Democracy is a shared consciousness and shared power. I believe it is possible we have greatly increased our shared consciousness and that we are at a point of developing a new consciousness
based on science and histroy. We may be entering a new age that is a high-tech reality and one of peace and the end of tyranny. But then what are we to do with ourselves if we don't need to work from sun up to sun down?

You speak of labor-intense societies. A high-tech society is not labor-intensive.

What does a story about cultural bias have to do with being unable to solve something that is intented to be an unending discovery? — Tiberiusmoon

Wow, I would say that cultural bias makes a huge difference. Right now advanced nations are biased for technological correctness. Christianity without illiteracy in Greek and Roman classics is not the same as Christianity was before we became technically correct. And technological correctness has to lead to reactionary politics and Trump being a US president and increased violence as we are polarized instead of being less sure of what we think we know. A society that desires the perfection of computers that replace humans, is not exactly the liberty and justice of our past.

That was a funny story of people jumping to the wrong conclusion. But at the moment I think it must have been quite frustrating.

Philosophy is not to draw conclusions but to deepen understanding, which is why philosophical mysteries are never solved its like an endless digging of origin.
Even if you think you reached a conclusion there is so much more to think about. — Tiberiusmoon

That is a brilliant statement. Especially in our later years, we are more prone to having a sense of deeper meanings, whereas when we are young our minds are more attuned to the accumulation of facts. I like an old book on logic that sits on my shelves that nicely explains we should never be too sure of what we think we know. That book was written before we were so technologically correct.

I agree. That's exactly why I've said many times before that the emergence of a political right and left hasn't brought anything good and society should return to a no-party system where governance is done by consensus instead of having alternate rule by one party or another. Hence my suggestion that governments should be run by impartial or partyless "philosopher kings" or wise rulers as proposed by Plato. ["/quote"]

:gasp: We criticized the communist for having only one political party. That looks like ignorant propaganda doesn't it, when we consider Plato or even the forefathers of the US who originally were opposed to separate parties.
— Apollodorus

And yes, the problem is powerful countries exploiting the resources of the weak ones. China is a good example. It exploits Tibet - while also suppressing its people - and is expanding its influence and power in the Pacific, Africa, the Middle East and even Europe.

Yet no one says anything about China. Mainstream discussion seems to always revolve around Europe's colonial past.

Good point. However, until recently China was known for its internal wars and then becoming one empire and then not expanding. For philosophyical reasons, China remained in the past and protected that but restricting contact with the rest of the world. At one time it had the best technology in the world but this technological growth came a stand still. Why is China different today?

Sure. But the same applies to a man who has to bring up children without their mother.

I think “equal rights” can be deceptive and is often used to deceive people. The ruled are not in the same position as the rulers. Individuals are different from each other. We all have different aptitudes and skills, different levels of intelligence or physical strength, etc.

If we take “equality” to its logical conclusion, then women should stop having children and become men. Is this what society should strive to achieve?

How about men becoming as women? It has been argued that would make the world a better place. For years I have arged the importance of the traditional woman and the vital part she plays in society.

I never said there should be no welfare. I only pointed out that some families live on state benefits for generations, even those that do have a man or father in the house. I was referring to people who are deliberately abusing the system out of their own choice, not because circumstances force them.

You are I do not understand poverty the same. I once thought poverty was a meaningful experience those of us born white and middle class could never have. Then during the 1970 recession caused by OPEC embargoing, my family experienced serious poverty for so long I forgot how to think middle class.

We used to think the people who went through the depression and starting hording, where funny. During the recession I became afraid of that when I used what we had there would be no more, and I bgan hording. I was proud of my ability to endure hunger and cold, and didn't weigh enough to sell plasma, so I used heavy clothing and risked going to shock to sell plasma. I rished my life in other ways, because that is what I had to do to survive and I developed black humor, where death is something to laugh about. I learned poverty is mentally, physically and spiritually devastating. I do not believe people willingly live like that, but when that is all they know. That is all they know.

Do not judge a man until you walk a mile in his boots.

It does seem that certain experiences seem to be too harsh to make much sense of as a learning curve of experience. Actually, there have been times when I have found people suggesting that certain experiences should be seen in that way as being a bit too much. But, however we interpret our experiences, it does seem that there is a lot of suffering. Also, it does appear that some have more to endure than others. I think that the worst thing is when people have difficult experiences repeatedly, with hardly any break.

Also, we are taken aback by lockdowns etc, so I don't know how most of us would cope with situations like in Palestine. I don't think that I would cope very well. As it is, I wake up wondering what emails I will find, and I often get thrown off course by little stresses, which I build up in my mind. — Jack Cummins

:lol: I just got reported to the authorities as a possible suicide case and 3 people in uniforms showed up to be sure I am okay. As I perceive society today we are overly dependent on technology. We seem to be trying to resolve every problem with technology instead of thinking human beings are the best for solving and preventing human problems. We are living in a world today where we don't aspire to be as angels but what to be like computers and believe we will all be better off when computers are ruling over us. I simply said I would rather be dead than dependent on such a technological machine/society.

The US once found fault in Germany for being a mechanical society and then we adopted German philosophy, bureaucracy, and education. Add our technology to that and we are a super technological machine/society, more like the Borg than the democracy we once defended. The point I intended to make is I rather die than depend on the Borg. That was perceived as a frightening personal problem rather than a social problem. Who wants to go to heaven and be part of a supercomputer instead of an angel? I think my words are failing to express my meaning? As long as I have my independence I am fine, but I do not want to depend on a society that thinks technology is superior to humans or even that technology can serve our humanness as well as, or better than, humans. Dealing with a computerized program is not at all like dealing with a human.

The welfare system especially in Fabian-dominated societies like England has encouraged the emergence of thousands of families living on state support for generations. — Apollodorus

There was a time when we all depended on our tribe. We shared the earth's resources in common and defended our territory just as dog packs and chimpanzees do. We evolved a family order with divided responsibility. Industrialization has disrupted that order. Iran soundly rejected that disruption of family order and celebrated religious leadership and a returned to traditional morality. So does our Christian right, sort of? They reject welfare while bemoaning the end of traditional values, and demanding women have equal rights. A woman with children does not have equal rights, because she does not have equal freedom to pursue her career and have family too.

When men say what you have said, it is pretty obvious that is a man speaking. Where is the father who supports his family and teaches his son how to be a man and a useful part of the community? How many children have you raised without depending on someone to support the family or care for the children?

England and the US prepared their young for citizenship. England rejected education for technology because it was protecting its classes and technology increases equality. We have all embraced education for technology, which is preparing the young to be products for industry and destroying family values. We now speak of freedoms but not our duties. People are physically becoming adults but they are not maturing. Having that wonderful career is about culture and preparation for life that education, is totally failing to do, in our technological societies with unknown values. So now we have divided and are no longer united, and the poor have no idea how to think middle-class lives, nor is the middle-class consciousness the of the at the of poverty. Children in poverty with overwhelmed mothers learn to want nothing because their mothers can not cope with their needs and wants. And this we are spreading around the world. We have left culture up to media commercialism. Our amorality is erupting into anarchy, as we find fault with everything and everyone and look forward to the day computers take over and we are all consumed by the Borg.

China is expanding into South America as the US has expanded around the world. The terms right and left are meaningless to me. What matters is nations are competing against each other and the powerful ones are exploiting the resources of the weak ones. It was a Trump agenda to expand the sphere of corporate interest by increasing their ability to exploit undeveloped countries. I suppose his idea of making the US great again, and at the expense of indigenous people. Without the words "right and Left" we have to talk about what is really happen and those decisions are not just what is happening in our own countries, but it is what is happening around the world and is a moral issue not just an economic one. Our economic interests have caused bad health and suffering and destroyed ecological systems. Now China has progressed and is doing the same. Isn't that wonderful? :brow:

I am inclined to think that everything happens for a purpose. We would have never interacted and I do see my experience of using the forum as a very important part of my life. In the last couple of weeks there has been a lot of people really attacking one another in various threads and I just hope that lessens. Today, there seem to be a couple of new members, including the person who you engaged with on this thread today, and that may dissipate the tensions.

As far as the world issues, especially the crisis in India, I think that it shows how the world is interconnected. Sometimes, especially when we are have got used to isolating it is easy to become insular. We are becoming so accustomed to doing things online and the people who don't have access must feel really left out. — Jack Cummins

I doubt that everything happens for a purpose but we can find meaning in anything. :lol: When we reach old age and our bodies break down, there does not seem to be a good purpose for that, bringing us to thoughts of life after death, because it makes no sense for our short lives to be completely meaningless. To believe our lives are no better than the fleas on a dog's back and the world would be better off without us, is a terrible thought. We must create a sense of meaning and purpose.

The crisis in Palestine is very upsetting to me and I no more see the Israelites as doing the will of God, than I see the warring anywhere else in the world as the will of God. However, I have a book about war that explains it is a necessary way to keep populations down and so is Covid. It is like protecting the wolf population to keep other species in balance, so they do not destroy the ecosystem. It is not something a god wills, but it is what has evolved and just happens to keep everything in balance.

I hardly think destroying our planet is the will of a god and I love the common aboriginal people's belief that we are supposed to take care of this planet, as opposed to the capitalist belief that we are supposed to exploit the planet and kill anyone or anything that gets in our way. Our problem is recognizing right from wrong and I like to believe science is helping us do that.

Great. So, let’s just very briefly analyze this, without going into endless discussions. You can let me know what you think. — Apollodorus

Who thinks about business and economic matters? What does it mean to think about either? As I understand governing, it is what makes sure everything works together. It must not favor one thing over another but keep things balanced. Some industries can make huge profits and others can not. Only if an industry is very profitable can it pay high wages, and economies are mostly supported by low labor cost, and here government can balance the low labor cost with subsidies. There are economic and social benefits to assuring all workers have a decent standard of living. Someone must care for children and perhaps we should pay that person? I don't think we want to pay a woman who keeps having children so she can live on welfare, so there needs to be a disincentive for not doing that unless a low population rate means there is a need for more people. Then we might want to pay mothers more to encourage their reproduction.

History has not had a lot of highly influential women, but for me, the focus needs to be on the children and the elderly. That means there must be a good economy that can support a high standard of living. But money alone is not the only thing that needs to concern us. Morals also are important, and an industry that is all about manipulating us to buy things may not be considered moral? Businesses should be ethical and society must have shared morals and principles, and that won't be without education transmitting a culture for that. Fabianism is attractive because it considers fairness in wages and education.

Putting your experience of the difficulties arising from the pandemic, various ones of my own and other people, I wonder how to understand on a deeper level, what we are going through. Do you think it is all a learning experience from the universe and any underlying source, or force? At times, it does seem that we are being stretched almost beyond breaking point. Sometimes, I wonder if the pandemic is a lesson for humanity as a whole. Also, I do think that it is possible that our individual experiences are lessons to develop us. I am sure many on the forum would see what I am saying as absolute rubbish, but I probably dare say it here because this thread had faded but reanimated again today. — Jack Cummins

Laugh, you may be losing sleep because of this forum but I am not getting necessary daytime stuff done, like the laundry, washing my hair, and other such mundane things.

There is always something to learn and I am pretty excited about all the things we have to learn from the pandemic. For darn sure the world is looking very little as what happens in South America and Africa can impact us immediately. I have heard talk of the US government taking over the research
and development of vaccines? Actually, we have political TV ads warning of the danger of our government taking over medical research. It is a bull shit, political ad playing on our ignorance and fear. The fact is

In the U.S., the federal government provides core sources of support for basic biomedical research and development. In general terms, 64 percent of all applied biomedical R&D funding comes from within the industry, while just 22 percent comes from the federal government.Jan 3, 2018 — Jeffrey A. Bluestone, David Beier, and Laurie H. Glimcher

The argument is for greater federal funding and that does not threaten us as the political ad suggests. The ad would have us believe the drug companies must make huge profits or we will lose the research work they do. Our right and left political battling does not improve our judgment of such matters.

India needed our help yesterday and when it comes to the struggle for world power this really matters because the location of India and the size of its population really matters. This is not something to leave up to private drug company interest. If the US wants to maintain a position of world leadership it must act as a leader to protect all people. Not only is this favorable to being a world leader but the virus keeps mutating and coming back to hit every country including the US. The virus does not respect borders or economic status. We must manage this pandemic and prepare for the next one and this demands thinking globally and only government can operate on that scale.

It seems like all social issues are demanding our attention right now. The inequality of income and education is surely demanding our attention. Far too many families are without internet access and computers for homeschooling. And in today's world computer experience is essential to most jobs. However, when we put children online, we then begin hearing of the suicides because of cyberbullying and we learn our children are not safe at home, but illegal drug dealers have gained easy access to our children. We need to update our morality to deal with the new threats technology has presented and the pandemic has brought this to our attention.

And then we may have never met if it had been for the pandemic giving you a lot of time to fill and for sure we are better off for knowing you and your perspective.

Yes, we did agree that private property is a good thing.

Once we have understood that the ultimate aim of Fabianism is to impose communism, we can see how the abolition of private property is an unacceptable feature of totalitarianism. — Apollodorus

Ah, I love this, sometimes we need to keep communicating to actually understand each other's meanings.

In order to eradicate economic injustice, utopian socialists before Marx suggested solutions such as the abolition of private property. These solutions were often linked to other extreme measures like the abolition of marriage and the abolition of religion. Marx and Engels copied most of their ideas from the utopian socialists but coached them in language that sounded “scientific” to make those utopian ideas more palatable to prospective followers. The abolition of private property was no different.

I can appreciate that as I struggle to communicate with words that get people's attention and cause them to think. But we can also see that a terrible failure of ignorance. I think when we are planning for humans we need to have a scientific understanding of human nature and our limits. But the Greeks made it clear that a polis that is too large is not a polis at all. We are limited in the number of people we can know, and how we feel towards those we know, is different from how we feel about people we do not know. Our morality is based on these feelings. We will never be as moral with "those people" as we are moral with one of "us". This is very much an Israeli problem as they imagine themselves to be very different from "those" people and do to "them" what they never would do to their own.

In 1845, Marx and Engels had written in The German Ideology that in Communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, “society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner …”

I would credit the Prussians for this breakdown of traditional social/economic organization. It goes with modernizing the military force and putting people in their positions based on their merit, instead of inherited social position. As I said earlier, exploration and trading totally changed the social/economic and political order, and religion is inadequate for modern needs because it is based on God's will and inheritance, not merit. These are old world order issues versus the New World Order and we might not be able to think them through without understanding the huge change brought on by exploration and trade, then technology and industry, shifting populations from the country to the city. The Bible was not written for city dwellers.

Marx and Engels failed to find a publisher for their book and it is not difficult to see why. Their idyllic picture of communist society may seem enchanting, but only so long as no questions are asked. It may well be possible in a communist society for all citizens to engage in various spheres of activity, but who would decide what activities should be pursued by millions of citizens at any given time and place and how? What if some preferred to engage in a different type of work or chose not to work at all?

:wink: Capitalism is not about working for a living. It is about owning for a living. For years I have wondered why we prepare our young to be workers instead of owners? Oh boy, now we have something to talk about! In the US and some European countries, we want everyone to accept capitalism but we do not prepare our young to be capitalist. We have zero understanding of economics and banking and yet have the power of the vote, but we can not discuss the really important matters. When was the last time we voted on land use issues or banking policy? And yet we are supposed to be self-governing. This looks really insane to me. Perhaps reading Bible stories would improve my ability to be self-governing?

Only three years later, in the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels totally reversed the above utopian description of the future society by suggesting not only that all citizens would be “equally liable to work” but that they would be organised in “industrial armies, especially for agriculture”.

Apparently, citizens could now no longer do as they pleased. Their “freedom” consisted in joining the army of workers and perform work as directed by the state which was the new owner of land and means of production. This new description implies that, far from being “free”, all citizens will be turned into the state’s servants or instruments of production.

Marx and Engels’ insistence on armies of workers engaged in large-scale industrial production is also the key to understanding the true meaning of other Marxist concepts such as “abolition of private property” and “common ownership”.

Yeap looks like New World Order to me. And we have "liberated our women" and made them equal to men in this workforce army. Prussian military bureaucracy applied to citizens and education for a technological society with unknown values, is going to get its leaders from where and what will be their goals? We must think of our children as products for industry and their parents as cogs in the machine.

The Communist Manifesto, although calling for the abolition of private property, does not explain what this means in practice. Its hidden meaning only comes to light by taking the authors’ statements to their logical conclusion and seeing how they were applied in Marxist societies.

The Manifesto states very clearly that communism was to abolish property in land and all rights of inheritance. This means that land and houses would become property of the state along with all means of production (raw materials, tools, machinery and factories), transport and communication. This would leave the citizens of communist society with nothing but personal belongings such as clothing and household items.

In terms of housing, the only option would be state-owned accommodation. Marx and Engels believed that, for communist society to be sustainable, workers had to produce as much as possible as efficiently as possible. This required a workforce that was highly disciplined and organized like an army. And as armies are housed in barracks provided by the state, so too, industrial armies would be housed in barracks-style, state-owned housing estates. Indeed, dormitories and accommodation blocks with communal kitchens – and little privacy – became a standard feature of urban planning in the wake of the Communist takeover in Russia.[Sparta]

Obviously, this system of state-owned housing also severely restricted freedom of movement, which once again shows why communism - and Fabian Socialism leading to Communism - is a totalitarian system that is unacceptable to lovers of freedom and democracy.

You explained all that very well! And we can go back to Sparta and Athens to understand the issues.

It is mind blowing for me too. Maybe the fun after will be that human being ensured that there is nothing after death could learn new ways to discover happiness and how should persuade it. But maybe it's the opposite a total chaos in human physicism. I don't know either. But indeed I agree that quantum actually indicates that everything energy. And I have a sense that this universal energy that connect everything might be connected in human soul and all the things we have inside us and we can't describe it with words or see it but we are still sure there are there! Anyway It might be all wrong it's just what I sense — dimosthenis9

I am so thrilled to have DVDs of John Edwards communications with the deceased, much as he did in his TV show "Crossing Over". It is impossible for me to believe he is not connecting with those who crossed over.

There are several life-after-death books and this one, "Dead Men Talking" looks particularly interesting to me, because it questions religious leaders' ability to manage this time in history, and I have heard other stories like the ones described here. Like does the religious community have all the information of spiritual truth?

I also believe some people who have crossed over have communicated through me. My deceased mother warned me of a life-changing event and that things would come out okay. A friend's dead child used me to give his mother a message. A dead friend gave me messages with a bird and the electricity in an elevator both messages came in the same time frame on my way to my apartment. Another came from a friend's husband and it could not have been anything other than a message from him to her because only she could decode the message and I had no idea why I was thinking "red" and "bucket". I just knew I had to ask her if those words made any sense to her and I was shocked when she said there was a red bucket used for trash in his room. So much like John Edwards' readings, where he has a thought but does not know the significance of that thought until the person he is doing this with decodes the meaning.

so many people have become debilitated. — Jack Cummins

That is for sure and is especially so for older people who are slipping into dementia and dying. My job as a Senior Companion is on shut down, but the residential retirement housing and nursing homes are opening up. They have vaccinated everyone willing to be vaccinated and Senior Companions were required to be vaccinated. Our president is telling us we are a low-level risk. But my county we are in a high-risk level and I can not visit my people. Two of my clients are rapidly going downhill! Physically and mentally the elderly are in higher risks because of isolation than they are in risk because of the virus. This is eating me up. I feel so helpless against what the isolation is doing to them. I have never seen people decline so fast!