No one has to read what I have to say, and if the replies are not respectful I will not read them.

Male and female brains are “wired” differently, to use that old cliche.

“Male brains are structured to facilitate connectivity between perception and coordinated action, whereas female brains are designed to facilitate communication between analytical and intuitive processing modes”.

https://www.pnas.org/content/111/2/823

Given that it makes sense that both genders should cooperate with one another rather than dominate. It’s why the emancipation of women is so important to the development of a society. — NOS4A2

There is hope! Thank you so much for turning to science. We need a lot more of that. And thank you for suggesting it is okay for me to be a woman and to rely on a man to do what men do best. I really have no desire to give up being a woman, nor to compete with men. I do believe working together can bring out the best in both of us and manifest a better future. Imagine children growing up in homes where mothers and fathers love each other and enjoy working together for the good of the family.

I think you're bang on that "going online to have an argument about something abstract" is something that men are more socialised to accept, seek out and revel in. We unfortunately don't keep collaborative and exploratory discussions going long on here, and it's very hard to keep oneself exploratory and collaborative when someone is going to come along and treat it like a fight anyway.

The topic of raising the bar for post quality comes up sometimes, as does lowering the bar for moderating people getting combative. I think we usually err on the side of inaction for a few reasons, (1) it would make many posters unable to contribute and (2) policing the urge to show someone that they are wrong on the internet on an internet forum devoted to arguing about weird shit seems fruitless.

But I do regret that the aggregate effect of this inaction is that we aren't cultivating an environment where exploratory discussions are more common. Always open to suggestions. — fdrake

Aaliyah! Just as I was giving up any hope of this discussion being what I was hoping for, you come along and give me hope.

I can totally appreciate not keeping collaborative and exploratory discussions going for long because they are exhausting! The thinking requires a lot of energy. Unlike the reactionary, kneejerk fighting than is common.

I have deep concerns about judgments of raising the bar because whose standards would rule? That is a large part of the problem I want to discuss. I am thinking the male standard leads to very narrow thinking? The requirement of staying on topic prevents anyone from considering the bigger picture, and it is my concern this keeps us in a constant state of conflict, heading towards war, and prevents the expansion of consciousness that could lead to peaceful resolutions.

As you said" we aren't cultivating an environment where exploratory discussions are more common".

Suggestion- find more people who can handle this discussion. Talk about language and how we think. Talk about consciousness and how to expand consciousness. Talk about the importance of this discussion to our future and a New Age with such a different consciousness the people of the future can not relate to our barbaric past.

End women's liberation that does not liberate women but makes being feminine taboo and forces us all to conform to the male standard. An evil plot that does not make men any better than they have been. :lol:

It is possible, though I don't know that there is good evidence to support it. All thinking individuals have already been socialised to an extent, so it's almost impossible to figure out how they'd think without their socialisation. — Echarmion

It took me a couple of posts to get no one seems to appreciate matriarchy is female domination, female leadership, and there are some really good things about matriarchies.

One proof that females think differently is the skyrocketing number of bills passed to take care of children.

Anthropology is one science that studies animals and humans to get at what is natural, and also anthropology does cross-cultural studies. I don't know what the name of the field that studies hormones but that certainly should be taken into consideration in a study of human behavior and gender differences.

When I did a college paper about middle-age women, I came across a study of language and social positioning. That study really got my attention because I could so relate to being a domestic woman struggling to do college work that is very male-dominated! My chauvinistic professor rejected my research on women that was done by women and was not the abstracts. He only accepted papers that were less than 10 years old and in the abstracts. He was perhaps the most ignorant of all my professors. On the last day of class, some older women who audited the class delicately ranked him over the coals for his ignorance of how to help older women. I don't think there is a good understanding of the importance of women's work nor of the language differences, and I am loosing hope of this thread helping me develop my thoughts.

What almost happened in the US, electing a woman to the presidency? In matriarchies, women rule, right.

I think such generalizations as "female mind" / "male mind" are not very useful. Individuals think. Assuming an individual thinks a certain way because of their sex is foolish, and sexist.

The mirroring of human societies to animal societies is something I steer away from, unless one desires to be an animal rather than a human. I desire the opposite.

When answering the question "who should dominate?", perhaps the question that first needs to be answered is, why should anyone ever be dominated in the first place? — Tzeentch

:kiss: Yes, I am sexist and you assume that is wrong? Why? What if it is based on science and an appreciation of yin and yang? Sure under pressure women can behave like men, but is that desired?

Oh my, if you want to ignore anthropology and related sciences, we are in trouble. I don't know how any good can come out this.

Why should there be a leader and submission to the leadership? Because I ship, an industry or a nation without strong leadership is in big trouble. With that said, it is extremely important to know the qualities of good leadership and avoid mistaking a tyrant for good leadership. Tyrants who appeal to the masses can lead to thousands of people dying because of the ignorance and ego of the tyrant. Democracy is supposed to prevent that from happening, while assuring strong leadership, but it can not prevent that unless the masses are well educated, and the culture supports democracy, not Wrestlemania mentality. This is really tricky!

:snicker: Whoops

This post didn't come out right.

I would answer that in the affirmative but I don't think any moderator would agree with that.

I am sure there are better words for what I want to say. That is why I started this thread. It is not so much about what is said as it is about how it is interpreted. I think men and women interpret things differently or organize their thinking differently.

Moderators are prone to see a challenge to their authority, rather than an effort to be understood. I think many times disagreements are about interpretations. Such as trying to help a nation eradicate a disease when the people we are trying to help distrust us and think it is our intent to sterilize them or harm them. Mods who use guns in their avatars see bad guys to shoot down because that is what they are looking for. A teacher will have a different interpretation.

What rules a man emotion or reason? If reason, how do the people of a society get their reasoning?

- ↪Athena

I have absolutely no idea. This seems to me to be an empirical question; so I'm not sure that I can comment on it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What are the circumstances that shaped Hobbes' consciousness?

- ↪Athena

You will have to expand on this question. What do you mean by 'consciousness'? Consciousness of what?

Yes, Hobbes says an authority is the only way to suspend the war of all against all.
He is also a Monarchist who dismisses forms of the Republic that would presume to provide such authority as is needed to stop that war.
The two ideas are obviously intertwined but are not identical.
Unless you agree with Hobbes on the matter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ↪Valentinus

This is an accurate description of Hobbes' view, but I'm trying to ascertain whether the example he provides really serves to establish this conclusion. — Alvin Capello

Well for sure anthropology does not support Hobbes's opinion that authority over the people is the only way to maintain a civil culture. Culture is the determining factor, not a hierarchy of authority. It appears to me that Hobbes's opinion was based on Christian mythology.

Hobbes's consciousness was shaped by the Christian cultures he experienced in Britain and France and not by living in India or China or among tribes in North America, as all our different consciousnesses are shaped by what we personally experience. Some of our individual consciousness is private and some is shared, some of it is in our subconscious and some of it we are aware of. Philosophy demands that we think about what we think and that improves our awareness of ourselves and others, but our consciousness is different depending on where we grow up and what we experience in a culture and at that time in history. We can not think and have the consciousness of people 200 years ago.

Anonim, you might find more agreement with Hinduism than God of Abraham religions.

Hindu cosmological view
Many Hindu philosophies mention that the creation is cyclic. According to the Upanishads, the universe and the Earth, along with humans and other creatures, undergo repeated cycles (pralaya) of creation and destruction.
Hindu views on evolution - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Hindu_views_on_evolution — Wikipedia

To me people aren't born evil. Circumstances make them evil. If the circumstances are not appropriate for them to be good. They will be bad most likely. If you are fair, if you say that you are fair and tell people to be fair, you would prepare a fair exam for everyone. If you create a tree and tell a human not to eat that trees fruit. That person will eat it. And if you are fair you won't fire him from heaven and send him to world. And punish all humanity because of a man that ate a fruit. — Anonim

Quite clearly that is about being human, not a god. I think science agrees with you about circumstances making us good or evil, not the fact that we are born human and the first humans displeased a god. It is highly unlikely there was ever a Garden of Eden where a god walked with humans. This is to say, the God of Abraham religions advance a false notion of being human. I am confident that our nature is the result of evolution and all our decisions would be better if they were based on science instead of mythology.

What chains us is our needs and wants in the first place which is rooted in being born in the first place. — schopenhauer1

Wanting a faster and more powerful computer or car or a larger and more elegant home has what to do with being born? Is it our birth or what we are born into?

That's surely true, but the distinction between anarchy as chaos is not salient to the issue at hand. I'm just wondering whether Hobbes' example might not lead to an unintended conclusion for him. — Alvin Capello

What are the circumstances that shaped Hobbes' consciousness?

Thus, it would seem to me that Hobbes has not managed to escape the specter of anarchism. Indeed, what he has done is provided yet another reason why we should want to be anarchists. — Alvin Capello

What rules a man emotion or reason? If reason, how do the people of a society get their reasoning?

A koan is meant to make you unmeasurable. I feel like everyone is turning from the East and moving to Greece lately on this forum :( — Gregory

Why are you unhappy about that?

The mainstream media has painstakingly created an amazing system of propaganda where nothing is ever looked at critically, with nuance, or for very long, just constant noise from which the important messages can be imprinted on people's brains (from sponsors and elite centers of power); that Trump is easily able to manipulate to his benefit as the system is optimized to provide a platform for elites (which Trump qualifies as part of the club) and is designed above all to serve the interests of brands, which Trump is. Within this incoherent noise, it's impossible to make simultaneously the points "yes, China committed an international crime by covering up a potential pandemic; yes, Trump committed a treasonous offense in diminishing the US's capacity to meet a pandemic, "defend the fatherland", for corrupt motivations of filling the government with compliant sycophants and also a treasonous offense of ignoring the intelligence once it was available in order to protect a foreign entity, the stock market, from harm (however shortsighted that attempt was); yes, Trump is trying to tap into that frothy fountain of irrational racism to distract his base from looking at Trump's actions and words during this situation; yes, China has been committing international crimes by tolerating trade in endangered species, which may or may not be tied to this pandemic; yes, the leaders of Europe are simply clueless duffusses (who also could have acted when Trump was not acting, and could have invested in pandemic prevention when Trump was cutting, and could have put economic pressure on communist China to not undermine the entire capitalist system ... like, almost as if they want to own all the means of production, outflank shortsighted greedy capitalists pigs and, like, almost hold the world for ransom in some sort of neo-colonialist inversion or something, like, almost as if) when those European bureaucrats aren't corrupt, which is often, but luckily a whole bunch of our European leaders are just spineless idiots and can be corralled into doing something not so stupid every once and a while." — boethius

The book "Empire of Illusion" by Chris Hedges begins with an explanation of the Wrestlemania mentality and comparing it to our political reality. Does everyone know Trump took part in Wrestlemania?
What kind of civilization would want a man like that to represent them around the world as their president?

I ask that question because I think we are in this mess because we have educated for this since the 1958 National Defense Education Act. The US has used the same playbook that put Hitler in power.

That preparation for a fascist mentality includes campaigning technics used by the NAZI and leading to the corruption of our media and politics.

David S. Broder's book "Democracy Derailed- Initiative Campaigns and the Power of Money" helps us to understand the money media problem. We seemed to have no immunity to being emotionally manipulated.

And those who respond to every problem with prayer instead of reality, are a serious part of the problem created by education for technology that left moral training to the church. A huge mistake!

Interesting questions. Without knowledge there is no logic for even logic is learned. We are born only with the potential for learning.

To mind one's own business is the basic lemma in ruling your own confines, which is the prime function in a functioning society. It is only within those confines that we have the emphatic ability to actually care for each other. If you are not interested in my business you should simply not mind it, lest you cannot care for what it might entail and will thus loose providence on your own power. I did. I care. I will not argue for your sake but I will happily teach you anything on the subject of divinity if you present to me humility before it. — Eleonora

okay, I see.

It is not apples and oranges. The God of Abraham is the same God in all three religions. He is a jealous, revengeful, fearsome and punishing God. The Bible is salted with statements like this

Nahum 1:2 ESV / 26 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful
The Lord is a jealous and avenging God; the Lord is avenging and wrathful; the Lord takes vengeance on his adversaries and keeps wrath for his enemies.

So what if the Quaran might say the same thing slightly differently. That does not equal worshiping a different God. I stress the point because back in the day that is how people thought. What made us different was Hellenism.

Did you tell me to mind my own business?

Our insecurity, tribal natures and reliance on law. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

We take being civilized for granted and that is a big mistake. I hope we learn better because if our economy crashes before we understand what makes us civil, the consequences could be very ugly.

God did not become a loving God until our bellies were full. The tribe can be predatory and even cannibals. The tribe can own slaves and treat them like subhumans. I don't think we can count on our tribal nature to make us civil. For sure it is not insecurity and laws that make us civil. Look at what happened in Germany and Japan, and ancient China or the Aztecs.

Oh my, I see. You know what you know and that is not much, and it will not change unless you want to change it. I will leave you alone with what you want to believe.

Was that directed at me? Where then is the decision to your reference? I need a little more meat on my legs to justly answer it. — Eleonora

That question came after your quote, in the same post, so yes the question is directed at you.

You are explaining reality to us and I am asking what do know about the rest of the world, that justifies what you believe about civilization depending on a particular religion. I understand civilizations have depended on religions, but any religion will do. Why do you say only one religion can result in a civilization?

Ancient civilizations existed for thousands of years. Why do appear to deny this?

Well, if you twist the definition enough, you can claim anything. Maybe you want to argue this with your local muslim cleric... as you know, according to islamic doctrine, we are all born muslim, only we kuffar refuse to acknowledge that.... which is why Allah hates us. — Nobeernolife

Muslims do not hate us. How many of them do you know? There are fanatics in every religion who have some pretty awful ideas and there are normal people who have some pretty awful ideas and I think we can do better than this.

Is your beef with Muslims related to Israel?

PS
I see I misinterpreted your post. You said Allah hates us, not Muslims hate us. Sure God hates us so much He intended to destroy all of humanity in a flood. He hates us so much some believe He created a hell to torment us for eternity. Or He hates us so much He unleashed Satan on earth to torment us. I really try to be respectful, but those stories of Allah/God are not explanations of reality that I can respect.

No compromise. I do however concur about civilizations presuming to exist without Christianity. I do not recognize any to exist without Christ however. Were we to consider Christianity the Church of Christ, it is about to figure out where Jesus fits into the picture. Whether he exists or not is non-essential for whichever conclusions we might derive at. According to Christianity, be it the church of Christ or not - Jesus said: "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."; John 13:35. Whoever coined that phrase; is Christ in my opinion. Everything around it is mere happenstance.

So is there really civilization without Christianity? Be it by happenstance or a blessing by God. Being a Christian is about following Jesus and this is it. — Eleonora

And after studying the other religions how did you come to that decision?

Honestly? Jesus Christ - I reckon. I put all my hopes in that basket. — Eleonora

That is not how I believe. I think that belief is very problematic so I must speak against it, but I hesitate to do that because I know without that belief some people could not function. This is a real dilemma for me wanting people to have a better understanding of humans and a more helpful understanding or reality, and not wanting to hurt those who really need their faith in God, Allah, Jesus, Hindu gods. ect.. Can we compromise? There are civilizations without Christianity, right?

Hopefully to a consolation: I am sure to be at the cradle of an eternal civilization. We have much to consolidate ourselves with, but our wills are strong and intent on living together. We are gonna make it. — Eleonora

:chin: What do you think makes us civilized?

Quite obviously only that which benefits our survival can promote the life of our species and if we are ignorant and make bad choices, death is the consequence. I think at this point in time we can not be sure our species will survive another thousand years.

That is is correct. Empathy and unselfish behaviour exists in all evolved species that live in societies. — Nobeernolife

I am glad we could agree on something.

We have come a long way since Darwin. You might want to read "Science of Good and Evil" before you defend your argument that evolutionists can't explain our good and our bad behavior.

Now it is nap time. :yawn: Thinking requires more energy than most the things we do, and we programmed to not think too much.

A nonintellectual person is apt to have beliefs s/he does not question and goes through life reacting to everything based on the belief.

An intellectual person questions everything even what s/he thinks. This person searches for information and rethinks what s/he believes is true when a new thought contradicts an old one, or the new thought has the opposite effect of realizing a larger meaning of an old fact or seeing how one thing is related to another. Seeing the bigger picture. That is what enlightenment is about, gaining a greater sense of meaning, and the nontellectual person will never have that experience. On the other hand, the intellectual person will have more moments of enlightenment in the later years of life.

Evolutionists are having a hard time explaining why we are so good to each other. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Not true. We are good to each other for the same reason other social animals are good to each other. Our problem is not recognizing our limits that are biologically determined. It is when we attempt to function beyond our limits that we get into trouble, and civilizations are far beyond our biological limits and would not be possible without religion or a very good understanding of democracy.

Cabbage Farmer
231
The whole debate annoys me because if God wanted us to remain ignorant He could have designed our brains to be no different than the rest of the animals.
— Athena
Doesn't every sort of animal have its own sort of brain?

Aren't all the brains similar to all the others in some respect or other? And some more than others in this or that respect? — Cabbage Farmer

Our brains are the product of evolution. We being with the reptilian brain. The next layer is the evolved mammalian brain. Then comes the devolved cortex that is what separates us from the rest of the animals.

Doesn't it seem reasonable to suppose that the structure of our brains does indeed make it impossible for us to know some things and impossible for us to think about some things? — Cabbage Farmer

Absolutely! This is why I think it is so important to dump religious myths and deal with the reality of our evolution. Definitely our thinking is very limited, but we have far more freedom of choice than any other animal. Actually our survival depended on males getting as many females pregnant as possible, and the division of labor resulting in males and females evolving differently. Our survival depended on groups, not single unit families advocated by the Bible that was written by city dwellers. Competition and jealousy is instinctual and our morality evolved to reduce the tensions when we became better thinkers.

Is there some reason to suppose that minds like ours can "know everything" and "think about everything"? — Cabbage Farmer

The more we know, the more we know of what we do not know. What we know is extremely limited and we seriously need to respect that. What we think about is extremely limited. Proof, what do you know of bureaucratic organization and our liberty or lack of it? How much time have you spent thinking about that? Before you can even begin to think about that, there a few books you need to read so you know what there is to know. We have specialized because it is absolutely impossible for individuals to be experts on all things.

Is there some reason to suppose that something exists that "knows everything" and that can "think about everything"? — Cabbage Farmer

I used to contemplate that and the more I learn of quantum physics the less confident I am of such a consciousness. However, clearly matter reacts to matter and I think this forms a consciousness, but it is not a thinking consciousness as we have, any more than a worm reacting to sunlight is thinking as we think.

How should we characterize "knowledge of everything" and the capacity to "think about everything"? — Cabbage Farmer

We should not. We should not confuse having a lot of facts with having knowledge. To my way of thinking, a fact is not knowledge until experience gives us a sense of meaning.

I've heard that many of the birds that mate for life catch some action on the side now and then. Perhaps we should say in this regard they aren't so different from the humans who behave likewise. — Cabbage Farmer

No, we should not say that. The only other animal I know of that is as sexual as humans is the bonobo.
Birds do not mate until they have built a nest and their ability to build nests is restricted by nature. They can not overpopulate and they don't have sex for any other reason. For humans, sex is not just about reproduction but, as it is for bonobos, sex is also about bonding and social organization.

It's well established that chimps are among the nonhuman animals with something like a sense of fairness, compassion, community, friendship, and playfulness. They're intelligent problem-solvers with creative imagination and reliable memory. They form rational expectations informed by experience. They conceive ranges of alternative outcomes and adopt attitudes of expectation analogous to our attitudes of belief, wonder, doubt, and hope.

On the other hand, consider the peculiar atrocities and the irresponsible, selfish, and hateful acts committed by human beings every day. — Cabbage Farmer

Not all mammals are social animals that depend on the group, however chimps and humans are mammals that are social animals dependent on the group. I don't know of atrocities committed by humans being worse than the atrocities committed by animals. Our technology can make our actions more dramatic but I think the nature of the act is the same?

]

Does anyone have any other incites or what they like the most about this story. — christian2017

I feel confident that when the stories were first told they were not fiction, but when everyone who remembered the events died, the stories became fiction.

I believe Eden was in the area of Iran where geologists believe they have found the 4 rivers. The geologists also see evidence of a flood and a long draught. So we are told a goddess became angry when the river (water god) ate her plants (flood), and she cursed the river to death(drought). The river almost died (dried up) and a fox convinced the goddess to let the river live. Then the river asked the goddess to provide help so it could stay in banks and she made a man and woman of mud and breathed life into them. I don't believe we are made of mud, but this is a logical explanation of our purpose, to keep the river in its banks.

"The Sumerian word for rib is ti, and the rib-healing goddess came to be called Ninti, which translates both as "the lady of the rib" and "the lady who makes live". This play on words does not work in Hebrew, but the rib did enter the Garden of Eden story in the form of Eve, the mother of the human race- "the lady who makes live". Interestingly the words Eden and Adam also appear in cuneiform. Eden means "uncultivated plain"; Adam, "settlement on the plain"."Time-Life Lost Civilizations Sumer: Cities of Eden".

That is telling us people who carried this story of a flood and a draught returned to the valley when things returned to normal and they returned to cultivation the plane and this time they attempted to control the flow of the river.

My posts carry a knife? What is that even supposed to mean?? — Nobeernolife

Okay, I will try this again.

I do not know what you prattling about — Nobeernolife

Do you see a cutting remark in that quote? I could be wrong, but that appears to be a disrespectful comment, a cutting remark. That is what I mean by your post carry a knife. Often they come with cutting comments.

I think you missed the point. I don't know about you but I find it very hard to focus on the subject when I want to lash out at someone. I also I know I like myself much better when I can do that, than when I regret something I said. This is about being a better person, and the better human beings we become, the more good we can contribute and the less harm we do. Attacking people will not improve us or them. Focusing on the reasoning can improve both.

What is important for a person can be what is true. The culture wars are wrapped around that connection. Being a progressive is about embracing a better way to do things and developing a more just society. It also is about the connection between the personal and the political that is a the heart of the different iterations of "Christianity."

One of the interesting elements of Elaine Pagels' book about the Gnostic Gospels is that the demand for inclusion by the church was not just about all the bad things it produced. A vision of the universal seems to be a terrible thing in many ways. But sorting out what should be embraced or rejected on that basis is exactly what the connection between the personal and the political needs to struggle with. — Valentinus

Now that is a good post. I am saying so with the hope others will follow your example.

You make me ponder your thoughts, and I notice I am doing so with my immediate concern for my sister who has been evicted because she will not stop caring for the homeless. No one cared about her activity until the pandemic hit and the risk of mingling with others has gone sky-high. I love my sister and I support what she is doing, but this morning I woke with the awareness that she is putting the homeless in greater risk by insisting on mingling with them. Especially with no home, she can not keep herself clean and this escalates the risk to herself and everyone else.

I want to make a point here. My sister is judging herself and everyone else with a value that we should not turn our backs on vulnerable people. I agree with her that ignoring the needs of the people she helps is equal to a neighborhood hearing a woman scream for help and looking out their windows to see that she is being beaten, and doing nothing because they do not want to get involved. That is obviously a human wrong and we are obviously committing this wrong. However, if we judge the circumstances, and that she is a risk to herself and everyone else, including the people she wants to help and her family, then what is right and what is wrong is different. Our present reality demands a different action.

I have concerns that religion leads to judging people. Science leads to judging circumstances. Perhaps we want to be mindful of these different judgments? Moral thinking is avoiding harm and that is a balance of human values and science.

“God's law is 'right reason.' When perfectly understood it is called 'wisdom.' When applied by government in regulating human relations it is called 'justice.”
― Marcus Tullius Cicero — Cicero

For those who don't already know, for Cicero god's law is nature or universal law, not the stories told by Greeks or written in holy books.

Reading comprehension? I did not find "fault in the poster", I said the reference that he posted does not match the claim. Nothing to do with culture. — Nobeernolife

Hum, that is true, but for some reason, your posts seem to carry a knife.

I do not know what you prattling about. — Nobeernolife

That is not an innocent statement and I do not enjoy such cutting remarks. They are like a cloud ruining a sunny day.

Yes the Roman Papacy really sucks.

Do you believe in aliens? — christian2017

Wow, what are you thinking? That seems to be an insult, not a reasonable argument? Is it your intention to dismiss reason and insult someone? It requires a lot of effort to stick reasoning and I am sure you do want to do better.

I do not know what you prattling about. You claimed that the pope at the financed Nazi death camps, and the "reference" you provided described something different. I was simply asking to cut down on hyperbole and use more clear language.
And whatever Catholic priests did in Croatia, it does not change the fact that the Muftii of Jerusalem was advising Hitler and recruiting muslim Nazi SS regiments. — Nobeernolife

Perhaps your post would be more pleasant if you understood what we can understand depends on what you already know. When people are from different cultures are trying to communicate, what they know will be different, and these people may have trouble understanding each other. Stop finding fault in the poster, and take this cultural difference into consideration. Because you are not understanding people that does not mean without question they are doing a poor job of communicating. Politely ask more questions or politely explain your different preceptive from your culture or study of history and be tactful.

Suicide stats belie this. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Just this morning while playing a word game I realized "belie" is part of the word "believe". That seems to indicate whose words are part of the consciousness of the "fruit of knowledge".