This is my last day of work until life returns to normal. The measures taken to prevent the spread of coronavirus have made it impossible for me to visit my elderly clients and take them places. Two are in a building for older people and only residents can enter. All their activities have been canceled. They are pretty restricted to living alone in their very small apartments. I think this is a huge mistake! And I am wondering what in blazes I will do with all the time I have I will have?

Thank goodness for the internet and this forum, and the gardening I can do. A good side is there is much less traffic and I can enjoy driving again. :grin: I don't worry about walking through stores because so few people are in them. It is almost like I have the whole world to myself. :lol:

You wrote: "If you know of the first few popes, you will know how decadent and immoral those popes were. They make Rasputin look like a saint."

So I gave you a list of the FIRST 12 POPES (more than just the first few)...and asked you what made them decadent and immoral.

Now you are accusing them of atrocities that occurred CENTURIES AFTER THEY WERE DEAD.

Not a single person on that list (the first 12 popes) had ANYTHING to do with witch burning or inquisitions.

Man up!

Simply acknowledge that you were talking out of your ass when you made that accusation.

Or...continue the bullshit.

It's kinda cute. — Frank Apisa

You might want to read the book "Jesus Wars" by Philip Jenkins. The history of Christianity is full of conflicts and power plays, not so different from Republican presidents wiping out all the achievements of Democrat presidents one pope would wipe out the work of the previous pope. What happened was not at all better than the witch hunts and the witch hunts are the direct result of ignorance and that ignorance was the result of destroying the pagan temples that were places of learning and transmitting the knowledge that gave us modernity when it was rediscovered during the renascence.

It amazes me that Christians appear to know nothing of religious history but have a complete fantasy of their religion.

You are the guy who made the assertion about the first few popes.

I furnished you the names of the first 12 popes.

Now you are asking me to do the job of meeting YOUR burden of proof?

You are new to this, aren't you? — Frank Apisa

What is the point of that argument? :lol: I think you two got sidetracked by an argument that doesn't really matter.

What might matter is the evolution of our consciousness and how concepts came to be and moved from one area to another and blended and diverged. All religions are built on past religions and calling one set of concepts "myths" and another "religion" creates a delusion that we need to destroy.

You and I have very different points of view. Let us celebrate the gods and goddesses who greatly increased our knowledge with the different points of view and arguing.

On one thing we agree. Reason is better than religion. If I may, I want to talk about how we are taught to think. That is NOT what we are taught to think, but how. I refer again to fast and slow thinking, with fast thinking being reactionary and not exactly thinking. People who focus their lives on religion, tend to be reactionary thinkers. Everything is filtered through their belief system and what is not agreeable to their belief system is rejected without thought. That is the reaction.

I wish I could remember the exact page in my very old logic book from a different time when we were not so sure of themselves, so I could quote it. It stresses we should never be too sure ourselves because our knowledge is very limited. I would say that is especially so when we are focused on a religion rather than a philosophical "I don't know" and have the curiosity of child eager to discover something new. That is so different from "I don't question what I know because I know God's truth and if you don't agree with me you are wrong." Education for democracy has promotedfast thinking and discouraged slow thinking. My old grade school textbooks, warn against such closed thinking, again and again.

When I was young, the idea of being humble seemed a terrible thing but now I get it. Being a "know it all" is now my idea of terrible. :grin: If we see what is happening as in part worshiping youth and destroying respect of our elders, and education that leads to "this is right or it is wrong" thinking we might see a more militant approach to life then if we are not so sure of ourselves, and it is my life experience that "the more we know, the more we know what we do not know". We have specialized and narrowed our thinking far too much to have good judgment and we don't listen to our elders who know better.

Morale is, that high spirited feeling we get when we believe we are doing the right thing. Religion gives people that, and being pious gives people a sense of self-esteem. We are viewing secularism as lacking morality and this is a failure to understand democracy through the classics. We have a morale problem because we have a moral problem and we have a moral problem because we have an education problem!

You do know that secular law would say that Adam did not pass the mens rea test and was not guilty of anything because he had no evil intent or evil mind.

Every court on earth would say that Yahweh did a poor judgement and Adam was innocent.

Add in that you sing that Adam's sim was a happy fault and necessary to god's paln and your view falls apart.

If you were Adam, would you further Yahweh's plan and sin, or would you derail Yahweh's great plan and not sin?

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Wow, I like your argument! :clap: The God of Abraham is not a good god, and we have lived with Him and done terrible things and think this is our nature. So many have assumed the truth of the Bible for so long, that they don't question the existence of such an unjust God, nor the rightness of their own bad behavior and the harm passed on generation after generation. Our child-rearing has been damaging and our justice system is not justice. And oh do these people love to point their fingers at others and say how bad they are.

There were a number of testimonies that got labelled as "Gnostic" by the "Church Fathers."
The orthodoxy that shut out all but one view was not concerned by the differences it dispensed with.
That suggests the matter of forming the authorized view was only concerned with putting down anything that differed from it in any way.
That explanation does not require pitting one narrative against another. The demand to have only one story wiped out the other ones as part of enabling the growth of power in a secular world. — Valentinus

What is obvious to me is the power of having special knowledge. This power is even greater if it is believed to be sacred knowledge. It becomes even greater when there is only one god, only one truth. Democracy is an imitation of the gods who argued with each other until they had a consensus on the best reasoning. None of those gods had absolute power and each one had his/her point of view.

I like men and I have no desire to rule, but I do want to be heard and respected. To me, a man and a woman are like a right hand and left hand. One has to dominate but if they don't work together and can not coordinate there is a serious problem. :lol:

Now what I said can be a little tricky when men have to be macho and if a man is insecure and feels like he must prove himself and be in control then, of course, there will be problems. I think Greek and Roman men had a problem and that the Etruscans may have gotten things right. Accepting the balance of yin and yang may not lead to the power and glory of Rome, but could perhaps lead to a successful civilization, as long it doesn't have a neighbor like Rome or invading nomadic people.

Perhaps this could be brought back on topic? What would be the characteristics of an ideal ideology?

When life is good, and a man and woman respect each other and work together, no one needs to be a god. :wink:
.

There is another thread along the same line as this one, but different folks are in this one so will bring up the philosophy problem here too.

The democracy the US had depended on literacy in Greek and Roman Classics. The US transmitted a culture for liberty and democracy with an education based on the classics. However, interest in the Military-Industrial Complex and the having the strength of our enemy, lead to replacing the Greek and Roman Classics with German philosophers, Starting with the build-up to the first world war, it was Hegel and Nietzsche who grab the consciousness of Germany. It might behoove us to pay attention to the philosophical differences between the classics and German philosophy and pay attention to how the US has blended religion with government and thrills at believing the Power and Glory of God is the Power and Glory of the US.

Oh dear, I am not in favor of women ruling! I am thinking of all those women who worship Trump! Talk about wanting a sugar daddy, that is exactly what these women want! I have a Christian friend who almost swoons when she speaks of what a good Father to our county Trump is.

How about the Disney movie Lion King that associates lions with the ruling class and hyenas with the mass that must be kept under control? There is no way Ben Franklin and Jefferson would be taking their family to that movie and walking out talking about its great values!

You have missed something extremely important and have no reason to be aware of what happened because you live in a different country. However, we should be aware that the US had a liberal education based on Greek and Roman classics, and with the 1958 National Education Act came to a shift away from the classics, favoring German philosophy, especially Hegel and Nietzsche. My post are too long and don't get read, so I will stop here and hope someone picks up the ball and runs with it.
I will be hugely disappointed if people in a philosophy forum do not respond.

It is urgent that we understand why Christians have again formed into a life-threatening fascist state. Nations from time to time need psychoanalysis just as humans do because stuff gets stuck in their subconscious and takes over without awareness of what is driving the train of thought and action. Surely most Christians today would not agree with Hegel about the state, while at the same time they are acting as though they completely agree with him. That is, like the Germans, they are not drawing a line between religion and government but as Hegel has argued believe their nation and the power and glory of God are one and the same thing. It is the subconscious driving the train of thought and action, we need to bring this is to conscious awareness. Some non-Christians might be surprised that they too are infected by this thought virus.

For Hegel, the State is the highest embodiment of the Divine Idea on earth and the chief means used by the Absolute in manifesting itself as it unfolds towards its perfect fulfillment. Hegel argued that the State is the highest form of social existence and the end product of the development of mankind, from family to civil society to lower forms of political groupings.

The State is a superorganic whole made up of individuals grouped into local communities, voluntary associations, etc. These parts have no meaning except in relation to the State, which is an end in itself. The State can demand that its parts be sacrificed to its interests. Each man is subordinate to the ethical whole – if the State claims one's life then the individual must surrender it. Because everything is ultimately one, the collective has primacy over the individual. Hegel's State has no room for the idea of individual rights or a liberal theory of the State; instead it provides an ethical underpinning for totalitarianism. The State is an independent, self-sustaining, superorganism made up of men and having a purpose and will of its own.

http://www.quebecoislibre.org/05/051115-11.htm

Considering the citizens of the US can not name the characteristics of democracy and seem to think democracy came from the Bible, and they have no idea what morals have to do with liberty or democracy, I would say there is little hope of recovering the democracy they defended in two world wars.

Only when democracy is defended in the classroom is it defended. That is not a job the church nor the military can do. I get you all are concerned about the media, but hey, whose responsible for that? Only an educated population can protect our right to honest and unbiased news.

The cure can't come from the political establishment. It has to come from The People, or it won't happen. — Bitter Crank

Thanks Bitter Crank, but without education preparing the people to do that it will not happen. They are totally defenseless and think the best way to beat Trump is to have someone just like him running against him. Even if the Democrats won with such a person, the state of the union would not improve. We need a new revolution, one that occurs in the media and schools to save our democracy. There are new books coming out that may wake us up, but I am afraid that will not be enough.

Intelligent though scares the hell out of Christian men and the women who dream of some sugar daddy to protect them. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Okay, you are really pushing things, :grin:

The 2012 Texas Republican Agenda was to prevent education in the higher-order thinking skills. Teachers had to take Texas to the supreme court level to put a stop to them being forced to teach creationism as equal to science and use science books that treat creationism as equal to science. Texas Republicans are responsible for the election of Eisenhower, Reagan, and Bush, and they support Trump.

SUPPORT PRESIDENT TRUMP - Republican Party of Texas
https://www.texasgop.org › support-president-trump
SUPPORT PRESIDENT TRUMP. Sign Up for Updates. Enter your email address*. CAPTCHA. This iframe contains the logic required to handle Ajax powered ... — Texas GOP

Our failure to be aware of what Christians have done to our democracy and what they are trying to do, is perhaps the worst reality the world has ever faced. Germany was a very small country with very limited resources compared to the US that has adopted the German model of bureaucracy and German model of education for technology for military and industrial purposes. Does that answer the question in the title of this thread?

A fascist religion would not have it any other way. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

OMG I love you! :love: Where do you come from? What lead you to that awareness? When the National Defense Education Act (1958) was enacted we replaced our liberal education modeled after Athens education for well rounded, individual growth and good moral judgment, with the German model of education for technology for military and industrial purposes and left moral training to the Church. Now Trump is our president and he is the only person we need to govern us, just as the kings of the Bible. :zip:

To live infinitely, would be the most boring existence, I think, and would leave us all wishing we could die. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Achilles in Homer's Iliad said that the gods envy us because we are mortal: any moment could be our last, and this makes everything more beautiful. “You will never be lovelier than you are now. We will never be here again”.Jun 17, 2017
The Gods – are they really jealous of us? - The Joy of Living
https://thejoyofliving.co › Blogs & Newsletters

I do not see any evil in nature. To be evil, nature would need to show intent to harm. Nature only shows that it supports all life and does not care who the winners or losers are. It cannot as it is not sentient. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I totally agree with you, but I think we are engaging Christians and I want to stress science has done more for us than religion in terms a religious person might grasp.

We default to cooperation which gives good results all around and only do evil to the losers of competitions when we choose to compete. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I think Cicero would enjoy that explanation. :up:

Religions just screw up on the definition of sin. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I agree with that. I believe Cicero was correct to say we are compelled to do the right thing when we know what that is. In the US, liberal education, that is education based on being literate in Greek and Roman classics, promoted the idea that bad judgment is the result of ignorance. I think evil is the product of ignorance. When we understand disease is spread by polluted water, we avoid drinking the polluted water. We don't go looking for the witch or drive the Jews (Muslims) away, making a bad even worse. Ouch, :grimace: this reasoning does not appear to be the dominating reasoning of the US today. I think that is a problem of leaving moral training to the Church with a history of persecution and war.

Be we created by a god or nature, we are all doing exactly what we were created to do. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I strongly disagree with that. For evidence of why that idea is incorrect, I offer an explanation of "fast and slow thinking. This google page provides links https://www.google.com/search?q=fast+and+slow+thinking&rlz=1C1CHKZ_enUS481US483&oq=fast+and+slow+thinking&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l6j69i65.8577j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 I like the youtube explanations but don't know the forum policy of posting them, so I leave everyone with a choice.

Our disagreement rest on the whole notion of our understanding of being human. Wetting ourselves is natural and we learn how not to do that. We can all develop virtues that separate us from the animals, and turn us into thinking beings, not just creatures of nature.

That view explains why Jesus saw heaven right here and right now at all points in time. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

That is a Hellenistic notion. The Greeks wrote the first Bible and filled it with their understanding of what is so. Augustine picked up this paganism and Christianized it. That is, the Romans took control of editing the Bible and they were weak on Greek reasoning, and later Augustine who was influenced by the "pagan" thinking, brought it back into Christian consciousness. The Roman influence has the new testament telling us God wants us to honor Him by being good slaves. That is totally opposed to the old testament explaining Jews can own slaves but should not be slaves because of the relationship with God. I think the Roman influence on Christianity is problematic but that is for another thread.

Few, as he indicated, have the mentality to see it. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Augustine explains this awareness of knowing God is within and I am confident this a matter of growing up. When we are young it seems everything important is outside of us. We are as empty cups needing to be filled. In our later years, we think of ourselves as being filled with the knowledge of life, our cup is filled, and our thinking literally changes. We shift from seeking knowledge of life through experience, to contemplating the meaning of it all.

Rome was more materialistic than the Greeks, and the White Anglo Saxons Protestants who invaded North America, were not spiritual as the native Americans were spiritual. Those are very different consciousnesses and a man of Rome or under Roman influence, should not be judging the whole of humanity.

That assumes no other justification. — Hanover

Ah, one line of questioning that got Socrates into trouble went like this...

"Are the gods good?" The answer was yes.

"Is adultery good?" Everyone knew Zeus committed adultery and that was not considered a virtue.

So I ask does the Bible say God is a jealous, revengeful, fearsome and punishing God?

Is it good to be jealous, revengeful, fearsome and punishing, or is that the role model for an abusive husband and a terrible boss?

In another thread, there was an objection to Islam carrying the "eye for an eye" justice, but so did Judaism until Jesus. Quakers stay with the New Testament because the ideas of God and justice in old testament are not the God and justice they value. They favor Jesus as the word and God. That new way of seeing God and Justice is Hellenism. "The word" is English for logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe made manifest in the speech. As we understand it, so we manifest it. Mohammid was aware of Christianity and Judaism but did not have the culture of Hellenism, so their correction of the God's truth as the Jews understood it, was not the same as the Christian correction of God's truth as the Jews understood it.

How we interpret the Bible is a matter of concrete and abstract thinking, and also our knowledge of history.

If it is the case that there are alternative ways to listen to accepted understandings of text read by many people, shouldn't you be starting there? — Valentinus

That is a good place to start. We can think concretely or abstractly. If we think concretely we interpret things literally. In this case, there are demons and they can be seen fleeing a body as this is what the Bible says. Satan and demons being real entities with the power to affect our lives.

If we think abstractly, a demon is a fear or anger. These are psychological manifestations and are not entities.

Biblical terminology can be useful when we think abstractly and harmful when we think concretely and start hunting witches or become prejudice against a group of people with the notion they are not saved and are under the influence of God's curse (dark skinned people) or Satan. I have not been able to figure out how we are to know if it is Satan troubling us or God punishing us?

Here is the real way to salvation that Jesus taught and that Gnostic Christians have embraced. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Too bad the Bible didn't give us the information we need to survive on a violent planet with deadly diseases. I think science has done more to overcome evil than religion. And that Garden of Eden story is one of the worst stories ever written. If we let that story control us, we would still be in the dark ages hunting witches, instead of finding cures for disease.

As we have a world pandemic perhaps the sales of Bibles and silver crosses will go up? whoops, I forgot the holy water. We must be baptized in it to be saved.

Exactly. I would act morally whether or not legislatively required to. I internalize normative authority, as I'm sure do many people. Traditionally, the internalization of moral authority is viewed as a normal part of socio-psychological development. — Pantagruel

Traditional we educated for that, and the 1958 National Defense Education Act, ended that education.

Did you read the Cicero quotes and get this moral judgment is based on nature, not religion? That is, democracy is about searching for truth using scientific thinking, not "faith-based on mythology", and that search leads to good medicine and good government and is what made us great.

What is extremely important to us today is understanding why our president needs to be humble and honorable? Is a president someone who flaunts health precautions and speaks in favor of denial and carelessness, someone we want leading us now? Is he being a good example? Do we want our children growing up to be like him, and should money be the bottom line of all decisions, or are we having a moral problem?

Can anyone see, Iran and Muslims have grounds for saying we are Satan on earth, and why they are feeling far more pious and justified in opposing us because we no longer stand for a high morality? Since 1958 our bottom line has been military power and money. The values of the Military-Industrial Complex originated in Prussia and was adopted by the US, discontinuing education for good moral judgment and leaving moral training to the Church, and "authority" to those in power. Religion that has been behind one war after another. Our world image has changed and nations that were our friends now threaten us.

Can we talk about morals as Cicero did

“What is morally wrong can never be advantageous, even when it enables you to make some gain that you believe to be to your advantage. The mere act of believing that some wrongful course of action constitutes an advantage is pernicious.” — Cicero

It was morally wrong for the US to invade Iraq and doing so escalated wars and human suffering and the potential for a world war. A moral must include the future, and that must be more than 5 years. It must include more than what is good for the US at this moment in time. We are not thinking morally because public education stopped preparing the young for good moral judgment and left that to the Church. We now think Christianity invented democracy, and God favors us and His will is what we want and He will give us His "Power and Glory" to get it. I assume we should not take political discussion too far, but our image is no longer what it was. The world thought we would be the last nation to be a Military Industrial Complex and here we are, the strongest Military Industrial Complex on earth with China now right on our butts technologically and economically. The world expects much from us and we have a President who is making it very clear our focus is on our own interest, and that is not exactly a moral interest because it is only about our own interest. China has made it clear, it will play the power game with us. Russia has wanted to out-compete us. Too bad, the competition is not a moral one.

Here's the problem I have with your position in general - it is too ideo-centric. You don't seem to have a healthy sense of cultural/normative relativism. There is no limit to the possible number of ways to solve a problem and core institutions are precisely what need to be reformed from the bottom up. Democracy, socialism, these are just labels, not recipes. The solution required needs to unite many different domains, economic, social, spiritual, political. If the political dimension is going to be "democratic" then it will certainly have to be a different brand of democracy than I have seen in operation. I like the way many European democracies work, however, coalitions of parties. That seems to me a good model of co-operation. — Pantagruel

For the organization of democracy, that is not what this thread is about, except perhaps if we focus on the necessity of checks and balances and what is wrong with tyranny. That would be very relevant to this moment in time and the problem with trying to rule as though single-handedly a person can rule a country and get good results. The importance of democracy and moral choices is knowledge, and one man can not possibly have that breadth of knowledge essential to good government yet the US is now run by a President who has dismissed everyone who doesn't kiss his ass, and put in their places people willing to kiss his ass, even though they don't have merit for the job and certainly lack honor because those with honor are walking away. That is a Christian problem.

I would absolutely love to talk about the US adopting the German model of bureaucracy that is Prussian military bureaucracy applied to citizens, and what Christianity has to do with this problem, and the New World Order, or the Military-Industrial Complex Eisenhower of warned us about, but shouldn't that go in another thread?

Well, that was a great maneuver avoiding all my arguments and leading things off in a different direction.

The subject of this thread is morality. The reasoning for democracy comes from Greek and Roman classics. One of my favorites is the Roman Statesman Cicero. He was a must-read in the day of the forefathers of the US. This is the literacy that is essential to our liberty and justice and could there be any reason for arguing against that, or arguing this is not what our founders believed democracy is about?

“What is morally wrong can never be advantageous, even when it enables you to make some gain that you believe to be to your advantage. The mere act of believing that some wrongful course of action constitutes an advantage is pernicious.”

― Marcus Tullius Cicero

Glory follows virtue as if it were its shadow. Marcus Tullius Cicero
Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/marcus-tullius-cicero-quotes

Virtue is a habit of the mind, consistent with nature and moderation and reason. Marcus Tullius Cicero
Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/marcus-tullius-cicero-quotes

The function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil. Marcus Tullius Cicero
Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/marcus-tullius-cicero-quotes

Ability without honor is useless. Marcus Tullius Cicero
Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/marcus-tullius-cicero-quotes

Our character is not so much the product of race and heredity as of those circumstances by which nature forms our habits, by which we are nurtured and live. Marcus Tullius Cicero
Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/marcus-tullius-cicero-quotes — Cicero

His quotes are so good it is hard to know where to stop, but with that last one, I must say, our social and economic justice would be much better if we read Cicero rather than when people read the Bible with its notion of why we are less than noble. The God of Abraham religions are not good for democracy because its moral reasoning is not compatible with the reasoning for democracy. Followers of the Bible tried to manifest Saints, but I believe we are more liking to achieve human excellence with the Greek and Roman classics.

I have read the Koran and the Haddiths, have you? Obviously not, otherwise you would know that what I said is correct. Concepts like the sanctitiy of life, separation of religion and state, and neighbourly love do not exist in islamic teaching. I was simply stating a fact. — Nobeernolife

But you missed these verses.

From the hadith, the collected oral and written accounts of Muhammad and his teachings during his lifetime:

A Bedouin came to the prophet, grabbed the stirrup of his camel and said: O the messenger of God! Teach me something to go to heaven with it. Prophet said: "As you would have people do to you, do to them; and what you dislike to be done to you, don't do to them. Now let the stirrup go!" [This maxim is enough for you; go and act in accordance with it!]"

— Kitab al-Kafi, vol. 2, p. 146
None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.

— An-Nawawi's Forty Hadith 13 (p. 56)[33]
Seek for mankind that of which you are desirous for yourself, that you may be a believer.

— Sukhanan-i-Muhammad (Teheran, 1938)[34]
That which you want for yourself, seek for mankind.[34]

The most righteous person is the one who consents for other people what he consents for himself, and who dislikes for them what he dislikes for himself.[34]

Ali ibn Abi Talib (4th Caliph in Sunni Islam, and first Imam in Shia Islam) says:

O' my child, make yourself the measure (for dealings) between you and others. Thus, you should desire for others what you desire for yourself and hate for others what you hate for yourself. Do not oppress as you do not like to be oppressed. Do good to others as you would like good to be done to you. Regard bad for yourself whatever you regard bad for others. Accept that (treatment) from others which you would like others to accept from you... Do not say to others what you do not like to be said to you.

— Nahjul Balaghah, Letter 31[35]

As are other concepts fundamental to Western civilization, such as the sanctity of life or neighbourly love. Islam, for example, has none of those. — Nobeernolife

Whoo... where did you get that idea? For someone who wants me to respect all religions and not generalize, that sure seemed like a very US Christian thing to say! How many times have you read the Quaran and how many of your friends are Muslim?

:brow: And I was worried about offending you. No more worries about that. That was a hateful and wrong thing to say. It was so unbelievable that you would say that, I had to read and reread it several times to be sure that is what you said.

The objection to what we said about all religions being based on the golden rule, is your ignorance.

If you want to participate please get informed. You have to be a US Christian because you are repeating their false beliefs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

The game is not over yet. I think the pandemic will bring about changes and there is hope we will realize the democratic model for industry can greatly improve our economy and democracy! With the books coming out now, there is a good chance we willreturn education to education for democracy and that would be a huge improvement! I would love it if you responded to all my thoughts, not just the words you want to argue against. We can see the glass as half empty or half full and you are working on the negative while I am working on the positive and defending our democracy as I wish everyone would do. If you are right and I am wrong, then why should we support a very expensive military to defend our country. Morally it clearly would not be worth defending.

Cicero said it is our nature to make the right choice when we know what that is. In our past, those who dropped out of 8th grade to get a job, associated ignorance with bad choices, and this could be a national and private problem. It was their duty as citizens to be as well informed as they could be, so they could participate in civic organizations (unions, granges, fraternities), and government, to correct our problems and lead us to a nation of human excellence. WHEN WE THOUGHT LIKE THIS, WE WERE THE LEADER OF THE WORLD. We are no longer seen as the leader of the world.

Here is the introduction to a grade school history textbook first written in 1936 and reprinted in 1939 and 1942...

"The central purpose of this book is to make citizens better equipped to face realities. At every step the readers are made to see their relationship to everything that surrounds them. The role of people in every historical movement is made prominent so that the reader will understand his place and his importance in modern society, and accept his own personal obligation to be an intelligent and responsible citizen." America's World Backgrounds

This grade school text was written when we began mobilizing for the second world war....

"A democracy thrives upon criticism. When a free people, alert to change, studies its institutions to make them serve more richly the aspirations of the common man, it necessarily discusses the points at which improvements seem to be needed. On the public forum and in the national press interested citizens concentrate their attention upon the defects in the democratic pattern to the extent that a Martian observer might draw the conclusion that, in the opinion of its followers, democracy is a failure.

What the observer does not understand is that the public critics accept the fundamental principles of democracy so completely that they do not need argue about them...." Democracy Series

That last statement was true when we educated for democracy, we stopped doing that in 1958 and began educating the young for a technological society with unknown values. Our reality is very different today. Some changes have been good, but our lack of understanding of fundamental principles and believing the Christian myth that it gave us democracy, is wrong. It is seriously wrong. Our Christian Republic is not the democratic republic we inherited and defended in two world wars, and that is the result of the change in education.

Moral- only when democracy is defended in the classroom is it defended. And yes, democracy is about morality. Without that education, our morale is very weak. Morale, that high spirited feeling we have when we believe we are doing the right thing. The Spirit of America is dying. Just as the spirit of Jesus would die if churches turn to preparing the young for a technological society with unknown values.

The Golden rule is older than Christianity. Actually Christianity is Hellenized Judaism. We do not need religion for morals.

The Golden Rule in its prohibitive (negative) form was a common principle in ancient Greek philosophy. Examples of the general concept include: "Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." – Thales (c. 624 BC – c. 546 BC)
Golden Rule - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Golden_Rule

You do realize that the notion of all people being equal is a concept based on Christianity, — Nobeernolife

Do you realize in the US the South used the Bible to justify slavery? That war was so dreadful because both sides thought God was on their side.

At the beginning of the US, Catholics were not allowed to hold office. I have a quaint book about how the Catholics are trying to take over.

We have done better than Europe when it comes to persecution of the Jews, but a main reason for the US constitution declaring freedom of religion was Christians killing Christians. The Mormons faced terrible persecution.

I have to wonder if young Christians today know anything about history? They sure do not know that God and Satan were feared! There could be no Satanism with Christianity. The notion of a loving God and apparently forgetting the religion is just as much about Satan, is relatively new.

Lol, we don't have a democracy in the United States of America. — SonOfAGun

Very true. We have a Christian Republic, not a democracy.

The irony is that, in your devotion to democracy, you are prepared to defend the abstract ideal of democracy, despite the shortcomings of its implementation by specific individuals. Whereas you completely deny that exact same freedom and right to the ideal of religion. — Pantagruel

WHICH religion? You are still generalizing about "religion" which makes absolutely no sense. Also, where do you get the idea from that "Democracy is about discovering truth and basing life decisions on truth"`? You completely made that up, didn´t you. — Nobeernolife

Yes, belief systems that are based on fiction are problematic.

The notion that democracy is something very different, and is about discovering truth, comes from philosophy, the Greek and Roman classics. The idea also comes from an old grade school textbook series called the "Democracy Series" and other books written as we mobilized for the second war world, clarifying why our democracy must be defended.

Back in the day our democracy was defined like this...

"Democracy is a way of life and social organization which above all others is sensitive to the dignity of the individual human personality, affirming the fundamental moral and political equality of all men and recognizing no barriers of race, religion, or circumstance." (General Report of the Seminar on "What is Democracy?" Congress on Education for Democracy, August, 1939.)

There are usually 12 characteristics of democracy listed in the books and one of them is "The search for truth". Coming from math and the art of medicine, Athens was leaning more and more to scientific thinking. This was lost to us when Rome fell and it resurfaced during the Renaissance leading to the Age of Enlightenment. That is what Renaissance means, the return of that knowledge and reasoning. You know, the thinking the church suppressed and that eventually lead to modern sciences. Religion must be taken on faith, that is not the same as basing one's life on reason and demanding proof of evidence.

When the Protestants split for the Roman Catholic church and these different religious groups began killing each other and persecuting Jews do you think you would have taken one side over another or talked about religious tolerance? On what grounds would you defend heretics and those who promote religious lies and serve Satan? Is there a moral we can learn from that history-based on faith in God and Satan, not self-evident reason?

Your position smacks very much of the social problem that is criticized in the book I just started reading, Habermas' Theory of Communicative Action.

Basically a fallout of the Enlightenment, when people came to have an unreasonable belief in the inevitable superiority of the rationalist-reductive approach, inspired by Newton's accomplishments. Culminating in the dreary technical anomie of our modernist world.

"The progress of societal rationalization...turned out to be, according to Weber, the ascendency of purposive rationality....not a reign of freedom, but the dominion of impersonal economic forces and bureaucratically organized administrations"

So much for the ideal of democracy as an ideal of rational human excellence. — Pantagruel

Yeah! You know enough to make this a good discussion! :love: It isn't just that you know the enlightenment had something to do with democracy, and that high hopes became discouragement, but you did not attack me and questioned me instead. That is about how you think. Those who attack me are reactionary and that is not the kind of thinking that advances knowledge. It is pretty futile to argue with reactionary people. But you opened the door for a good discussion.

I think what is really important here is understanding how we think is just as important as what we think. The higher-order thinking skills must be taught because they do not come naturally. Unfortunately, in 1958 our public schools dropped the Conceptual Method and replaced it with the Behaviorist Method. Now our young lack the concepts of democracy and also the thinking skills needed for better thinking. They are reactionary and this has serious social and political ramifications.

I seriously what to argue for the education that we had, that was modeled after the education of Athens, for human excellence. We must allow for the reality of very few people getting more than an 8th-grade education until recently. Our education system was doing good if it could at least convince the young of the importance of education, but even if that effort succeeded, people didn't earn good wages and few could afford books. They did not have the media we have today. Mostly they were rural people and Christian. Let us look at our history and base our judgments on that knowledge. We have come a long ways, and I don't think those who felt discouraged would be disappointed if they could see us today. But, they would surely be alarmed by what the change in education has done to our consciousness.

Also, and this is very important, we did not know that much about how we think and how a child's brain develops. What we have achieved is amazing considering all the challenges our republic has faced. That is a republic in form, that once upon a time, had a culture for democracy and understood the importance of unions, granges, and fraternal organizations. For darn sure, without education for democracy, it is not known! We have a Christian Republic and that was not the goal of the enlightenment.

I'm curious what you mean by "secular" vs "religious" matter; in practice most of those popular dichotomies are false.

For example, the Common Law system evolved from older ones, including "religious ones", though most would call it "secular" and not belonging to any specific religion or "sect", despite the influence of Christianity and other systems such as Roman on its development. — IvoryBlackBishop

That is an intelligent question. It is a matter of where a person looks for truth in how things work and if a person is questioning the knowledge or going on faith. This is really as much about "how" people think as it is about "what" they think.

Come on this is a philosophy forum. We will get no where talking about the US or the UK unless we are talking about where the idea of democracy began and why some people were willing to risk everything to have a democracy, instead of a monarchy when Christianity taught God choose who will rule and who will serve, and going against the king is equal to going against God.

Excuse me for talking about something you don't know.

If you follow this link you might have a little better understanding of democracy and then we might have a discussion I might enjoy.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Aristotle+and+puruit+of+excellence&rlz=1C1CHKZ_enUS481US483&oq=Aristotle+and+puruit+of+excellence&aqs=chrome..69i57.26676j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

The irony is that, in your devotion to democracy, you are prepared to defend the abstract ideal of democracy, despite the shortcomings of its implementation by specific individuals. Whereas you completely deny that exact same freedom and right to the ideal of religion. — Pantagruel

Well of course. Democracy is about discovering truth and basing life decisions on truth. Religion is not. Democracy is about human excellence, religion might strive for that but the way it attempts to achieve that is very problematic because it is not based on truth.

No, the goal here is to argue whether thinking it is okay to bring more people into the world IS itself an ideology. — schopenhauer1

I thought we had an agreement that some people think about having children and some people do not?

For sure my decision to have children was intentional. For sure I thought I would not have the full experience of being a woman without having children. I was a virgin until marriage because I didn't want to risk having a child without a man to support us. I wanted to own a home and have money in the bank before having children. I thought a woman should be a full-time homemaker. Those are very traditional values that were strongly promoted by public education. I associate these values with democracy. But having the ideology of democracy was not the reason for having children. The reason for intentionally having children was to fully experience being a woman.

Unfortunately, I began my family with a man who didn't want to be a participating father. He just wanted to prove he was a man by having a son. From there he took no pleasure in being a father. He begrudgingly supported the family for several years, became alcoholic, went through rehab. and AA helped him put himself first. He abandoned the family to protect his sobriety. What was his idealogy?

Fascinating. You have completely failed to respond to point 1, that you have committed the fallacy of generalization, by employing the fallacy of misdirection.

Meanwhile, while you are not willing to allow religion to assume an idealized character, independent of the shortcomings of its adherents, you are more than willing to be an apologist for democracy.

Do you see the irony? — Pantagruel

Okay, I will try again. Which religion do you think is based on truth and nothing but the truth?

Yes, I am devoted to democracy and I don't see any irony in that. Please, explain the irony.

You should stop generalizing about "religion". There are very different religions out there, some more beneficial or dangerous than others. I.e. How many wars were fought on behalf of Jainism, Buddhism, or Bahaism? Can you spell zero?
Typically when people like you generalize about "religion", they are thinking about medieval Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. But that is not all there is. Generalizing about "religion" is like generalizing about "ideology".... as if all ideologies were the same.
So please stop doing that!
Thank you. — Nobeernolife

Which religion would like to rule the nation where you live? We may have a good discussion if you focus on the thoughts and not on me. :flower:

1. This attributes the faults of specific individuals who claim to be religious to religion itself. You might as well say "Speech creates a serious problem because some people lie." — Pantagruel

I don't think religion is about truth. I believe we evolved as all animals evolved and we are not specially made from mud by a goddess or god. Which explanation of humans a person holds strongly matters. and I have a strong preference for basing decisions on truth.

2. In what world is democracy rule by reason and dependent on moral reasoning? Certainly not this one. — Pantagruel

Democracy is an ideology. It is not universally understood and that is most certainly true in the US! The US is Christian and Christianity supports autocracy and the US is more autocratic than democratic. I doubt if anyone in the US can write 10 characteristics of democracy, while a professor in Syria, I met online, had a far better understanding of democracy than people in the US. When I praise democracy it sure is not the US I praise.

Also preference is most definitely not a thing derived from imperical science and that is the stance you are debating for. So I'm confused as to why I'm being told to provide evidence of my stance when yours is the more lofty reasoning? The biological need for information to survive only happens through new life. People have sex to create new life. All I'm saying is if modern theory of evolution is to be believed then instinct is what sex likely
drove procreation in the first place, even for us humans. — LuckilyDefinitive

Yes, "preference is most definitely not a thing derived from empirical science". If we rejoice about global warming and the pandemic sweep across the world or think it is terrible and must be stopped, it is a preference. Some see it as a sign of the last days and are thrilled they are proven right and Jesus is about to return. It depends on the lens we are looking through. Basing all decisions on money is another lense. :lol: some people may have bifocals and some people can't find their glasses.

The fact that any new life has to maneuver and "deal with" to survive, maintain, and entertain lest they die is an ideology in itself.. It doesn't matter what way of life (as repeated again). — schopenhauer1

Perhaps you are using an anthropological definition of ideology?

Ideology (Anthropology) ... The first use of the term refers to the system of social and moral ideas of a group of people; in this sense ideology is contrasted with "practice.
Ideology (Anthropology) - In Depth Tutorials and Information
what-when-how.com › social-and-cultural-anthropology › ideology-anthr... — what when and how

Image result for define ideology in sociology
Ideology is the lens through which a person views the world. Within the field of sociology, ideology is broadly understood to refer to the sum total of a person's values, beliefs, assumptions, and expectations. ... Ideology is directly related to the social structure, economic system of production, and political structure.Jul 3, 2019
Theories of Ideology in Sociology - ThoughtCo
https://www.thoughtco.com › ... › Sociology › Key Concepts
I didn't realize there are so many different ways to understand the word "ideology". — thoughtco

That seems to cover a group of people more advanced than primitive tribes. I would not except primitive people to put so much thought into their lives and without the thought, there isn't an ideology.

I understand the political ideologies but question the value of the anthropological and sociological use of the word. I am not sure it is helpful to make a word mean anything you want it to mean? Of course, tribes have their method of survival and at some stage, they will come up with stories, but an idealogy? I am not sure that is a good use of the word? I don't think believing we came out of the center of the earth is equal to the more formal political ideologies.

Anarchism.
Colonialism.
Communism.
Despotism.
Distributism.
Feudalism.
Socialism.
Totalitarianism.
More items...
List of political ideologies - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › List_of_political_ideologies — Wikipedia

I would say religions and ideologies are a step away from a primitive survival system with unquestionable truths. The story about the three sisters that tells people where to find water is just a story. For me, it does not become a religion or an ideology until people forget the reality-based meaning of the story and mistake the abstract story for the reality. Political and religious ideologies are not equal to the story of the three sisters that tells a person where to find water. Political and religious ideologies exist with no concrete reality. I think we walk down a troublesome path if we forget that.

The sociology definition or ideology is "the lens through which a person views the world". Knowing the three sisters is where to find water, is not a lens, it is reality. Thinking the abstract story is real, is seeing the world through a lens.

Not about one type of society versus another.. Only about having to navigate society (survival, maintenance, entertainment) in general. — schopenhauer1

What? It doesn't matter if it is apple or oranges? Try making an orange pie. :lol: Aren't we arguing the difference between dealing with reality or being lost in abstract ideas? Perhaps that is what is wrong today. People willing to kill for their religion/ideology and blind to reality.

That depends on the decinition. THe definition I used bases morality on a religion, and ethics simply as a societal standard. So yes, if you do not believe in religion, you can have ethics without morality. But of course if you use a different defintion, you get to a different conclusion. — Nobeernolife

That is a serious problem with religion. It totally screws up our understanding of democracy which is rule by reason and dependent on moral reasoning (cause and effect). From there it screws up every other notion of humanity and after screwing up every thought with false and superstitious ideas, it leads people to war. We live with a notion that we can not avoid war because it is in our nature, but what about the religious cause of war? So is wetting our pants in our nature, until we learn to control our bladders. Throwing tantrums is in our nature until we learn to use our words. The goal of adulthood should be learning to control our animal impulses and to live with a sense of social justice and reliance on reason. Really when the reasoning for democracy is understood, so is the advancement of humanity understood and religion stands in the way of that.

↪Athena Reason is not faith based. That is why we still have religion and science, and why they want to be distinguished as mutually exclusive. — LuckilyDefinitive

I see problems with religion. If Christianity stayed with the Bible and didn't claim everything good as Christian, that would help. Especially when it comes to morality and democracy. We really do not want to go back to the dark ages, and our progress did not come from the Bible. Especially our morality should not be left to religion! The US is having some serious problems because of the Christian myth of our democracy and the false notion that morals are a religious matter, not a secular matter. We should know without a doubt that a moral is a matter of cause and effect and virtues are habits we develop over a lifetime that help us be moral. Absolutely no religion required.