I don't quite understand your Christianity. You almost seem to be culturally christian, but less so on the supernatural (but not entirely absent?). Are your beliefs anything like Thomas Jefferson who took all the miracles out of his bible? That does not seem quite right.

If this does not seem overly personal, — ZhouBoTong

My up-bringing was quite conventional and I was raised as a Methodist, which is mainline Protestant. I have an abiding interest in Christianity, but I rejected the beliefs of Christianity as presented in the 3 creeds. This rejection took a long time to work out, because it was so central to my personhood. I may be an atheist now, but I do not hold a grudge against believers.

I sometimes come off as an oddball Christian because I don't believe in the religion I am discussing, even though I have some positive feelings toward it.

I had conflicted views about homosexuality and Christianity for a long time. Those conflicts wee resolved in favor of sexuality. So, if I couldn't be a Christian and a homosexual, then Christianity would have to go. That sort of choice is much less urgent now than it was 40 years ago, because some mainline churches have decided gays are OK.

But the Church accepting homosexuality was not enough.

I suppose I am a 'cultural Christian'. I don't believe in 'literal miracles' -- turning water into wine, raising people from the dead who were decidedly dead and starting to rot (Lazarus), or women getting pregnant with an incorporeal angel (the BVM).

People can be "good without god" as the atheist slogan says. I don't believe in a life after death, heaven or hell, god, resurrection, miracles, and so on.

That said, I don't feel the hostility that many atheists have toward Christianity and the various works of the church over the last 2000 years. There is a lot one could get torqued out over, but... life is short--a lot shorter at this point in my life than it once was.

Of course, they do this. In school I was not allowed to defend myself physically. The teachers, at least many of them would if they were attacked on the street. A fight between kids, both kids got suspended, period. Parents can give orders which children must follow. They on the other hand need not follow the orders of children. Police can decide to put me in the back of a car in handcuffs and cart me off overnight. I cannot decide to do that to them. They can even make and error but not be punished if they followed their rules. I cannot do it to them even in many situations where it would not be an error. There is no situation where I can kill a lot of people including innocent ones. Governments and military leaders can do this. I am mentioning examples where I think most people see this and most people consider this to often be correct, though sometimes it can be wrong. — Coben

I don't see any form of discipline in any of those examples. In fact, it's quite the opposite - cases of indiscipline. They are good points on reactions, accountability and responsibility. That is, people's reactions to a given set of rules. Usually, those who know that they can get away with stuff if they're not caught, they do that stuff when they can. Others don't care, they do what they believe is right for them despite the consequences (some kids still fight in school regardless of suspensions and expulsions), and so on. All that would be proof of indiscipline. In terms of religions and morality, it's the inadequacy of which I'm pointing to and which is prevalent among most adherents of these religions despite teachings to the contrary.

Discipline means realising, accepting and walking a particular path, not reacting in fear of repercussions or misbehaving due to lack of appropriate accountability and such. Response due to fear is one of the biggest factors in these Abrahamic/Mosaic religions. Can you imagine how much adherence there would be to religious moral guidelines if the threat of hell was withdrawn?
Consider nowadays, when parents don't use corporal punishment, we see a lot of defiance to orders; same with police, now that accountability and certain responsibilities are expected and demanded of them, they behave with more regard for those they encounter, culprits or not.
You haven't demonstrated discipline, rather the very opposite of that.

All you have given are cases of indiscipline based on lack of accountability and responsibility by those with some degree of power over others. And, this is also one of the points I've been making - that, without reasonable critique, and expectation of responsibility and accountability from God, His actions are no different from humans. And, my primary issue with that is, God, who knows better, should act better.

I sometimes come off as an oddball Christian because I don't believe in the religion I am discussing, even though I have some positive feelings toward it. — Bitter Crank

Thanks for that whole post. That explains my confusion in sometimes thinking you identify as christian, sometimes not.

I am sure I am probably guilty of some amount of religion bashing, but I try to focus on it being "wrong" (or nonsense) not "bad" - it seems very debatable whether religion has harmed or helped humanity overall...there are certainly some positives that we should try to learn from.

I'm willing to say some religions are just plain bad. Westboro Baptist Church Christians are bad. The Aztec religion was bad. Heretic burning Christians were bad. The Islamic State lunatics are bad. Bad, not merely wrong.

From the standpoint of atheism, all religions which posit supernatural beings are wrong, no matter how good they are. Maybe the best versions of atheist Buddhism manage to be both good and right, but I am not sure. Buddhists in Burma have been behaving badly, recently. So there is that.

Most people in the world do, and probably always have, lived sort of parallel lives, believing in this or that religion on the one hand. On the other hand they have followed the otherwise secular rules of society. One either barters at the market for dried fish, or one just pays the asking price. One doesn't throw one's garbage on the neighbors lawn whether one is Hindu, Zoroastrian, or Animist.

I think we are almost done with this discussion, but this post got a little long and seems full of questions. As I am not sure I am furthering the discussion, I will not expect much of a response. Thanks for the info so far.

I'm willing to say some religions are just plain bad. Westboro Baptist Church Christians are bad. The Aztec religion was bad. Heretic burning Christians were bad. The Islamic State lunatics are bad. Bad, not merely wrong. — Bitter Crank

That all seems fair to me. I might try to use "harmful" instead of "bad", but that is just me pretending that I avoid emotionally loaded language and then going overboard on semantics :grimace:

Maybe the best versions of atheist Buddhism manage to be both good and right — Bitter Crank

Once I saw that some of them interpret "reincarnate" as simply "things die, and new things arise", I could see more how they could be "right". But that seems so different from reincarnation that it seems some study of the original texts would eliminate one of those interpretations. But as you mentioned, even some Buddhists have been acting crazy (which seems like a crazy misunderstanding of Buddhism - wouldn't a fully enlightened monk {in theory} seemingly not give 2 shits about the world as they have released such burdens? - I guess rich and/or violent Christians are equally in opposition to the major teachings of their religion).

Most people in the world do, and probably always have, lived sort of parallel lives, believing in this or that religion on the one hand. On the other hand they have followed the otherwise secular rules of society. One either barters at the market for dried fish, or one just pays the asking price. One doesn't throw one's garbage on the neighbors lawn whether one is Hindu, Zoroastrian, or Animist. — Bitter Crank

So I feel I somewhat understand this last paragraph, but may be missing something. Here's what I took from it:

Secular society can include a variety of disagreeing religions and beliefs that all follow common rules. From the religious viewpoint, this is the "give to god what is god's and give to caesar what is caesar's" stuff...right? Your final two sentences work literally, but I can't help but feel I am missing a metaphor.

As a whole is the paragraph sort of saying, "common decency should be, and typically has been, common"...?

Or, if I think more literally, maybe you are just saying that many religions have functioned pleasantly within society and there is no reason some of them cannot continue to do so...?

As a whole is the paragraph sort of saying, "common decency should be, and typically has been, common"...? — ZhouBoTong

Yes.

People get along with each other most of the time because people are social animals, life is difficult and requires cooperation, and social cooperation is rewarded in the form of peaceful, productive societies where life is better. Religion usually helps promote peaceful productive societies by encouraging people to get along together (unless it doesn't). Religion also helps assuage the suffering that leads to dying, and the existential fear of death itself. They might take care of the sick and dying, or offer consoling words about sickness, dying, and death.

Is it the case that ONLY RELIGIONS can do what religions do? Probably. Religious work, like civil engineering, is specialized -- requiring a preference for such work, training, practice, support, supervision, and so forth.

Religions are the organization most ready to answer people's "existential questions" Philosophy might also be able to answer those questions, but philosophy isn't organized to go forth and comfort the world's existential fears. Philosophers committed to an open-ended search the truth might irritate people too much. Mourners at the grave side want to hear something like "I am the resurrection and the live everlasting" and really don't want to hear about the lack of proof for or against a cold afterlife. An overly persistent and obtuse philosopher might end up being at his own burial, as the outraged mourners, armed with handy shovels, close up the ends of the philosopher's insistently open-ended thinking.

I think the Monty Python comedy group would have been the people to dramatize the philosopher's last funeral (were they still in business).

Is it the case that ONLY RELIGIONS can do what religions do? Probably. Religious work, like civil engineering, is specialized -- requiring a preference for such work, training, practice, support, supervision, and so forth. — Bitter Crank

Interesting thought. I think I agree, but I also think it meets a need that not everyone has.

Religions are the organization most ready to answer people's "existential questions" Philosophy might also be able to answer those questions, but philosophy isn't organized to go forth and comfort the world's existential fears. — Bitter Crank

I am starting to see many people and interactions as emotional vs reasoned or, more typically, some combination of the two. Does it seem plausible that those who tend to prefer religious solutions/explanations maybe relate to the world MORE emotionally while those who prefer philosophical explanations interpret the world using reason (more so)? I am NOT trying to call religious people unreasonable, just that they prefer an answer that soothes their emotions vs an answer that soothes their intellect (what happens when people/things die vs. what happens when "I" die).

I also think it meets a need that not everyone has. — ZhouBoTong

Quite so. And if religion is a need (I don't think it is) it's an itch that can be scratched in various ways.

they prefer an answer that soothes their emotions vs an answer that soothes their intellect — ZhouBoTong

Well, cradle atheists and ardent believers alike both like and need their emotions and intellects soothed regularly--by some balm or other. And atheist and believer alike can find it difficult to find just the right content cocktail to keep themselves happy. This is so because LIFE, whether one is an atheist, deist, or theist, is difficult, annoying, full of irritations (other atheists and other believers, for instance) and hard. It is a struggle to find the right "bar" that is serving up the right "content cocktail" at the moment.

As Karl Marx said, "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." Marx wanted to abolish what he identified as the capitalist / industrial exploitation that drove people to desire and need the comforts of religion.

So for Marx, religion is a consequence of oppression and the abolition of oppressive conditions makes it possible for religion to decay and disappear.

I like Marx here. Let's compare the United States and Europe--the former where religion has remained very strong and the latter where religion is very diminished. Europe, despite or because of two world wars has built a pretty strong social security system that considerably softens the effect of capitalism.

The United States has maintained a harsher version of capitalism with fewer shock absorbers (social services). Exploitation has been somewhat more naked here. A connection? Probably. Of course, there are other reasons too -- the American church (broadly speaking) has experienced regular renewal over the last two centuries -- up until the 1960s. Since 1960, religious participation across the board had dropped significantly. But "religiousness" is still more common here than in Europe.

Interestingly, there are now 67 million Christians in China. There are other religions too, like Buddhism and Islam. China's religious population seems to have grown while the country was becoming better off. But then, China isn't like Europe or North America.

Baroque music is one of my favorite comforts, Vivaldi, et al. That and folk. Folk and Baroque. That and good books. My current top read is THE GENIUS OF BIRDS by Jennifer Ackerman. Go Birds!

Well, cradle atheists and ardent believers alike both like and need their emotions and intellects soothed regularly--by some balm or other. — Bitter Crank

indeed. I certainly was not trying to suggest that atheists are unemotional, just that "your spirit never dies" fulfills an emotional need, while "you become worm food" fulfills an informational need (I guess any "needs" in this context are emotional, so maybe I need to put some more thought into this).

A connection? Probably. Of course, there are other reasons too -- the American church (broadly speaking) has experienced regular renewal over the last two centuries -- up until the 1960s. — Bitter Crank

Do you think in America that maybe patriotism merged with religion around the 1950s (ie the pledge of allegiance), resulting in part of the difference between Europe and America?

Time for the 3rd Great Awakening? If Transcendentalism emerged out of the 2nd Great Awakening (I get that Transcendentalism is typically seen as a response to intellectualism rather than a product of religion, but the timing seems awfully coincidental), maybe a new type of spiritualism could emerge in the US in the near future? Maybe as the left-leaning christians look to distance themselves from the Trump supporters?

China's religious population seems to have grown while the country was becoming better off. But then, China isn't like Europe or North America. — Bitter Crank

That's for sure. China has several factors that make comparisons difficult. Besides the huge disparity between rich city folk and poor country folk, they also have cultural factors...like the way Confucianism can be blended with everything. How similar are the beliefs of Christians in China to those of Christians in the US? (rhetorical question...unless of course you happen to know the answer :smile: )

Baroque music is one of my favorite comforts, Vivaldi, et al. That and folk. Folk and Baroque. That and good books. My current top read is THE GENIUS OF BIRDS by Jennifer Ackerman. Go Birds! — Bitter Crank

Is this a reminder that all of this stuff is mostly just personal preference? Can't argue much with that.

If I recall from my one music class in college, Baroque is the one with the tinny noise? Harpsichord I believe? I think I know Vivaldi is the wedding song and maybe graduations...he had those songs named after seasons or something. As you probably can tell, and my "art highlights elitism..." thread confirmed, my art tastes are a bit neanderthal-ish.

I am never sure on Folk; is that like Johnny Cash, Willie Nelson, Hank Williams? I like some of that stuff...but is that Folk or just old country?

Had to look up "Genius of Birds", but it sounds cool. I have watched some TV shows about the crows that can use tools. Anytime I view animals using seemingly higher level intelligence it makes me think about the line or threshold where intelligence changes from "useful for survival" to "what's the point of survival"?

There's a C S Lewis book called God in the Dock. It's a collection of essays, but the meaning of the title is that it implies a "God on Trial", based on an analogy made by Lewis suggesting that modern human beings, rather than seeing themselves as standing before God in judgement, prefer to place God on trial while acting as his judge. Which is exactly what I think the OP does. It my view, it's related to the (false) modern, anthropological conception of deity, which sees God as a kind of super-manager or ultimately responsible agent, in the same way as a CEO or executive is responsible. — Wayfarer

This is a big part of what the story of Job is about. It is by no means a modern conception of deity.

See also Elie Wiesel's discussions and play about putting God on trial while he was in Auschwitz.

Right. It's a lesson I learned from discovering the Hindu god Siva, 'the destroyer'. The deity is also terrible, awful, in the true sense of the word - 'destroyer of worlds'.

People seem to want want a nice, friendly, responsible CEO type God and can't fathom why there is suffering and evil exist. (Like, 'the carpet is mouldy, the taps leak, WHO'S RESPONSIBLE?!?) It's like God has 'executive responsibility' for these facts. But nowhere in the Bible is it said that the world ought to be free of suffering. It is always understood that, as the Buddhists put it, to live is to suffer. The whole point about redemption or salvation is that you once and for all rise above that suffering, or it is no longer all-consuming, or you enter a place or plane of being where all suffering is ended for once and for all (Heaven, in the popular imagination). But it takes commitment - even in faith-based Christianity, it takes at least the commitment to believe. It may be freely bestowed in return for believing, but it is not given without that commitment. It's a reciprocal deal. Whereas nowadays there are a lot of people who seem to have no conception of that sense of commitment, and then wonder why everything seems so broken.

all religions which posit supernatural beings are wrong, no matter how good they are. — Bitter Crank

In my view, we don't know enough about nature to categorically declare what is 'super' to it. But if you read history and the literature of religions, there are innumerable accounts of things that happen that can't be rationalised from the perspective of naturalism.

Yes. It does seem like a stretch that an immortal, invisible, God only wise; most blessed, most glorious, the Ancient of Days; Almighty, victorious; Unresting, unhasting; not wanting, not wasting--and more besides--could be rationalized from naturalism's perspective.

Smith's hymn is quite popular among ex-Anglican and ex-Methodist atheists.

Here's William Blake's Ancient of Days, applying his compass to the earth.

Baroque is the one with the tinny noise? Harpsichord I believe? — ZhouBoTong

Harpsichords were in use for quite a stretch. Johann Sebastian Bach would probably object strenuously to "tinny noise". But baroque composers didn't have the benefit of later technology -- like the piano, where the strings are struck by the hammers producing nice solid base notes, instead of the strings being plucked in the Harpsichord--producing that finicky plucky sound. The strings on their violins were made out of gut -- literally, dried out guts. Nothing wrong with that -- we still make products out of cow gut. Dissolving sutures in that cut you got stitched up? Gut. Plastic and metal strings produce more sound. Quite a few instruments that we consider essential hadn't been invented yet in the baroque period.

here's a piece that will sound 'tinny': Vivaldi's Mandolin Concerto in C Major. Here's another 'tinny' piece,

one written by Bill Monroe in his later years for mandolin; he died in 1996 at 84. Monroe was one of the 'inventors' of bluegrass music. He isn't playing in a 'tinny' way; it's just the sound of the instrument.

So what about folk: Where Legit Folk leaves off and protest songs or labor ballads and so forth pick up is not of much interest to me. A good song is a good song. Here's a song sung by Country Joe McDonald, who began back in the 1960s doing anti-Vietnam War songs. One of his later albums are WWI songs which he set to music or he reads. My favorite on that album is the Ballad of Jean Deprez. It's a poem by Robert Service about WWI (or could be the Franco-Prussian War of 1870). It's quite stirring.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMCBOXTPOVo

Actually, I like most music from the Medieval to the John Adams' opera, "Nixon in China" or Dr. Atomic. Rock and Roll, opera, Big band, brass band, dance band, and organ -- it's all good.

Do you think in America that maybe patriotism merged with religion around the 1950s (ie the pledge of allegiance), resulting in part of the difference between Europe and America? — ZhouBoTong

No. Religion and patriotism had gotten into bed together long before the 1950s. The Civil War broke several denominations apart, as churches in a given region aligned themselves with local politics. The United States was not very religious in the colonial period, some reports have it. The Second Great Awakening was a 19th century affair. The latter part of the 19th century and early 20th century was maybe "peak politics and Religion" time.

At the end of the 1950s, religion in America crashed. Millions of people -- Catholic and Protestant -- left their churches and did not return. Since the 1960s hemorrhage, membership has continued to bleed away, just not quite as fast.

I do remember when the Pledge of Allegiance was changed -- I think I was in 3rd grade, so... 1954 or '55. I remember learning the "under god" bit. There was that conflicting drive -- to add god to the pledge of allegiance, and Madeleine Murray O'Hare's drive to get "In God We Trust" off the money, and to ban school prayer. Official prayer got banned. I think the drive to put "under god" in the pledge of allegiance may have been more an anti-communist angle than a "religious" angle. But I'm projecting backwards. I certainly wasn't thinking about that at the time.

Time for the 3rd Great Awakening? — ZhouBoTong

Your guess is as good as anybody else's on this question. We, or the Europeans, could certainly experience a great awakening of some kind. But... who the hell knows?

How similar are the beliefs of Christians in China to those of Christians in the US? — ZhouBoTong

I really don't know.

Well, this has been very interesting.

But nowhere in the Bible is it said that the world ought to be free of suffering. It is always understood that, as the Buddhists put it, to live is to suffer. The whole point about redemption or salvation is that you once and for all rise above that suffering, or it is no longer all-consuming, or you enter a place or plane of being where all suffering is ended for once and for all (Heaven, in the popular imagination). — Wayfarer

Whereas nowadays there are a lot of people who seem to have no conception of that sense of commitment, and then wonder why everything seems so broken. — Wayfarer

Why does a god that creates a world with suffering to test our commitment deserve our commitment? What is the point of the test? Did I need redemption/salvation before I was born? Notice buddhists do not believe in a "creator", otherwise they would have to blame 'it' for all of the suffering.

What is the difference between a god and a more advanced being? Power? That would make humans gods relative to animals. Moral perfection + complete power? This seems closer. If humans are incapable of understanding moral perfection (a common christian argument), then we can only respond to power, "Worship or die!" There can be no explanation or justification that we could understand. And we can never know if we are worshiping 'god' or 'a being named steve with access to power'. The whole endeavor becomes a "pascal's wager", but surely we can't pretend to believe (if I don't 'believe' in god can I decide to believe just in case it exists?); so the situations just becomes what one is emotionally predisposed to believe. No evidence. No reasoning. It just "feels right". And for those who get a good feeling - enjoy it! But don't act like it is more significant than my enjoyment of soccer or bbq.

Johann Sebastian Bach would probably object strenuously to "tinny noise". — Bitter Crank

hahaha, I am sure he would.

The strings on their violins were made out of gut -- literally, dried out guts. Nothing wrong with that -- we still make products out of cow gut. Dissolving sutures in that cut you got stitched up? Gut. Plastic and metal strings produce more sound. Quite a few instruments that we consider essential hadn't been invented yet in the baroque period. — Bitter Crank

More interesting info. I hope at least a small percentage of this stuff sticks in my brain :smile:

here's a piece that will sound 'tinny': Vivaldi's Mandolin Concerto in C Major. Here's another 'tinny' piece, — Bitter Crank

Arg, no sound on this computer. I will have to listen to those later. I was able to find one poem by Robert Service ('Decorations'). My brain is usually to literal to get much out of poetry, but most of that seemed to make sense.

It's quite stirring. — Bitter Crank

I have always been fairly unemotional. I think I am becoming more open to "stirring" works as I get older, but i have to fight my instincts that read something like war poetry and just think, "yep, war sucks".

At the end of the 1950s, religion in America crashed. Millions of people -- Catholic and Protestant -- left their churches and did not return. Since the 1960s hemorrhage, membership has continued to bleed away, just not quite as fast.

I do remember when the Pledge of Allegiance was changed -- I think I was in 3rd grade, so... 1954 or '55. I remember learning the "under god" bit. There was that conflicting drive -- to add god to the pledge of allegiance, and Madeleine Murray O'Hare's drive to get "In God We Trust" off the money, and to ban school prayer. Official prayer got banned. I think the drive to put "under god" in the pledge of allegiance may have been more an anti-communist angle than a "religious" angle. But I'm projecting backwards. I certainly wasn't thinking about that at the time. — Bitter Crank

First, and you lived it, so what you remember is as important as exact order of events, but I think "in god we trust" was added to money a year or two after "under god" was added to pledge of allegiance. It is not hugely important to our discussion...yeah I googled Murray O'Hare and her push was in the 1960s (and while I was at it looked up - "in god we trust" was added 7/30/1956).

As I entirely trust your remaining assessment of religiosity in America, do you think maybe these two changes (adding "under god" and "in god we trust"), were one of those backlashes as religious people felt their cultural dominance slipping?

I think the drive to put "under god" in the pledge of allegiance may have been more an anti-communist angle than a "religious" angle. — Bitter Crank

I had never considered this connection, nor ever read anything like that. It seems obviously correct once you mention it though.

Well, this has been very interesting. — Bitter Crank

Your posts typically are. I sometimes think my goal is just to keep you interested and sharing for as long as possible, haha.

Why does a god that creates a world with suffering to test our commitment deserve our commitment? — ZhouBoTong

It’s idle to imagine a world in which there could be no suffering. To be born is to be subject to suffering. It’s the most inconvenient of truths, especially for modern man who wishes to banish all inconvenience.

In classical philosophical theology, God is not ‘a being’, although I don’t expect that will be understood.

I sometimes think my goal is just to keep you interested and sharing for as long as possible — ZhouBoTong

Fish will bite if you've got good bait, and that is definitely attractive.

So, on the coinage issue:

The revival of 'In God We Trust' The 1950s, however, witnessed a dramatic resurgence of religious language in government and politics.

The phrase "in god we trust" on money was first proposed by northerners during the Civil War. There was also an attempt at that time to add "god language" to the preamble of the U. S, Constitution. It didn't fly at that time, and in the years that followed.

On the P of A issue:

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy (1855-1931). It was originally published in The Youth's Companion on September 8, 1892. Bellamy had hoped that the pledge would be used by citizens in any country.

In its original form it read:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
In 1923, the words, "the Flag of the United States of America" were added.

Ah, news to me. So, that a socialist wrote the pledge explains the original absence of any named country, since socialists (officially) are in favor of doing away with borders.

While I was there (in the 1950s) I was too young to be making cogent observations. But one of the clearly memorable themes of the 1950s -- at least in the small town midwest where I lived -- was a very strong anticommunism. This ran parallel with other strong themes. It was all very conspiratorial: The atheistic communists are infiltrating the nation [like termites, they might have said, gnawing away at the beams, pillars, and floorboards of democracy]. Their goal is to conquer America, and turn it into a part of the international communist world. (Well, that was at least somewhat true). We have since discovered that there really weren't all that many communists in the United States. Their numbers were largest during the Great Depression. And the Communist Party USA was on the right side of the civil rights movement--they contributed manpower and funds to help the movement from early on.

I had never considered this connection, nor ever read anything like that. It seems obviously correct once you mention it though. — ZhouBoTong

Yeah, there is a difference between religious language about God and political language about god. We expect believers to trust in God. That's sort of their thing. But politicians don't characteristically rely on miraculous beings to win. They rely on a jaded electorates, smoky back rooms, money changing hands, lies, untruths, distortions, etc.

WHAT people believed about communism and communists was pretty heavily flavored by government agencies, business groups, and the police in the person of rabid anti-communist, anti-homosexual (and probably homosexual himself) J. Edgar Hoover, the long-time head of the FBI.

You probably haven't heard of it, but the FBI ran a program called COINTELPRO -- COunter INTELligence PROgram. It ran from 1956 to 1971, but people didn't know about it until the 1970s. It was a major effort to surveil, infiltrate, disrupt, and discredit domestic political groups of which the FBI disapproved. That included civil rights groups, leftists (not communists), Communists, women's liberation groups, anti-Vietnam War groups, campus activist groups, etc. They didn't plant bombs or assassinate people, but they interfered in ways that made political activist work less successful, because the various organizations were dealing with organizational problems that COINTELPRO caused.

COINTELPRO was closed down after the story came out, but rest assured, the government didn't give up on surveillance and infiltration of domestic political activists.

no sound on this computer — ZhouBoTong

So much for the digital revolution. I've had problems sharing files with other people and they with me. Quite often the video won't play, or it will play without sound. Too many variables to track down. Sorry you couldn't hear it. You can always go on YouTube (where I got it) and search for the piece. I'm beginning to find that YouTube's collection of music is as complete, if not more so, than iTunes. And, so far, one can listen for free.

The phrase "in god we trust" on money was first proposed by northerners during the Civil War. There was also an attempt at that time to add "god language" to the preamble of the U. S, Constitution. It didn't fly at that time, and in the years that followed. — Bitter Crank

That makes sense, and I do tend to latch onto 'official dates' and don't always consider the length of the process leading up to the date.

On the P of A issue:

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy (1855-1931). It was originally published in The Youth's Companion on September 8, 1892. Bellamy had hoped that the pledge would be used by citizens in any country.

In its original form it read:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
In 1923, the words, "the Flag of the United States of America" were added. — Bitter Crank

Huh, interesting stuff. Who would have thought that AMERICA'S pledge of allegiance began as a socialist call for world unity? An almost dictionary definition example of irony.

But one of the clearly memorable themes of the 1950s -- at least in the small town midwest where I lived -- was a very strong anticommunism. — Bitter Crank

Being educated in the 80s and 90s, I caught the tail end of that (strong anti-communism). But fortunately, by the time I got a degree in history around 2010, most of the professors spoke jokingly of the blind and rabid anti-communist culture. I am happy to see that when I teach today, students are confused by wars fought over ideology. Vietnam and the cold war seems ridiculous to most of them, just like the crusades. I guess they still have a few years to buy into some ideology and then work themselves up until they are willing to kill over it :roll:

And the Communist Party USA was on the right side of the civil rights movement--they contributed manpower and funds to help the movement from early on. — Bitter Crank

Yes. I did read something about the African American author Richard Wright who was influenced by the communist author Berthold Brecht. Wright was interested in communism because it was just about the only racially progressive political organization around at the time (I think it was in the 30s and 40s). (I actually think Wright is fairly famous - 'Native Son' was one of his big hits - unfortunately I do not read much fiction, so I don't know any of his work).

Yeah, there is a difference between religious language about God and political language about god. We expect believers to trust in God. That's sort of their thing. But politicians don't characteristically rely on miraculous beings to win. They rely on a jaded electorates, smoky back rooms, money changing hands, lies, untruths, distortions, etc. — Bitter Crank

Hmmm, I am not sure I what I like better - thinking our government was just running on blind faith and feelings OR being more intentionally manipulated in a specific direction. Maybe with the latter option I can hope that eventually there will be someone manipulating the government in a direction I approve of? I am not holding my breath though.

WHAT people believed about communism and communists was pretty heavily flavored by government agencies, business groups, and the police in the person of rabid anti-communist, anti-homosexual (and probably homosexual himself) J. Edgar Hoover, the long-time head of the FBI. — Bitter Crank

And unfortunately, so many bought it, so completely, for so long, that the lies perpetuate themselves. There are still MANY Americans that would think of Stalin as the iconic communist.

You probably haven't heard of it, but the FBI ran a program called COINTELPRO -- COunter INTELligence PROgram. It ran from 1956 to 1971, but people didn't know about it until the 1970s. It was a major effort to surveil, infiltrate, disrupt, and discredit domestic political groups of which the FBI disapproved. That included civil rights groups, leftists (not communists), Communists, women's liberation groups, anti-Vietnam War groups, campus activist groups, etc. They didn't plant bombs or assassinate people, but they interfered in ways that made political activist work less successful, because the various organizations were dealing with organizational problems that COINTELPRO caused. — Bitter Crank

I definitely have not heard of that specifically. But I know MLK Jr. was monitored by the FBI and CIA, was that part of this program? I was going to say that people today would rightly lose their minds if stuff like this occurred today, but if people are spoon fed the information in just the right way (don't worry we just monitor everyone's phone calls to find terrorists), they won't probably won't resist much :groan:

COINTELPRO was closed down after the story came out, but rest assured, the government didn't give up on surveillance and infiltration of domestic political activists. — Bitter Crank

I think Snowden showed this stuff may have changed, but never really stopped.

no sound on this computer
— ZhouBoTong

So much for the digital revolution. — Bitter Crank

Nope this is entirely on my end. Your files worked fine. I will just have to listen at home

It’s idle to imagine a world in which there could be no suffering. To be born is to be subject to suffering. It’s the most inconvenient of truths, especially for modern man who wishes to banish all inconvenience. — Wayfarer

it's idle to imagine a deity?

In classical philosophical theology, God is not ‘a being’, although I don’t expect that will be understood. — Wayfarer

not understood in the least. And it must be very complicated.

So classical theology doesn't actually look at any specific theology?

So are you trying to discuss god without describing or defining it?

So like suffering, we shouldn't think about god? it just is?

When it's no longer a hypothetical question, it appears in a different light. Like, the experience of pain is different to the pharmaceutical knowledge of what causes pain.

Have a look at this OP https://www.huffpost.com/entry/god-does-not-exist_b_1288671

//ps// also https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/he-who

Holding a human maker responsible for his creations is by no means a uniquely modern response. If God is conceived as an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent Creator, as he is in the Abrahamic religions, then why, by analogy, should he not be judged according to the quality of his work?

The doctrinal answer is: because our judgement of quality is based on like and dislike, and the will is corrupted, ergo the judgement is faulty. Moderns judge things according to what is convenient and suitable for them.

Problem is there is no other judgement than our own. And your statement about "moderns" is a gross and unwarranted generalization, I would say.

Problem is there is no other judgement than our own. — Janus

'nihil ultra ego'

Have a look at this OP https://www.huffpost.com/entry/god-does-not-exist_b_1288671 — Wayfarer

borderline nonsense ("God Does Not Exist" / "Let me be clear: I believe God is.") He could not be more unclear. If semantic games are enough for some people then great, but it does nothing for me.

//ps// also https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/he-who — Wayfarer

A type of strawman: ("Instead, the New Atheists ingeniously deny the existence of a bearded fellow with superpowers who lives in the sky and finds people’s keys for them.") No, they just easily dismiss any god that has been defined (christians defined the bearded fellow who finds keys). Your argument even seems to acknowledge this - hence why you are trying to "undefine" god. I would suggest this idea of an undefined god that 'is' but can't be pointed at (in any way), is a modern theistic response to atheism's clear and simple dismissal of any god that has been defined.

I'm not familiar with that expression, what does it mean?

Google translate gives ""there is no form, I will". I could find no other refernce to the phrase, so it seems it is not quoted from literature.

I would suggest this idea of an undefined god that 'is' but can't be pointed at (in any way), is a modern theistic response to atheism's clear and simple dismissal of any god that has been defined. — ZhouBoTong

Clear and simple incomprehension more like it.

Clear and simple incomprehension more like it. — Wayfarer

Yes, of course we all know by now, O would-be Guru, that anyone who disagrees with you, or even has the temerity to ask you to present and justify the reasoning supporting your claims, has failed to understand.