Christians believe we are all, every single one, God’s children. God is Father. And brother. Your heart isn’t into Christianity, so why would you think you could clarify what Christians believe to me, a thoughtful, practicing Catholic? — Fire Ologist

My conflict with Christians begins with loving the teachings of Jesus that I hold dear. I also enjoy the paganism that is a part of Christianity, and perhaps more so, Catholicism. And, I didn't argue with Christians until Cheney and Bush Junior and what they did with the US Military Industrial Complex. Some Christians opposed this, but way too many were thrilled by our illegal destruction of Iraq. Christians should have objected to Bush Junior using Christian rhetoric to promote his illegal war on Iraq and calling that our American "glory and power". Instead of Christians taking a strong stand against this, they are voting for another man who is taking advantage of Christians to promote his own power and glory. The problem is with the belief. There never was a god who told His people they are his favorites and as such he wants them to take land and kill everyone living on the land but this story has justified a lot of wrong.

I hate seeing politicians invoke religion, and hate seeing the church be political and weigh in on public policy. Both institutions screw up everything when they muddle morality with polity. The muddying effect is why people see maga and Muslims as wanting a caliphate, and why people see leftists as making politics their cult-like moral compass.

I am so glad we share an agreement on this point.

So you are not helping your political case at all by invoking what Christians believe.

What? Where should the questioning and arguing begin if not with the book that many believe is the word of God? I sure wish I could quote AI. More than once God told the Hebrews to take land and kill everyone. This god is a war god, and ever since these stories, Christians have justified their extermination of others with these Christian stories. The loving God Christians are worshipping today wasn't a loving god but a jealous, revengeful, punishing, and fearsome god, until our bellies were full.

Weren’t Newton and Galileo and many, many other builders of the science you seem to hold up so high, Christian?

You have to be Christian when Christians are in control. Christians were killing those suspected of not being one of them. With the Church's control of information, it is a miracle that Christian documents were not destroyed along with those daring to have non approved of thoughts. The church went through different periods of tolerance and intolerance. A discussion of Christianity needs to include history. Christianity does not have a good history.

Why do you think there is something inherent about Christianity that is incompatible with science?

The story of Adam (uncultivated plain) and Eve (Lady who makes live) and Eden (settlement on the plain) was a Sumerian story found in the Sumerian library of Ur and adjusted to fit the idea of one god by Abraham's people. The original story is as believable to me as the Hebrew story. But I like the Greek story of Pandora and the Box a whole lot better than the story of Adam and Eve. Pandora was warned not to open the gift from Zeus but she couldn't control her curiousity and when she opened the gift, the miseries flew out of the box, slowing down our mastery of technology. Zeus was right. We did learn all the technologies and we are now smart but wise and we have turned our backs on the gods.

Why do I think Christianity is incompatible with science? I know there are other creation stories and that it was a Sumerian goddess who made us of mud and blew life into us, so we could help the river stay in its banks. That just is not compatible with science. Our DNA comes from the line of anthropoids, not minerals of mud.

If the two are actually compatible, then all anecdotal evidence of a Christian who was bad and that scientist or politician was better, are different conversations, and don’t necessitate the opinion that religion is a net oppressive and ignorance-building force.

Oh, :chin: It is history that makes Christianity oppressive and an ignorant-building force. How many examples do you want? Do you believe a God favors us in wars? Do you believe a god of war is also a god of love? How about not washing our hands? Do you think that is good advice, or does it maintain superstition and ignorance? Like those who refuse vaccinations. India and China were way ahead of us when it comes to cleanliness and health. Adopting the demonology of Persia when the New Testament was written was not a step forward.

Even though all presidents besides Truman have shown extreme restraint relative to their power and influence. — AmadeusD

OMG, I usually ignore you and should probably stick with that, but Cheney and Bush Junior were not restrained in their efforts to secure the US effort to have military control of the Middle East. If you want to argue that point, begin by learning about the NeoCons and the American Project.

https://www.google.com/search?q=god+and+fascism&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS990US990&oq=&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCQgAECMYJxjqAjIJCAAQIxgnGOoCMgkIARAjGCcY6gIyCQgCECMYJxjqAjIJCAMQIxgnGOoCMgkIBBAjGCcY6gIyCQgFECMYJxjqAjISCAYQIxgnGOoCGN0FGJ0GGOgGMgkIBxAjGCcY6gLSAQkxNTUxajBqMTWoAgiwAgHxBRRa6xn67UPF&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

That fits perfectly with the Evanicals self image and nationalism that is the result of the 1958 National Defence Education Act, strengthening Fascism in the US, and leaving our democracy undefined in the classroom, and gives US our Hitler.

You … defend the actions of the German Gestapo
— Athena

Really??

Where did I do that? You seem to say things like the above so easily. You come off as divisive and extreme, as you bemoan the division in America. — Fire Ologist

The states that have encouraged their citizens to report their friends, neighbors, and family to the police if an effort to abort an embryo was made, are most certainly fascist. Jesus made it clear we should not turn to Rome to handle our human problems, but as the citizens in Germany did, the Evangelical Christians believe they are God's chosen people, and they should do the work of God because they can know the will of God by reading the bible and following their leader (chosen by God). These folks are very political, with their faith that they are God's chosen people, and God wants them to have the power to oppose evil. The tie between this Christianity and fascism is clear.

I can not copy-paste the excellent AI explanation of the mess the US is in now, but I can saythis is the result of replacing our domestic education that defended democracy in the classroom with the German model, which left moral education to the church, resulting in our failure to understand the connection between virtues and science in a democracy. Here is the link to what AI has to say about the split in Christianity that has led to fascism in the US. For those who want to argue with me about this education problem. https://www.google.com/search?q=god+and+fascism&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS990US990&oq=&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCQgAECMYJxjqAjIJCAAQIxgnGOoCMgkIARAjGCcY6gIyCQgCECMYJxjqAjIJCAMQIxgnGOoCMgkIBBAjGCcY6gIyCQgFECMYJxjqAjISCAYQIxgnGOoCGN0FGJ0GGOgGMgkIBxAjGCcY6gLSAQkxNTUxajBqMTWoAgiwAgHxBRRa6xn67UPF&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

The US constitution rejects monarchy but centralises executive power in a single office with weaker structural restraints than modern constitutional monarchies. From the mid-20th century onward, especially after 1945 and 2001, restraints on the president ceased to function effectively in practice. — Banno

1945 is when the world was in an economic collapse, and Franklin Roosevelt was the new president. At least one book warned of the dangers of the new powers taken on by Roosevelt. He did not just act with more power than any other president, but with the help of Hoover, these two men changed the bureaucratic order of the US in a very fundamental way. The US adopted the German model of bureaucracy, making the power of the US government much stronger than could have been before this change.

I would be ecstatic if anyone understood the importance of what I have said. That brings me to [quote="180 Proof;1028987"[/quote] link about the quite rebellion. Nothing good can come out of our greatest efforts to alert the population about the destruction of their country when the people rely on "authority" and are incapable of understanding the importance of what someone is saying. The US became fascist when Roosevelt was in power, and because you all hold a problematic notion of what fascism is, and a false notion of what the US , no one even asks the right questions.

But that is okay, Trump might have destroyed the Military-Industrial Complex that the US has been since WWII. Things might get very interesting from here. If the US didn't replace its domestic education with the German model of education for technology, which destroys the citizens' defense of democracy, Trump would not be running the show now.

Bottom line, the US adopted its enemies' bureaucratic model that shifts power from the citizens to the government, and the model of education that goes with the fascist government. The US is now what its enemy was. Only when democracy is defended in the classroom is it defended. That is the only way to change the reality explained in 180 Proof's link.

You said, "I had a laugh at the idea that the USA doesn't have a king. Those countries with titular kings managed to build limitations in to their political systems, usually for the king to act only on the advice of the parliament. The USA apparently thought that since their king was elected, they could give them more power. It's their undoing. European, and other monarchies, kept the king in a box; the USA actually removed restraint on the executive."

When was the restraint removed?

Did you join that platform of discussion? I think of every form as a potential platform for discussing our problems, how we got here, and where we might go from here.

When did the US remove the restraint of the president's power and authority? This is not an argument. I intend to open this discussion.

Do so please. I do not think there is any such thing as materialistic spirituality, other than by way of fetishism? Or are you talking about something akin to 'soul'/'mind' when you think of spirituality?

Please do steer clear of quantum woo-woo talk or this will go nowhere fast. I first love was physics. — I like sushi

Well, that is the end of this discussion.

No, I was being techincal:

Spirituality in the context of Religious Studies and Philosophy are fairly distinct. In religious studies it does cover secular and non-secular variants.
— I like sushi — I like sushi

:grin: This is delicious, as I just opened the discussion to the spiritual and Roman conflict. That conflict became a power struggle that some think corrupted Christianity. Today, we are becoming aware of quantum physics and the Eastern perspective (also Native American).

I want to establish, I think you are a very intelligent person and that you value your intelligence and nurture it. However, I think you come from Western (materialistic) thinking without awareness of Eastern thinking (energy/consciousness).

Spirituality, just like Religion, means different things to different people. If we are all using different meanings without knowing it, then the chances of a productive discussion are likely reduced. — I like sushi

I think we need to establish the materialistic and energy/consciousness difference. Until we understand the difference between the energy and materialistic thinking, we can not be talking about the same thing. One of the worst conflicts Roman Christians had was the nature of God. Is there only one God or does the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost mean there is more than one God? Is Jesus God, or the Son of God? When did Jesus become more than a human? When he was born, when he was baptized, when he died? This is about spiritual reality and materialism.

The Greek Trinity gave the Greeks an understanding of the Trinity of God, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The Romans did not have a word for this concept of a Trinity. They could not agree that there is only one God until they had a word for the concept of a Trinity.

Our whole lives we have lived with a materialistic understanding of reality. Quantum physics is changing that.

The Gnostic Gospels, which were discovered in Nag Hammadi present an extremely more symbolic understanding of the life of Jesus. — Jack Cummins

I think that if we want to understand Jesus, we need to have an understanding of Buddhism, because I believe the Jesus perspective was more Eastern than Roman. Rome was materialistic, and that is problematic when considering spiritual matters. Perhaps we should remember the fighting between different Christian groups because of the spiritual concepts being taken over by materialistic thinking.

What AI says about this is awesome, but we can use AI. It is really hard to engage Christians in the discussion without information about the Roman spiritual/material conflict.

I did not mean to say all atheists are opposed to spirituality.

There are several books that use quantum physics to explain spirituality. Some of these books mix quantum physics with the Chinese Tao, and at least one, "The Purposeful Universe: How Quantum Theory and Mayan Cosmology Explain the Origin and Evolution of Life," uses quantum physics to explain the Mayan perspective, and that book makes Jose Argüelles' book, "The Mayan Factor", more plausible. Those books go nicely with Athens' study of math and their perspective on sacred math. This stuff excites me a lot, and it would be wonderful to learn from someone who knows more about it than I do.

I think most of the books are about quantum physics and consciousness. Our current interest in consciousness is remarkable, and I think we might be entering a profound shift in consciousness.

I have only read the thread a little in the last few days because I have become unwell. I think that I may have another chest infection. However, you mentioned Carl Jung's idea of the shadow. His book, 'Answer to Job' is significant because it looks at suffering and potential for war. It is more relevant than when he wrote it a year ago. It is involves greater understanding of potential destruction. Confronting the shadow is a spiritual quest which is hard work and definitely far more than 'chocolate box' pictures of spirituality. — Jack Cummins

I am far from having a good understanding of Carl Jung, but I gather he thought we must unite our opposites if we are going to have peace. I learned of him because of Joseph Campbell, the man who studied all the mythology he found. Snakes and trees and things like these come up in myths around the world. They are symbols with a shared meaning around the world. Joseph Campbell said God spoke to everyone. Their stories may be different because their environments were different, but primitive humans shared much in common. This fact is partly responsible for Christianity's success in converting people. As the Christians spread, they tweaked the pagan stories so the common solstice celebrations had a Christian meaning, and like it or not, everyone became a Christian. But we may want to go back and look at the shared spiritual beliefs.

So what do you make of The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality by André Comte-Sponville or nontheistic religions such as Advaita Vedantism, Jainism, (early) Buddhism, (early) Daoism ...? — 180 Proof

I do not know enough of any of those things to comment on them. I know my spiritual experience, and I am working on understanding quantum physics so I can better judge what is or is not possible.

Spirituality in the context of Religious Studies and Philosophy are fairly distinct. In religious studies it does cover secular and non-secular variants.

Religious definition deals with conscious connection to God, Reality, or more generally The Divine. The Buddhist tradition pivots more toward Reality with a capital R than The Divine.

Philosophical definitions vary, but usually refer to some meaning beyond individual experience that focuses on the larger picture--more anthropological in nature.

My criticism toward the OP being we can only talk about something complex constructively by picking and choosing where and how to explicate what it is we wish think and wish to express. Only from such points can a constructive discussion flow. Otherwise we are just spilling water on the floor rather than using it to turn a wheel and get some traction. — I like sushi

What does reality with a capital R mean? I could be wrong, but I think you are being culturally biased.
Maybe there is no voiding that bias if we play by the rules of philosophy, which are about thinking, not about personal spiritual experience. Religion requires a myth, and spirituality does not. Spirituality is a completely different connection with the universe.

I am not sure that the issues which I raise can be pinned down to one thread. It involves so much thinking about 'reality' and the questions arising in the inner life. There is also the issue of freedom and individualism. Spirituality may involve both an individual quest or be about a basis for understanding connectivity and moral responsibility. The two aspects may be juxtaposed or 'spirituality' my involve the balance between inner and outer aspects of living. Spirituality may be questionable when it is about one's own self alone, as if one is trying to rocket into 'heaven' on an individual quest. — Jack Cummins

I hope you read my reply to @I like sushi because I think my thinking and yours is more like mirror reflections than opposing thoughts. I wish I knew the technology for putting a picture of the fractals into a post. Sometimes art and poetry express meaning, but not all observers can see it. Even for religious people, our thinking can be very materialistic and restricted, rather than spiritual and fractally aware.

That is looking like a really weird thought, which makes me think of Carl Young, a psychologist who allowed himself to experience the dark side of our psyche. He experienced what those declared insane experience. He is best known for making us aware of universal mythology symbolism.

As a starting point it would be worthwhile outlining what is meant by 'spirituality' as concisely as possible, as well as how so-called non-secular experiences of spirituality may differ from secular ones and how this can in any way be useful in looking at the sociological and biological evolution of humanity. — I like sushi

I came to the forum this morning with something I want to say, and replying to what you said with my thought might work.

My thought begins with looking at unique pictures on things made of wood. The crafter used a laser beam to burn pieces of a tree into the wood objects he made. The pictures were obviously fractals made by nature.

Looking at the fractals on the object that I bought caused me to recall when I was young and did not have my own identity, but tried to be pleasing to everyone. So how I dressed and behaved would depend on what I thought others wanted of me. And here I am, in this forum questioning, who I am, how do I want to be remembered, if I have life after death, what do I want that life to be like? Looking at the fractal pictures made by nature, I see each version of me is a little different from all the others, but all being one fractal.

For me, that is a spiritual notion of who I am and where I belong. I am energy and the same, but not the same, because nature is fractals.

I think that is different from believing we are one and only one person with traits that are recognizable by everyone, and there is no other reality. We are either good or we are evil, and our justice system is just (?).

'As you sow, so shall you reap' — Jack Cummins

That is perfect, and I spent a couple of years lost in Hades, so I know trying to force positive thoughts can make matters worse.

Looking for information for your thread led me to finding an explanation that the spirit isn't about thinking, it is about feeling. Getting a good result is kind of like going to sleep. We can not force ourselves to sleep. We have to surrender to sleep. Lying to ourselves with positive thoughts, trying to force a different future, is like trying to force ourselves to sleep. However, conjuring up in ourselves a feeling of appreciation is like surrendering to sleep. If we appreciate what we have, it opens the door to having more. Feeling appreciation for what we have and what we want puts us in harmony with that reality on an energy level.

Because I am focusing on appreciation, I am happy, and that happiness does not depend on having what I want. In the past, I thought I couldn't be happy until I got what I wanted. That does not work. Also, I have found that doing things for others seems to make me happy. Self-help magazines say that it is true.

It kind of goes together, feeling appreciation and feeling appreciated. I think I am getting better at creating a feel-good reality for myself, and because I am happy now, I am not desperate to have something that makes me happy. But I am not going to lie to myself. If I were homeless, I am quite sure I would not be a happy camper. What is happening right now has some of us fearful. That makes me appreciate what I have.

Spirituality is energy, not matter. Nothing is separate from it.

The idea of the 'truth within' may be problematic if followed through for its own sake. The idea of being 'co-creators with the universe' may enable a connection between the inner and outer aspects of evolution and the evolution of consciousness. Even the separation between inner and outer may be a problem if taken too concretely. Spirituality is a complex interface of human existence, consciousness and understanding, of which religious thinking is a mere shadow of possibilities. — Jack Cummins

I think our cultural biases are interfering with a different understanding of our spirituality? We consider the assumed spirituality of others to be primitive and lacking in the correct knowledge of our material existence.

There is no separation between ourselves and spirit. If we are negative, that is what we create in our lives. If we are positive, that is what we create in our lives. If we destroy ecosystems, we pay the consequences, and a god is not going to save us from ourselves, no matter how much we pray. The great apes, buffalo, and elephants have as much right to this planet as we do, and how do our hearts feel about this? We are part of the creation, not separate from it.

A hidden argument, is to accuse people of thinking they are God if they do not believe in a separate god.

The inner quest for truth may be the quest of Socrates, Jesus, the Buddha, Nietzsche's Zarathustra and many others who sought the idea of 'truth within' oneself as an essential starting point for understanding and living. — Jack Cummins

I don't know how much good can come out of looking for the "truth within" until we have lived long enough to know much of anything. I think until recently, all people turned to their elders to know about life.

An inner quest for truth would be a mental thing. I have read that the benefits of spirituality depend on the heart, not the thought. So, if a person prays for something from the position of not having that thing and being needy, this person is creating the neediness, not the fulfillment of the need. To fulfill the need, one must come from the position of gratefulness. Being grateful is a heart thing that manifests the fulfillment of what is desired. This is a more interactive relationship with the universe than modern Western thinking, which begins with separation from the spirit, God, and forces.

To be spiritual is to understand that we are co-creators with the universe. Googling the "Core principles for co-creation" will result in a fuller explanation.

have thought about your question of what I am aiming for in the thread and think that it is more about the future of consciousness. Human consciousness and culture involved a spiritual dimension and, after the developments of religions, science and philosophy I am wondering if spirituality will be significant in the future of consciousness. Is consciousness still evolving and to what extent is this bound up with development of the inner life? At this juncture in history there is so much to fear and is as if the gods have led humanity on the brink of despair and self-destruction. But, do we have the spiritual resources or imagination and potential consciousness to save ourselves, individual and collectively? — Jack Cummins

The lack of spirituality is confined to religions and atheists, who oppose spirituality. There are people around the world who maintain their spiritual connection with the sun and the earth. I think it is unfortunate that most people do not recognize our spiritual relationship with the cosmos, and they do not respect spiritual people.

"But, do we have the spiritual resources or imagination and potential consciousness to save ourselves? Yes, but we can't connect with it with your mind. The connection is made with the heart.

and there may be other ways out. — Tom Storm

This video gives an explanation of our way out.



Most of us have spent our lives with the Sumerian/Biblical story of being made of mud, and God as external, and we are subject to this God and Satan. The quantum understanding is more spiritual and does not separate us from what is and what will be. A human being is energy that has quantum entanglement with the universe.

Why did I get a notification for this? — baker

I have no idea. Please PM the message so I might figure out what went wrong.

I'm lucky in finding constant background music almost unbearable. — Jamal

:clap: I am 100% in agreement with finding constant background music unbearable. That is the biggest reason for turning off my TV and selecting less music, or no music, in videos. I also turn off annoying voices.

I explain the dumping down and growing stupidity differently. I chose the video because it brought up increasing stupidity, and I think that is the point people against AI are trying to make. While I don't have total agreement with the video, it is nice to know that research is being done, and there is evidence that, in general, we are becoming less thoughtful. While the technology for manipulating what we think has evolved dramatically in the last 50 years.

This link gives us an explanation of the problem that some may like to use to argue against or in favor of AI.

Ok you win. Religion is the problem and the enlightened ones like Mandani and AOC and Kelly are our only rational hope for a better world. I’ll tell everyone at Mass this Sunday not to read the Bible or hope in “God” anymore. Should help speed up the process towards utopia.

It’s been 300 years since the enlightenment. When do you think people will reason this out and we can all have affordable health insurance and free cocoa pebbles? Maybe as soon as Trump is ousted? — Fire Ologist

I am sorry. :broken: We have achieved more in 300 years than non-scientific people achieved in thousands of years. This is where I stop arguing with you because I do not like to argue with believers and trigger bad feelings.

Is it because there's some other thread that this discussion continued from that let it spiral down politics alone?

It seems to me that you asked for a more general question about "what we should think about". As in, what should a regular citizen in a democracy think about in their day to day life so that society addresses issues of the world and maintain a healthy morality in that society?

Topics that need to be thought about as a form of philosophical foundation of being in a society.

Is that the basis of the question here? — Christoffer

In order to form a more perfect union, that does seem to be required. It sure would be nice to use the AI explanation of ancient Greek politics and its relationship to virtues. I think every city should have readily available information about the local resources and what decisions are necessary for the continued growth of the city. And maybe we should know on a national level our supply and rate of consumption of such things as oil, and what oil has to do with our banking and wars. All this concern about resources and rates of consumption is set off by a book about geology. Geology and geography do not seem to be required in our education system, and they are not a subjects of news stories.

It saddens me that I live in a nation that claims to fight evil and does so in the most evil way of destroying people's lives and their cities. And the citizens agree to this without knowledge. Socrates was very distressed when Athens lost the war with Sparta, and he wanted to know what Athens did wrong that caused them to lose the war.

On a more personal level. The homeless problem is getting increasingly frightening. Thanksgiving Day, my neighbors and I found another rent increase notices on our doors. Most of us are retired and have very low incomes. We are already in the least expensive apartment complex. There is no place for us to go. I am sure most citizens do not want us living on the streets. I think the purpose of democracy is to have a better union that protects people with planning and laws. How well do we understand the old people with walkers who struggle to cross the street, and why they are homeless? What does make America great again mean when we are looking more and more like the poor countries with beggars on the streets? We should kill the evil people on the other side of the world to defend this?

We have made a complex problem for ourselves. We keep handing it down to the next generation. When will there be enough people who are brave enough to forgive past injustice, and heal, and claim justice instead for an actually better future we might participate in? The solution is not whether left or right is wrong; It’s in how both are inadequate without each other - something new, that carries with it the same good that was and is always there. — Fire Ologist

Please! We did not keep handing our problems down to the next generation. Our democracy comes out of the Enlightenment, and a belief that, as we learned more through asking questions and attempting to answer them with scientific and philosophical thinking, we could improve life on earth. Our education was based on the Greek and Roman models for independent thinking and good moral judgment.

But like the 200-year-old Athens, we won a major war, and we got too smart for our britches and too dependent on the economics that made the US rich during a time of war, because war made the other nations dependent on the US, until they recovered from the war. As happened to Athens, this led to a poorly thought-out military action and a growing dependence on military might. We have evolved as Athens evolved, and we did not avoid the mistake Athens made of making war on a defenseless island in a desperate attempt to maintain their wartime economy.

I am running out of time, but I still believe in the Enlightenment dream of a better world, and that education can make the difference. I also believe religion is the problem! The Germans who followed Hitler were Christians, and I am sure Jesus would not like ICE, but well-meaning Christians will support it just as they did in Germany. Germans reported on each other, as US citizens are being encouraged to report on each other, and Jesus plainly said, do not turn to Rome and report your neighbors. We all know the bible right? Depending on that one book, instread of knowledge in general, is much easier and don't worry, God is in control. :halo:

Muslims don’t know how to be Muslim in a liberal democracy of free men and women. Christians don’t know how to be saved without damning everyone else. Americans don’t know how to be proud and “first” without judging all others “third world” and over-exploiting opportunity. Poor people don’t know how to be grateful and content. Rich people don’t known how to be humble and charitable and sacrificial. Trump doesn’t know how to be strong, but not a bully. Righties don’t know how to be absolute, yet merciful and vulnerable. Lefties don’t know how to stand with the oppressed without oppressing and moralizing the “bad people” (or this group or that group….). — Fire Ologist

That is a different thread. :grin: I put a video about capitalism in this thread "What Capitalism is Not (specifically, it is not markets)." What you said leads me to believe you never lost a lot of weight because you were not eating, so the children could be fed. I doubt if you stayed up all night holding a sick child because you couldn't afford to rush the child to the hospital. I don't know if economics is a philosophical issue, but democracy, as we know it, had roots in Athens, where the need to defend Athens led to giving everyone who fought in the war a degree of political power. This moment in time changed the people's understanding of the gods and cultural values. To clarify, political power is extremely important to our ability to provide for our families.

There was a time when the Muslims were far more advanced than Christian Europe. We owe them a huge debt for preserving knowledge that Christians had destroyed. I would love to chew on what Evangelical Christians and Orthodox Muslims share in common. I don't see a difference between them.

Trump's followers love him as he is. I have posted a video of Trump in the WrestleMania ring a few times. He intentionally displayed what a brute he can be to a cheering crowd. All those accusations of what this group and that group can not do, is WrestleMania mentality. When the US replaced its domestic education with education for military and industrial purposes, it replaced independent thinking with "groupthink". My grandmother would say, We teach children math to teach them how to think. New math does not have the same practical purpose. Education for college has cheated millions out of an education that benefits the families of the working class and the advancement of civilization.

Instead of picking on ICE agents, — Fire Ologist

:lol: I woke up this morning thinking of the young lady who is flying somewhere with her mother. A reporter was at the airport, checking out people's opinions about proper clothing for a flyer. The rumor is that those who dress well are less likely to behave in an antisocial way. The young lady was wearing pajamas despite her mother's objection, and the mother was dressed to say, "I understand social values, and I dress and behave properly". The young lady thought only of herself and her own comfort.

I hope you wonder why I think that is related to ICE. This is not going to work if you do not wonder what in heck I am talking about, because what I am saying is totally different from anything you have thought. I will give you a hint. What I am saying is about cultural change that followed a change in education. I am talking about the consequences of replacing our domestic education, which was based on the Athenian model of education, with the German model of education for technology for military, and industrial purposes.

If anyone understands what I am saying, I will be surprised. I will give you a hint. I am talking about capitalism with no morals and the Military-Industrial Complex that Eisenhower warned us about, and what this has to do with cultural breakdown, and why Trump is popular, and what this has to do with my objection to ICE. All of this is equal to the young lady not giving a shit what her mother thinks is appropriate, or how her mother feels about being in public with a daughter wearing pajamas.

:lol: I live in apartment C4. I have been told that it is military code for explosives. Seeing that young girl not give a shit about her mother's feelings reminds me of when my daughter was in high school, and the popular opinion that education for technology would make our children smarter than their parents. There is some truth to that, but being smart at the expense of wisdom is not a good trade-off. In the 1970s, we declared a youth crisis. We did not suddenly have an explosion of unfit parents. We changed the purpose of education, and now our leader seems to be following Hitler's playbook. It is not this one man making the nation as it is. Is the change in the purpose of education. :lol: Maybe ICE can wear pajamas when they are flown to a city that does not want their presence.

You are a good person. I can see that. I don’t mean to sound like I am attacking anyone else, except maybe when I am atracking all of us, me included (if “attack” is even the right word). — Fire Ologist

Thank goodness! I was wondering what in hell went wrong with a great discussion. I will get back to you as soon as I can. I think I have a broken foot, and I just learned that an urgent care place can X-ray my foot. I hope to get this done before washing dishes for a huge holiday crowd at a community center. If I don't get back soon, give me a holler.

Whoo, those were some pretty strong words. I hope you keep sharing because I would like to know more. I dropped my interest in communism when I learned they "liberated" women with a campaign to make everyone think women should be working. You know, like in the US when stay-at-home homemakers became "just housewives". I think we should be free to self-actualize and I also think the most important thing women can do is be good homemakers and community volunteers.

When the USSR liberated women, the economy grew as more people were in the workforce. So did the abortion and divorce rate grow, and women were not doing as well as men because they became single parents and did not have the support of men with wives. I love talking about this and hope if you do reply it is respectful and not hostile.

I want greater awareness of the negative consequences of not valuing homemakers. Also, I posted the history of capitalism and an explanation of the commons. There is so much we can talk about. Not only did divorce and abortion increase in the US, but so did the number of women and children involved in crime increase, for female victims and perpetrators but the cost of housing greatly increased because now families had two incomes and more people could buy housing, and boy, are we in a banking and housing mess now.

Bottom line, giving women the freedom of barbarians may not be the best move for civilization, and I don't think anyone failing the value full-time homemakers is thinking about what is good for humanity.

He was banned 3 years ago. — Tom Storm

-Interesting. Perhaps we should ignore that this is an old thread? @"Mikie reactivated the thread by replying to @Moliere, whose last post was 2 years ago, I think?

I like Mikie's posted video explaining capitalism, and I went from that explanation to another one.



There is hardly anything more important to think about than capitalism, and whether it is time to change how we manage it.

This ‘impersonal’ aspect of markets is what makes it different to say, gift economies, where gifts might be exchanged in order to keep up good relations between tribes. Or else different to relations of patronage or villeange, in which labour or goods are exchanged for protection or use of land. — Streetlight

Very interesting subject. I have a question. In the systems of patronage or villeange, what would prevent exploiting others? I think I see in your thread the difference between good and evil.

t is at this point, where the general mode of production becomes geared towards the market, that capitalism proper can be said to come into being. And this, ultimately is the difference in kind between markets and capitalism — Streetlight

I wonder how communism fits into your understanding of capitalism.

I don't think the philosophical mind raises the question of evil, because the philosophical mind recognize that "evil" is a made up concept, unconsciously invented to cope with the lack of knowledge of the things that hurt us. — Christoffer

That is agreeable. I have a question. Do the world's spiritual people have the same understanding of evil as the three God of Abraham religions? For those who are spiritual, the snake represents all that is good, including wisdom and transformation for the good. However, in the mythology of the God of Abraham the snake is evil.

Until we embrace the spiritual point of view, is it possible for us to see the snake differently?

The White man is the savage and the Indian is morally superior. The White man has subverted the truth, twisted it around and inflated his ego. While all he’s doing is ruthlessly exploiting and destroying nature for his own selfish ends.
Wherever we encounter indigenous peoples they all say the same thing, They revere their environment and seek to live in harmony with it. They respect their environment and natural balance and inherent wisdom of the animals and plants they live alongside. — Punshhh

Okay, we have agreement. I hope someday we all become spiritual and care for our planet and each other. That would be so much better than what is happening now. I no longer recognize the US as I remember it, and I fear that if we can not correct the problems before my generation dies, our democracy built on virtues will be lost.

I don't think we could get much more evil than we are now. I don't believe our wars have been wars against evil, but were wars for control of world resources and a wealthy banking system. We are capable of so much, and some people have very good hearts, but I don't think these are the people in control right now. We are in a period of transition with no guarantee of our future being a Garden of Eden New Age, a time of high tech and peace, and the end of tyranny.

Where we are most severely mistaken is in our singling out of the cat as individual and the mouse as same. They are not selves. We construct that pronoun, again, as a function of that process. That's the same error which causes us to judge our own species as inherently evil, or selfishness as permeating nature. — ENOAH

:chin: As I read your post, and the relationship of the cat and mouse, I began thinking of all the different stories about animals making special packs with humans, such as the buffalo giving its life so the people can meet their needs, in exchange for humans honoring the buffalo, or whichever animal is the main source of food. This comes up around the world because, obviously, humans felt bad about killing to eat. They needed a story to make killing okay.

I don't know how stupid white men came along and slaughtered animals for the fun of it. :chin: I never thought of this before. How could it be that some groups of people are more evil than others? They kill and destroy with no conscience, making them aware of their evil. How can that be? Why is the savage the better spiritual human being than the White man who comes with a gun and believes he is morally superior, and he needs to teach the savage about being saved and being moral? Is this justice of a god? Strange.

ENOAH
977
If we're, by nature, evil (or, even sinful, violent, hostile or aggressive), why do we express it with contempt, as though we ought not be? Or why would we raise that as a topic to debate, if it was, like hunger, our nature? — ENOAH

Can you imagine life without a concept of evil? The bible presents evil as some kind of spirit that affects our lives and requires us to be saved by a god, to be free of evil, and even escape the evil of death by having immortality if we are pleasing to god.

However, what do we do differently from the animals? Whether animals mate for life or mate for one day is determined by the animal's survival needs, and we don't get excited if a female or male animal has other unions that result in having offspring. We accept their sexuality as their nature. But boy, can we get a little crazy about our sexuality?

Our behaviors are regulated by hormones, just as is so for all other animals. Many animals are social animals, mothers nurse their young, and the young learn their place in their social group.

So are animals also evil and in need of being saved? :lol: Before a lion lies down with the sheep and eats grass alongside the sheep, it will need a whole efferent set of teeth.

ICE are just doing what we all hired them to do. — Fire Ologist

We did not hire ICE to shoot people in the leg. In fact, some states what ICE to stay out and respect state sovereignty. Shooting people in the leg is against the law, and if our young people in ICE follow orders that should not be made, they can be charged with a crime. Trump's brutality was on display many years ago....

Esper: Trump asked about shooting protesters

NPR
https://www.npr.org › 2022/05/09 › trump-esper-book-...
May 9, 2022 — Former Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper said President Donald Trump inquired about shooting protesters amid the unrest that took place after George Floyd's ...
Donald Trump 'suggested shooting migrants in the legs'

BBC
https://www.bbc.com › world-us-canada-49901878
Oct 2, 2019 — He pushed aides towards extreme methods of deterring crossings at the southern border, a book says.

That is against the law, and so we come to arguing about if ICE and the Gestapo are that different. Forcing someone into the public nude, is wrong. Traumatizing children is wrong. What is the problem causing nice and civilized people to not see the wrong? How is this different from what happened in Germany?

If we focus on history, philosophy, and the concerns some people have today, the discussion could be much more interesting the pointing out my faults. :lol:

I want to expand the understanding of the gestapo problem. I can't use AI, but I hope I can link to it.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Hitler+and+the+gestapo&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS990US990&oq=Hitler+and+the+gestapo&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRiPAjIHCAIQIRiPAjIHCAMQIRiPAtIBCTEwMzUwajBqN6gCCLACAfEFwzIOWqMQGCLxBcMyDlqjEBgi&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

The words that jump out at me are "without legal constraint". And "placing the secret police outside the traditional state and judicial oversight." I think that can be effectively done by firing everyone who disagrees with a leader, and putting in people who are 100% pleasing to the leader and are also unfit for the job. Like they are not opposed to the leader because they know enough to have good judgment.

Does anyone want to argue that Trump is not ruling as though he is above the law, and that he is not protecting his power by taking down everyone who opposes him? Is there any doubt he incited the attempt to take over the Capitol Building, and that he pardoned everyone found guilty of a crime and serving time that he could?

For some of us, the Athenian system of getting rid of tyrants was an important part of defending democracy.

The creation of the institution of ostracism, whereby the people decided collectively whether to banish a single citizen for ten years, provided not only a mechanism for the symbolic expression of democratic power, but also a means for the practical and ideological distinction between oligarchic and democratic rule. https://online.ucpress.edu/ca/article-abstract/19/2/232/25458/Exile-Ostracism-and-the-Athenian-Democracy?redirectedFrom=fulltext

A discussion of the difference between an oligarchic and democratic rule could be interesting.