Sometimes people need killing. I'm not a pacifist. — BenMcLean

I don't know what you think separates you from the radicals who go on killing rampages, or the good Nazis who believed God is in favor of killing Jews. I no longer feel safe. Please, do not read or reply to my post.

Ah, excuse me I don't see how the story of Ham can have any merit.
"story interpreted as explaining the origins of Canaanite servitude and used historically to justify oppression." Such stories make the Old Testament a terrible basis for human relationships. Don't you see them as very offensive? Those stories are about worshiping a God of war, leading to our very offensive culture in the US prepared for the Military-Industrial Complex and acts of war that violate international agreements.

Excuse please, but we did not support these values. We did not see the truck coming. Eisenhower warned us, but we were too young to be politically concerned, assuming your parents are close to my age. Let me explain, but first, I want to say how much I appreciate your gentle words and awareness of what is in the heart. Second, I want to express my appreciation for what may be the best discussion I have had on the subject of the Military-Industrial Complex.

The US adopted Germany's bureaucratic model and Germany's education for technology for military and industrial purposes. We could compare Maxwell's bureaucratic order with Deming's order. That is https://www.business.com/articles/management-theory-of-max-weber/ and https://deming.org/explore/fourteen-points/ . I am quite sure your parents would value Deming's system over Maxwell's order. If they are interested in such matters, it would be so cool to have coffee with them and you, and discuss all this.

Bottom line: by adopting Germany's bureaucratic and education models, we became what we defended our democracy against in the two world wars, on steroids. To make the US great again, we need to return to what Eisenhower called our domestic education, which considered the classics as important, and move forward on Deming's model of management. This is very much a cultural thing with social, economic, and political ramifications.

Once the elders are gone, the memory of the democracy we had will be forgotten, and in its place will be nothing but the Military-Industrial Complex.

It stems from the feeling of security that group membership provides. The desire to be understood and included. The notion of a shared identity and the need to fit in. However, the modern world and the internet, as well as large metropolitan areas, have slightly altered this in people. Now you can find like-minded people online. There's no longer any need to know your neighbors or stick together in extended families. The world has become more individual. AI has further exacerbated this: now, even for a heart-to-heart conversation, you don't need to maintain a close relationship with someone. After all, you have a wonderful, flattering companion in your pocket, ready to share your every experience, offer wise advice, and adapt to you in a way no one else has before. — Astorre

You said so much, and I am a bit overwhelmed, so I am reducing what you said to this paragraph. I chose this statement because it directly hits upon a problem I, and others, are dealing with at the moment. Someone wrote a book about civilizations falling when they become too complex. I think we are in danger of falling because what we have is too complex to survive.

Where I live, a major medical insurance company could not make agreements with essential parts of the system, so it is leaving. All of the members of the company that is leaving must find another insurer or wait to be processed to form the insurer that is leaving to another medical insurer that has agreed to take on all the people being transferred. This is a little nuts because we are being transferred back to an insurer that our major hospital refused to do business with. I am assuming the insurance company now has a working relationship with the hospital.

The transfer from one insurer to another is not going well!!!! No one knows what is happening, and we are getting wrong information when we call. I know this because at the same time the transfer is in process, the gym I go to is re-enlisting members for the new year. I can not renew my membership because I am in limbo having neither the insurance I had, nor the insurance I am transferring to.

I called the insurance company I am being transferred to and was told I have to call the state and re-enroll in Medicare/Medicaid. I call the state and no one answers the phone because too many people are calling. I go on-line and that is a nightmare. Some of us did not grow up with the internet, and when we have to use it, we are like fish out of water. So then I decided to drive to the Senior and Disability Services office and see if I can resolve the transfer problem I am having. No one at Senior and disability services knew what is happening nor how to help me. Two people working at the counter kind of agree I don't have to worry about the transfer because it is happening automatically.

I hope you do not understand what I am saying, because then you will better understand the problem. This is not functional. Guess how I feel.

I don't give a hoot what someone believes. The people I need to communicate with could be Christians, Hindus, or atheists. I don't care. They could have slant eyes, or dark skin, or polka skin, I don't care. They might believe the world is flat, or that all of humanity came from a couple who were cursed by a God, and therefore we all need saving. I don't care what they believe.

What matters is my ability to call any official I need to speak with, and I need to resolve the problems that we now have with all this complexity. Most of my life I never had medical insurance, and I could walk into any doctor's office and get medical care as long as I could pay for it. There was no policy, no doctor, or no insurance company that could block me from getting the medical care I need. Now I am powerless. I have to figure out who is the right person to call, and everyone else's policy, and all the technology before I can get what I need. And there is no assurance that the people I am speaking with know how to process things.

God forgive me, but the best way to clarify what I am saying is to use AI, and I think our understanding of the problem is very important. This is far more important than if we should have tattoos and piercings, or a community celebration, or allow men and women to marry same gender people. We have a national problem and perhaps an international problem, and we need to be aware of that so we can consider ways to avoid a complete breakdown.

Bureaucratic breakdown refers to the dysfunction, inefficiency, and failure of complex organizational structures (bureaucracies) to achieve their goals, marked by symptoms like decision paralysis, slow responses, lack of initiative, and inflated processes, despite clear rules and hierarchies, often leading to poor outcomes or public frustration, as seen in government failures or business stagnation, contrasting with the intended efficiency of Max Weber's ideal model.

To harp on the climate change theme-I know there are other problems but permit my narrow focus- climates always change, that's natural and has been dealt with by either changing cultural habits or removing humanity from the equation for as long as it takes for the climate to balance; the problem is that the climate is changing all over the world, a progressive nation can't stop this, a progressive continent can't stop it, only a progrressive humanity can. To solve a global problem you need global cooperation. — New2K2

I watched a good youtube explanatiion of climate change, and true, our planet has experienced climate change but you should not stop there. Ice ages happen. Millions of people would die in an ice age, but they are essential, and right now, the CO2 in our atmosphere is preventing an overdue ice age. If we continue in the direction we are going, we could become extinct.

We should not stop at saying the world has always experienced climate change. We need to know the CO2 problem is man-made and it has disrupted the earth cycle. I can not think of any good ways to handle what is happening, but we need to take responsibility for what we have done and will have to do in the future.

The oil and economic problem is not just an Ice age or thousands of years of intense heat. An article in a 1920 newspaper warned, "Given our known oil supply and rate of consumption, we are headed for economic disaster and possible war." Two things changed. We opened oil wells around the world, and technology greatly increased the use we can get out of a barrel of oil. You might understand oil is finite and ignoring this problem is a problem.

At the end of WWII, the US was seen by many as a world savior. It was not long before the US's oil and economic needs made it a threat to countries around the world. If we paid at the gas pump for the cost of war, we couldn't afford gas. Our tax dollars subsidize the military costs of trying to control oil. We need to talk about this. We need to talk about oil and banking. We need more information, and we needed it yesterday. I am sure most of us feel helpless because we don't know enough to figure out the best way to deal with a very, very big problem. We should have started limiting our use of oil in the 1920's when the connection between oil, banking, and war was realized.

And philosophers need to pay attention to reality.

I understand the dilemma. Perhaps there is a certain beauty to the way Americans are ignorant. And I wish the word didn't have such a negative connotation. Personally I still feel ignorance is bliss. And it's certainly not something to judge or criticise. And knowledge can be bliss too. If you know the right things. I'm hopeful — Deleted User

Are you a powerless human being? If a wrong is being done, do you have any responsibility to resolve the problem? Sure, ignorance is bliss, but as human beings, perhaps we carry a responsibility to bring an end to what is wrong?

The suffix "ance" forms nouns denoting an action. The word ignore means "refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally." To intentionally ignore something is failing to take responsibility. That might be a moral problem or a morale problem.

I believe philosophy has done far more to manifest a better world than religion achieved. I sure as blazes do not want to go back in time to when one church ruled and maintained ignorance and superstition. I do not believe a God takes care of us, or gives us kings to take care of us, or wants us to go around the world killing people. If there is evil out there, I am sure if there is a God he can take that evil without us killing people. We manifest our own reality, and that goes better when we accept the responsibility for what we manifest.

:lol: I came of age in the 60s. One of many chants was....If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

Sorry, I have to use AI to pull the rug out from under the argument you made. I did not single out Mormons when addressing racism, and I want to use an authority stronger than my own voice to be clear about this. Not only do I want to clear myself of the assumed wrong, but I want every single person to know the history of our racism. Christianity itself has always been a problem, and racism is not the only problem with Christianity.

During the Civil War, many Southern religious figures and thinkers, like Presbyterian theologian James Henley Thornwell, Catholic Bishop Augustus Marie Martin, and others, argued slavery was divinely ordained, often citing the "Curse of Ham" (Genesis 9) to claim Africans were destined for servitude, while also using other biblical passages to portray bondage as a positive, patriarchal Christian institution necessary for social order. These justifications claimed scripture supported slavery as God's will, contradicting abolitionists who saw it as a moral evil.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Civil+war+who+believed+slaver+is+justified+by+god%27s+curse&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS990US990&oq=Civil+war+who+believed+slaver+is+justified+by+god%27s+curse&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIJCAEQIRgKGKABMgkIAhAhGAoYoAEyCQgDECEYChigATIJCAQQIRgKGKABMgcIBRAhGI8CMgcIBhAhGI8C0gEKNTEwNDNqMGoxNagCCLACAfEFif74NTwABCs&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Astorre, thank you for the compliments. I will try to live up to them.

Imagine that perhaps our descendants will look upon us the same way in 300-500 years. — Astorre

Hopefully that will be so.

So, I'm not going to claim anything, but it certainly seems that everyone has a certain hierarchy of ideas. When making decisions, most of us would rather be guided by what we accept as fact than by what's written in the tabloids or on a fence (though this isn't necessarily true in all cases) — Astorre

I wish most of us wanted facts, but that is not what I see. I love your notion of a hiarchy if thoughts. I have never thought of what you are talking about until you brought it up. I think our hierarchy of thoughts begins with how we feel, not exactly how we think. We desperately need to feel like we belong to something bigger than ourselves and to be accepted and valued. However, it is not easy to have the feeling in our huge populations where we are strangers in a crowd. On top of that, we are running our lives on what we individually want and not a shared culture with shared beliefs and values. Media and commercials have seriously disrupted the human social experience.

To cope with today's reality, we seek a group that we may or may not personally know the members of this group. This is an identity thing and how we "feel" about who we are and who they are. Our group may be the individuals who accumulate a lot of guns and walk into a public place and shoot as many people as possible. A person may feel these people are like them, and the killers give them permission to be killers. This is especially so if somehow these mass murders look like a heroic act for some reason. :lol: I have to learn more about Jung to explain. Anyway, we are breaking up and then uniting in new ways.

Maybe we are among the beautiful-haired people who use the best product for our beautiful hair. Maybe we are against abortion and belong with those who struggle to prevent abortions. Or the new one, maybe we look like a girl but feel like a boy. The point is we are getting our identities by imagining we are members of groups, and some of these groups believe ridiculous things, such as we are told that we have to wear masks because the government wants to control us. Don't get vaccinated because.....? :brow: I am sorry, but we are not seeking truth. We want to be loved and accepted and valued, and that means finding the group that best fits us, and boy, oh boy, can some of these people be radical.

On the other hand, colleges are tightly controlling what professors say. The professor must be technologically correct and can be sued for saying something politically incorrect. Kind of like Galileo. On all levels, education is manifesting intense concern about technological correctness. This is a totally different mindset from education using the classics to produce good citizens and a strong democracy.

Today, we look upon people who believe the Earth is flat, or upon geocentrists, as cranks. The same applies to adherents of other "facts" considered true in earlier times. — Astorre

Yes, the adherents of other "facts" can feel strongly about what they believe, and we can feel strongly about them. It really gets difficult when someone would be a very good friend, if only she didn't believe what she believes. Seriously, one person has destroyed friendships and even torn apart families, as happened during the civil wars in the US and UK. It would be so wonderful if we could agree on what is true and with reason live together happily forever after.

That was a hope of the Enlightenment, and I am puzzling about why that is so hard. Thinking the government wants us to wear masks because "they" want to control us is just nuts. Failing to understand what oil has to do with US military actions and the US having enemies is shameful. We can not achieve our potential if we do not base our lives on good moral judgment and correct reasoning. How can we build a better hierarchy of thinking?

Good point. I suppose ideas could have their properties, hence idea of gold would be heavier than idea of paper for the same mass and size. However, it would still be our faculty of reasoning which investigates, and can make the judgement. Ideas themselves would be still unable to present the knowledge of their own properties just by entering into mind. — Corvus

Yes, ideas do have properties, and if we could use AI, I would gladly do so. I can not use AI, so I will ask you to Google "properties of ideas". The first time I googled that, I got an explanation of property rights. The second time, I got an explanation of the properties of ideas that are the subject of this post.

Instead of the "property of thoughts, try using the term "quality of thought". That will get a more profound explanation.

The classics that were the foundation of education in the US are heavier reading than Captain Underpants, which has nothing to do with character development, and is only about amusing children, so they will read the book. While the classics have been left out of school libraries because they require deep thinking, and children accustomed to being amused and junk food, no longer read the classics.

because they are contingent products of practice. — Philosophim

Is that explained in your paper?

For so many years, we specialized and lost the benefits of knowing a lot about many things. The different sciences are starting to work together, and I think that is essential. I think it is our job to learn all we can from geologist, archeologist and related sciences to rethink everything! Especially history. We are birthing the New Age, a time of peace, high tech, and the end of tranny. Those who follow us will not be able to relate to our understanding of reality.

Of course, avoiding a nuclear war and the destruction of our planet seems essential to the New Age. But how do we get everyone on board with all the thinking that is required for better judgment?

Ultimately the fear of undermining what we have should not be a motivator in an ideas discouragement. — Philosophim

This has repeatedly happened throughout history, and I feel very angry about that. We all know Galileo's struggle to increase our knowledge of the university and "reality." There are far fewer known searchers of truth who have been silenced by the "experts" who were silenced by those wanting to protect their own careers and felt threatened by the new information. It was Galileo's colleagues who were his worst enemies. Anna Sofaer, discovered the sun dagger in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, in 1977, and it was her colleagues who totally disrespected her discovery and tried to silence her because of career prestige and competition, which continues to this day.

I do not know why Oregon Public Broadcasting promotes Christianity. I suspect it is the bottom line of the dollar. But this glaring prejudice shines a light on the importance of not only the story that is told but also how it is told. I tried to watch the history of Christianity, and it left out so many facts and created such a biased picture of history that I couldn't continue watching.

Sadly, we need to question why a story is told and what is the interest of the story teller. We are so proud of our intelligence, and we want to believe that knowledge will always make the future better, but that takes a lot of work!

"Is there anything that exists necessarily?" For sure, it is the truth that is necessary for good judgment, but how can we be sure we know the truth and enough of it to matter? Studying the Bible and only the Bible is not good enough for today's reality of sharing the planet with many people who have different customs and different beliefs, and who look different. This calls for the highest morality and perhaps the learning of all gods and traditions.

I want to slam in here, it is not just what we know that is important, but also how we feel. Increasingly, colleges have added classes about emotional intelligence and what it has to do with our judgment.

However, within a few days, they discarded this tool for assessing scientific validity as unsuitable for them, preferring astrology. — Astorre

They will probably outgrow their preference for the mystical. I will quote one fact from AI to add weight to what I have said. "Younger adults (18-30s) tend to identify as more superstitious." Those over 65 are more likely to have lost their sense of wonder and be more grounded in empirical information. However, those of us who have not grown old and retain our child-like thrill to discover, might have an advantage. That is totally my opinion. I would also argue that a love of superstitious notions is most likely to catch the imagination of adolescents. 18 is way too old.

I like what I read in a very old book about logic. The author said we can never be so well informed that we can be absolutely sure of what we think we know.

Ideas which is purely mental in nature, and copy of the perceived impression cannot have weights. Your thoughts? — Corvus

I am not sure that we can not weigh our thoughts. A thought about fairies and unicorns would not weigh much. However, the thought of a nuclear war that is recorded in pictures and written accounts of what happened would have a lot of weight, both emotionally and logically, because of being supported by facts. You know, as in "weigh the evidence carefully". And the scales by which we judge.

There might be a cultural bias favoring physical weight only, but this would be too limited for an understanding of weights and our experience.

No it didn't. — frank

Would you please share your source of information so I can think about it?

Here is one source of information that is respected.

zero, number denoting the absence of quantity. Represented by the symbol “0,” it plays a foundational role in arithmetic, algebra, computing, and scientific measurement. It lies at the center of the number line, separating positive numbers from negative numbers, and it operates as a placeholder in positional number systems. Though now ubiquitous, the concept of zero as both a symbol and idea is a relatively late development in human history. Although placeholder symbols for absence were used in earlier systems, the modern zero—as a numeral with its own value and arithmetic rules—originated in ancient India before spreading to the Islamic world and Europe. https://www.britannica.com/science/zero-mathematics

No, it notes that we can draw a necessary conclusion by examining causation. I wrote it Banno, so if you want to dispute it lets go there. Again, if you have issues with what I'm saying about the paper, lets not bog down another person's OP on it here. — Philosophim

Just imagine what the concept of nothing could do to our understanding of everything. We might even become humble about what we think we know. What if we didn't put on our boxing gloves and come out fighting like Teutonic Knights defending their belief in God, or us fighting over scientific truths?

Perhaps without the concept of nothing, we could not think about fluctuations of the quantum vacuum? Perhaps zero, as a concept of nothing, is necessary to our modern thinking process.

Zero was invented by the Babylonians. — frank

Unfortunately, we can not use AI, which explains why Sumerians and Mayans had a symbol that served as a space holder, but the symbol did not serve us as we use the zero today. The modern concept of zero began in India.

The rest of what you said is correct. The space holder became a meaningful number, making today's use of zero possible, in India, where there was a concept of nothing. That is a mind-blowing concept, and we would not be where we are today without it.

Another way to look at it is is, "What is the definition of necessary?" Necessary implies some law that if this does not exist, then something which relies on that thing cannot exist. But is it necessary that the necessary thing itself exist? No. — Philosophim

3 dimensions are necessary for the manifestation of energy to take form.

I think if you look into it further, you'll discover that I'm right. Energy is a scalar number that measures the capacity of a system to do work. There's an awesome Spacetime video in which Dr O'Dowd explains it really well. I've posted that video three times so far on this forum. But you can also discover the information elsewhere. :grin: — frank

If energy were merely a numerical value, it would have no effect. There are several forms of energy, and some forms of energy can transition into a different form of energy.

Actually, it does come close. Adam and Eve are enjoined from eating from the Tree of knowledge of good and evil. This (I maintain) represents the advent of civilization, when moral rules must become codified, and knowledge of good and evil explicit. They are expelled from Eden, and must labor for their food (Abel becomes a herdsman, Cain a farmer). This suggests the move from hunting and gathering to agriculture -- which happened in the not distant past for those who first told the story. — Ecurb

I don't think the Hebrews were the first to tell the story of Adam and Eve. I think that was a Sumerian story that told of real events. The Hebrews in Ur plagiarized the story and adjusted it to fit the idea of one God. Fortunately, the Sumerian story was written in clay, and geologists and related scientists could find evidence of the truth behind the story and the fact that the Hebrews plagiarized the original story.

I studied cultural anthropology in grad school, and some of my profs had studied with people who had recently made this switch. They all hated it. They hated the work; they hated being tied to the land. Many couldn't handle it, and though their slash and burn fields doubled their yield with an hour-a-day of daily weeding, they were often abandoned by the former hunters and gatherers, who wanted to visit their cousins in the next valley.

The physical record bears this out. Measures of health -- average height and longevity - decreased at the advent of civilization. This makes sense. A diet based mainly on the staple crop and contagious diseases that spread with crowded, urban conditions were probably the main culprits.

So the "Eden" of primitive life morphed into agriculture and civilization -- and slavery for huge swaths of the population. No wonder they longed for an Edenic past.

IN more general terms, a religious world view differs from a scientific one in that the scientific world view thinks we are progressing; the religious thinks we have fallen from an idyllic past. This is true for many religions (including the ancient Greeks', Athena) who told stories about the Gods walking the earth and breeding heroic children with humans in a glorified past.

I studied cultural anthropology in grad school, and some of my profs had studied with people who had recently made this switch. They all hated it. They hated the work; they hated being tied to the land. Many couldn't handle it, and though their slash and burn fields doubled their yield with an hour-a-day of daily weeding, they were often abandoned by the former hunters and gatherers, who wanted to visit their cousins in the next valley.

Yes, the Greeks had a golden age, a silver age, and a bronze age. Today, we do the same thing, believing in a better past and the decline in the present.

As you mentioned, the story of Cain and Abel does appear to be a moral crisis. As I understand, the moral crisis was about the shift from being herders who shared everything in common to being farmers who held land individually. That created division and competition, which was not the way of herders. With ownership of land comes inequality and slavery, and lying, and cheating, as Genghis Khan pointed out when he told his people to never settle in one place and start accumulating things, and never choose one religion over another. Genghis Khan thought city people were very immoral.

Can we go back to the Sumerian story that became the Hebrew story of Adam and Eve? The Sumerian story tells us of a terrible, very long drought that killed a river, and then there was flooding. Then a return of mild weather that made farming in the valley possible again. A story that recorded important information became nothing but a myth when people forgot the events that began the story, the long drought, and then the flood.

It is important which story we believe. The Sumerian one does not throw us out of an Eden and give us a God's curse that requires us to be saved by Jesus.

But when people pooh-pooh such concerns it makes me curious. Was there any time in your entire life that you read something and it incited you to violence or hatred or anything that can be construed as a crime? When you read the above tweet, did you feel yourself reaching for the pitchfork? — NOS4A2

There have always been taboos. The reason for a taboo is to leave no doubt that something is wrong and should never be done. When it comes to prejudice and violence, there must be no question that the violence is taboo. This would mean being firm about a boundary and not leaving any wiggle room. When something is taboo, not only is it not done, but we don't even think about it.

Your question to us of if we have experienced a violent urge because of what someone said or did is meaningless because such people are not likely to be in this forum. Such a person is more apt to use a public platform where they are apt to find agreement and maybe even encouragement. It is rather shocking how many of the killers talk about their intention before following through with it. These emotionally unstable people are the ones we want to stop, and that's why humans have always had taboos. To stop the 1 out of a million people who is about to go off the rails.

The problem today is that we no longer understand taboos, what they are, and why they are important. This unfortunate reality has made the problem a governmental one, instead of just a social one. This is a cultural problem made worse by today's technology. We now understand that such violence has a copycat effect, inspiring others to do the same thing.

Of course. They've even killed eachother over who has the right understanding of God. — baker

I am sure Constantine regretted making Christianity an acceptable religion when the Christians began killing each other. The disagreement about Jesus being the son of God or God himself led to a lot of killing, and then the argument over baptism led to more killing for a long time.

This might be blunt, but the success of Christianity is about winning by killing. Another successful move for Christians is reinterpreting people's beliefs and celebrations to be Christian stories. So the Easter Bunny and Easter Egg, Egyptian symbols of fertiality becoming a Christian holy day. The Tree of Life, a pagan tree, becomes the Christian Tree of Life. I think only the Jehovah's Witnesses acknowledge the pagan history of these celebrations.

Imagine celebrating your favorite pagan days and discovering you are a Christian. :gasp:

While reading the arguments, my mind drifted to the videos I have been watching about humans surviving an ice age and the flooding that followed. One might think if humans recorded their history, they might have said something about surviving an ice age. Humans evolved in Africa long before the ice age, and the story of them surviving the climate change from extremely hot to extremely cold and then moderate temperatures is fascinating. The story of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden doesn't even come close to the real human experience.

In the past, it might have been understandable for humans to believe their different creation stories, but continuing to do so with our greatly improved understanding of reality makes the continued success of past religions a curious question. How can people maintain a false belief when the evidence gives us such a different story of our creation and amazing survival? :worry: We are supposed to be rational, but to continue to believe a false story of creation when the evidence is so different is an extremely strange human behavior. I eagerly wait for an explanation of that. And what is really nuts about this is how easily they see all the other stories as false. It is only their own creation story that isn't based on superstition. :roll:

I could spend hours, days, weeks trying to explain. In fact, I have done so for years. But when someone doesn't read what is on the page and instead injects his own projections, there's just no point in trying to discuss anything. — baker

That is beautifully said, and it is not restricted to religious differences. It would be wonderful if all replies were about the subject and not the person who wrote the reply. :lol:

Is the success of Christianity different from the success of any other religion or cultural mythology? Some Native Americans have maintained tribal beliefs, but they have a system of converting people. That was also a problem for Jews. A failure to convert enough people to dominate.


Both Christians and Muslims have converted people by making it impossible to live in peace if they do not convert to the religion in control at the moment. It seems to me that a large part of the success depended on who won the wars. I don't think Hinduism and Buddhism converted people in the same way. :flower:

You can go back to ignoring me. I speak for myself, not because I think you'll say something interesting. — AmadeusD

Okay :grin:

More parochial stuff. Yes, your education system is a bit fucked. As are your health and social security systems. Other nations are progressing, if slowly.

The objection here is to the "we" in the title. — Banno

:snicker: What is wrong with that word? What is a better word?

And what was parochial about all the political stuff I said?

Why would you say our education system is fucked? What do you know about it, and what does education have to do with the culture and direction of a nation?

I don't think we are doing very well in the effort to have a meaningful discussion. Perhaps I am being insensitive to what the fuck is important to you? But I don't see your expression of what is important to you; I only see objections to what I have said.

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.