What you describe is I think currently being developed. It has always been there in Western thought actually but it has not always been dominant. Schwarz and Thompson, two economists and sociologists define it as an 'egalitarian perspective', Sociologist Aaron Wildavsky defines it as a perspective of harmony. Traditional enlightnement values, values we still live with today proritize control of nature through technological means and progress through economic an cultural development.

The harmony perspective on the other hand is the one embraced by ecology. The sociologist and ecologist Anna Bramwell calls much of ecological reasoning and environmentalism 'manichean', presenting a battle between good nature and evil techno-science. Much of philosophy now is busy transllating philosophical ideas to the realm of the environment and to our relationship between man and nature. Martin Heidegger's essay on technology is an early example. Then came Hans Jonas 'The principle of responsibility'.

You might want to delve in ecological thought for answers to your question. I do think currently that we gradually see a shift in perspective, from individualist to egalitarian. However, do not have many illusions about this shift, like every revolution there will be a lot of struggle. Ecology is not necessary friendly to your enlightenment values and your love for democracy. — Tobias

It appears you are very well-read and that is honorable. However, I must address what looks to me as an attack on technology and democracy.

Thomas Jefferson is one of my favorite authors. It is from him and classical philosophy that we learn the pursuit of happiness means lifelong learning and mass education is the only way to protect our democracy and liberty. However, that needs to include a classical or liberal education, math (to learn logical thinking skills), and science. We replaced that education with the German model of education for technology and now have what we defended our democracy against. We are as Germany was when Hitler took power because that is what that education for technology manifest. This is a disaster!

"Good education is essential for every human being. Educated people have a better understanding of the world, and their perspective about different things is better and more informed." Jefferson

"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people… They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty." Jefferson

"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." Jefferson

"Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day." Jefferson

There is no way we could keep the mass of humanity alive, that fills the earth today, without technology. We would not have growing populations of long-lived people without technology. We could not have the economies that enable us to provide a decent standard of living for so many people without technology.
However, technology is not science, and technology without wisdom can destroy life on this planet.
We need more than education for technology. We need a classical/liberal education as well so we have the wisdom to use our technology well. If we can achieve this before it is too late is questionable. This is going to be a tight horse race and either we will enter a New Age, a time of high tech and peace, and the end of tyranny, or we won't. It depends on how well the masses are educated. With the media we have today, there is no excuse for doing as poorly as we have done.

By "divine judgement" I meant that on Plato's account, as in Christianity, souls are judged after death - by some divine authority, not by other humans. — Apollodorus

This is not what I expected this thread to be about but I have some thoughts on this idea so I will verbalize them.

I have decided if there is life after death it will be the result of what we have done in our present incarnation and the accumulation of past incarnations. That is not a judgment of any being, but more directly the result of our earthly actions and thoughts. Either we learn math or we do not. We learn to manage our anger without being destructive or we do not. We become enlightened through the effort of doing so, or we do not. The essence of our being is what we make it and we are the one who decides what will follow, just as we decide which books to read.

I think I was a prostitute and a crimal who shared life with another woman and two men who were most certainly criminals. Stealing and killing was just a way of life. As the wolves also have their way of life.
My consciousness in this incarnation is different, so are my opportunities different. Like if there were a god in control and one who judges us, certainly if He gives us lives that bring out the best in us, instead of lives that will surely bring out the worst in us, we would do much better. What we experience is not just a matter of free will. It is also a matter of circumstances that we can not control. Granted I am may have never had that incarnation, but what seems like a memory of it very strongly influences all of my thinking and notions of justice.

Hebrews knew they were using stories. They were meant to be interpreted literally.
— Athena
Maybe you mean "They were not meant ..."? — Alkis Piskas

I hate it when I forget the little word "not". It makes a slight difference in what I mean. :lol:

So the trinity is the idea that somehow God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are separate, but one. Different manifestations of the same being. What I don’t understand is in the Bible, Jesus communicates directly with God. Wouldn’t this amount to nothing more than talking to yourself? How could Jesus feel forsaken, as he famously declares on the cross? Wouldn’t he be privy to all the information or knowledge that God has? I get it that expecting Christianity to make sense is asking too much of it, but I don’t think I’ve seen this objection to the idea of the trinity, and I’m wondering if it has been posed before, and if so what the responses were. — Pinprick

Pinprick, I think you have made an excellent argument that has not been made before. Clearly given that conversation with God, Jesus and God are not the same consciousness.

Zoarastrianism might have been the foundation of what became Pauline doctrine on the separation between the Absolute and the world. These notions were codified by Christian baptism of the works of Aristotle — Gregory

I so wish we all could discuss Zoarastrianism as easily as we discuss Judaism and Christianity because all these ideas were circulating and religions share them in common. Something that is very exciting to me is the notion of the Creator manifesting the universe by giving order to chaos which is also very much the responsibility of pharaohs to maintain that order. I believe we see this theme throughout oriental thinking. Might we have very interesting discussions if we spoke of global warming as the result of man-made chaos?

Scholars and theologians have long debated on the nature of Zoroastrianism, with dualism, monotheism, and polytheism being the main terms applied to the religion.[38][37][39] Some scholars assert that Zoroastrianism's concept of divinity covers both being and mind as immanent entities, describing Zoroastrianism as having a belief in an immanent self-creating universe with consciousness as its special attribute, thereby putting Zoroastrianism in the pantheistic fold sharing its origin with Indian Hinduism.[40][41] In any case, Asha, the main spiritual force which comes from Ahura Mazda,[21] is the cosmic order which is the antithesis of chaos, which is evident as druj, falsehood and disorder.[22] The resulting cosmic conflict involves all of creation, mental/spiritual and material, including humanity at its core, which has an active role to play in the conflict.[42]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism — Wikipedia

Hum, I think I will start a thread about chaos and global warming.

Ironically, the Christian Trinity omits a significant deity from Old Testament : Satan. Originally, he was a heavenly prince, whose job was to serve as legal prosecutor in God's dealings with humans (including the temptation of Jesus in the desert). By contrast, the Holy Spirit was basically a messenger boy, who unlike an Angel, didn't take on human form.

The Roman Christians didn't have a name for the abstract concept of "four" (only a symbol : IV). But they could have used the Greek word "tessera" to describe a four-in-one deity : the Holy Tesseract. The Hindu pantheon included both good and evil gods. For example demonic Kali, who was the 10th avatar of Vishnu. What's the name for a 10-in-one deity? :cool: — Gnomon

Decad is ten. And you have made delightful points. For sure why stop at a trinity? I never thought of that before, but what is the rule that a God can only be a trinity? And what of Satan? He is essential and I can not understand why Jesus wasn't an angel or Satan wasn't a son? Satan was much more popular than he is now. I don't think a church that lectured about Satan would be popular today. For our present understanding of God, we might want to know about Zoroastrians.

Zoroastrians divided the spiritual realm between forces of good and evil. I believe Judaism is a continuum of badness and goodness, not opposing forces. However, it was Cyrus a Persian king and Zoroastrian who freed the Jews from Babylon and ordered that Persia would pay for the rebuilding of the Jewish temple. There was agreement that both religions would be at peace. This eastern influence carried an understanding of demons that did not exist in Judaism and Christians embraced that understanding of demons. They embraced a notion of spiritual reality that has an opposing force of evil. So you are right, the trinity is not the whole of spiritual reality.

PS__I was raised in a back-to-the-Bible fundamentalist church that did not accept add-on Catholic doctrines such as Trinity & Saints & Christmas. Ironically, some of us still celebrated Christmas, as a semi-secular holiday. So, I was always conflicted on that "holy day". With one crucial exception, our teachings were logical and subject to evidence. But the only true source of that evidence was a collection of ancient "scriptures", that were later compiled by the very church whose authority we rejected. :yikes: — Gnomon

:lol: And Christianity rejected the authority of the Jewish system of authority. Perhaps we need a good comedian to help us see the irony in that. Then along comes Mohammid and he retells his people about the same God and prophets. Then comes Mīrzā Ḥosayn ʿAlī Nūrī who starts the Bahai faith with is inclusive of the other three religions.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam break down into many separate groups all competing with each other for the "authority" to tell us about God's truth, and that is really humans telling us different things, and it has always been like this. The Bible was written by humans. This is a very serious matter because if we don't get it right, we do not become immortal. But if the trinity is our reality, we have a soul that is immortal. Ah, that is what hell is for, all those souls who don't get to go to heaven where Satan has control and we are eternally punished. I think Christianity has a problem with spiritual reality? Or for sure I have a problem understanding exactly what Christians believe.

You just pinpointed one of the many inconsistencies existing in the Bible! :smile:
Do this kind of stories ring a bell? To me yes. It reminds me of school essays written by children. It also reminds me how people with insufficient rational abilities argue in discussions, talk and write on various subjects. Arguing with those persons usually leads to nowhere. So is the study of the Bible! — Alkis Piskas

I am unsure of your meaning, but not many of us would be able to write a book on quantum physics, so maybe when people were writing the word of God, they also had a problem with that? Hebrews knew they were using stories. They were meant to be interpreted literally.

I’m not familiar with Egyptian faith but this notion is based on my own spiritual self-exploration. Is an expression of my own personal interpretation of the Bible.

Neither are Egyptians familiar with their ancient gods and reasoning. This is sad to me as they are caught up in religious conflicts with Christians, Jews, and Islam. I don't think anyone has an exclusive hold on "God's truth". As Joseph Campbell said, God came to everyone and their stories are different because they interpreted Him differently. That is going with the first point. We have human interpretations of God's truth, not an invaluable "God's Truth". Much of Christianity is Egyptian. Isis was the bread and water before Jesus became the bread and wine.

I guess that is true. Again this is based on my own personal perspective on faith. What I realize is there is no standard in how to believe, I guess that is why I am a harsh critic of Systematic Faith. I believe is a flawed practice and the only way, you can worship God and understanding the Nature of God is through Spirituality.

We came from a Source and we return to the source.

Whether you believe in Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Native American faith and even Atheism (return to the Universe into a natural elemental state). This theme of return to the source is Universal.

There is an increasing demand for a more spiritual experience. This is where our understanding of the trinity is so important! Some like to say we are spiritual beings having a human experience. That is totally different from an external God and Spirit, and needing to be saved by this external spirit/God.

{quote]I wonder what your "personal" definition of Christianity is? The argument seemed to be based more on technical systematic understanding than spiritual. And Trying to understand the rational reasoning and the mechanics of what makes God, God. Which is a different dynamic and different explanation than spiritual understanding.

Yes, there is a difference. Mine personally includes quantum physics. I am really sitting on the fence between being materialistic or more metaphysical. I have had experiences that can not be explained with a purely material understanding of reality.

My understanding is that we came from God, we are made up of the essence or a part of the spirit of God (Holy Spirit). So you can think in a sense that before we were conceived we were once one with God. Once we were born and took human form we became distinctly different, separate from God but we are from God. In that sense I believe that is what defines a Soul. — TheQuestion

That is contrary to the older Egyptian notion of the trinity of our souls. When we die part of that trinity, the physical part, becomes nonexistent.

Part of the trinity is judged and may enter the good life after death or not.

The Assessors of Maat were 42 minor ancient Egyptian deities of the Maat charged with judging the souls of the dead in the afterlife by joining the judgment of Osiris in the Weighing of the Heart.[1][2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assessors_of_Maat — Wikipedia

Finally, the third part rejoins the source.
That is compatible with the native American notion of the Creator and returning to the source after death.

Christianity externalized the God spirit and made God the trinity.

You lost me on that one. I prefer attempting to imagine a past consciousness and what the Greek effort to understand the mysteries of math has to do with understanding the trinity. A train of thought different from all other people on earth at that time. And to understand the twisting of meaning when Jesus was said to be logos, the laws of nature.

And I like thinking about the difference between being the son of Zeus versus the Son of God. I wish others saw that as an exciting contrast worthy of discussion. As the Greek understanding of math and the laws of nature were different from all others, so is the Christian understanding of God, different from all others. I can not think of any other god that had a son without a woman. The sons of Zeus had real power on earth such as Hercules and Alexander the Great. A son that is a martyr and needs to be sacrificed to save human souls, is a different kind of god. We can not blame the Jews for not accepting that Christian reasoning. Not only is it a different way of understanding God, but it is also a different way of understanding humans.

Judaism holds that adherents do not need personal salvation as Christians believe. Jews do not subscribe to the doctrine of original sin.[7] Instead, they place a high value on individual morality as defined in the law of God—embodied in what Jews know as the Torah or The Law, given to Moses by God on biblical Mount Sinai. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation — Wikipedia

Jews had a god-like all the other gods when people had patron gods. Patron gods had favorite people who they protected and the people with the most powerful god won wars. When Christians won wars pagans thought it meant they had the most powerful god. You know the jealous, revengeful, fearsome, and punishing God, not the God of love Christians worship today. The Jewish notion of God is not a trinity.

Jesus promoted violating the law saying it was not God's law but human ideas of law. I agree it was human ideas of laws, but that does not make the Christian understanding of the trinity any better and twisting the understanding of the laws of nature to mean a deified Jesus is just wrong.

My guess is some people hate vegans for the same reason some people hate Jews. A claim to moral superiority and rejection of normal customs can come back as rejection.

↪Athena Y very w! And of course you are exactly correct. I offer/refer you to this site:
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.505183/page/n233/mode/2up
You should find yourself at pp. 221-222 (of the text itself) of a pdf of An Essay on Metaphysics. I point you to the paragraph starting, "Christian writers in the time of the Roman Empire asserted, and no historian today will deny,..." (p. 223 of the text). And to the end of the chapter, a few pages. Of course you can read the whole chapter. And chapter XXV, "Axioms of Intuition," (p. 248 of the text) I find very interesting.

The irony of their fighting over words and meanings and new understandings cannot have been lost on you. What a relief we do not do that today, especially here in TPF, this cloistered reserve of reason. Luc Ferry observes that the conversion of logos in 1 John 1 from a Greek principle of nature to being a man then living was an "intolerable deviance," :"a matter of life and death." (A Brief History of Thought, pp. 62-63.) And so it goes. — tim wood

Whoo, whoo you are doing it to me again! There is so much I do not know and getting through this ignorance to enlightenment is very challenging! There were so many unfamiliar concepts in what you gave me. The notion of self-differentiation is exciting and I recall number 3 has been very important in several early civilizations. There is a Chinese concept of "one, two, infinity". This would be math and metaphysics.

There is the monad, number 1, the un-undifferentiated whole. "The one Godhead, secret in all beings, all-pervading, the inner Self of all, presiding over all action, witness, conscious knower and absolute...the One in control over the many who are passive to Nature, fashions one seed in many ways." Swetaswatara Upanishad

Then the Dyad where the action begins. 'In the Two we experience the very essence bring to bind many together into one, to equate plurality and unity. Our mind divides the world into heaven and earth, day and night, light and darkness, right and lift, man and woman, I and you- and the more strongly we sense the separation between these poles, whatever they may be, the more powerfully do we also sense their unity." Karl Menninger

Then the Triad. "All was divided into three." Homer "The Triad has a special beauty and fairness beyond all numbers, primarily because it is the very first to make actual the potentialities of the Monad." Iamblichus

We use scales to symbolize justice because it balances two. All of this is more comprehensible with geometry and actually drawing the two overlapping circles and then connecting where the lines cross getting a triangle.

Where is the emotiocon and the melting brain running out of an ear? Like I think the explanation of the trinity needs an understanding of the math, but that is not what comes through the Bible. The explanation you gave me is clearly more than three men ruling together or three gods Father, Son, and Holy Spirit working together. Without coming to metaphysics through math, we are missing an understanding of the forces involved. Am I am making sense?

"The creative activity of God is the source of motion in the world of nature" (from your link) but did you ever hear this explanation in Sunday school or a church sermon? What you gave me opened a whole new way to understand the Trinity and I so regret that was never the subject in Sunday school.

"That nevertheless there are in this world many different realms, each composing of a class of things peculiar to itself...." and then religion runs off in fantastic imagination of another realm mixed up in a history of a small group of people who justify everything they do with a fanciful notion of a god's will and things get very contentious from here.

I really appreciate the information you shared about the Trinity. I would be more interested in attending a church that presents such information instead of lessons for being good children based on fiction instead of math and science.

At the moment of the big bang there was something. From that moment to the present a lot has changed. A measure of change involves a concept of time. When we look at the universe we see the past, because what we see is no longer as it was but only the traveling light of what was.

You made my day with that question. I had to gather information to explain my meaning and that lead to an enlightening experience as I realized the relationships between concepts I have long held. Merry Christmas to me, you gave me what I want most- enlightenment.

Perhaps my wording was not exacting enough. Three men are not equal to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as one, not three. It is the nature of the one that is in question. How does the 3 become the 1?

I will quote from "Jesus Wars" by Philip Jenkins.

THE NEW LANGUAGE OF GOD.

The Apllinarian crisis also showed how much of the controversy in the church arose from disputes over shades of language. By the end of the fourth century, theologians drew subtle yet critical differences between a number of words that earlier had been thrown around in far vaguer terms....
The most important terms are ousia, physis, hypostasis, and prosopon. — Philip Jenkins

Is that better? Rome and everyone understood 3 men. That is the problem in the Jesus Wars. There is the Father, and there is the Son, and there is the Spirit. Three separate gods! People were killing each other with this understanding of a separate Father, Son, and Holy Spirit because there is only one God! Okay, how do we make this right without the language for 3 being 1? Jews expected a savior, they were not expecting God himself. They still do not accept the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as one God. That begins as a language problem and becomes a science problem. How can the impossible be possible?

If Jesus is God, when did this happen? Was he born a God? Or did he become a God when he was baptized and the Holy Spirit entered him? Or, did he become God when he died? Greeks were okay with men being sons gods, but I don't think they took this too seriously. In Rome, a king had to die before becoming a God. First, we need the language to talk about these things, and then we need some scientific thinking to figure out how a man could be God. Not just any god, but the one and only God. Can we wrap our heads around these language/thinking problems and a different Roman and Greek understanding of the God issue? You know, Alexander the Great was the son of Zeus. That is not how the Romans understood such things.

Digging around for more clarification, the argument gets more and more interesting because it is tied to claims to power and land. Greeks gave up liner heritage and this led to the war against the Maccabees (a Jewish group).

"Apotheosis" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apotheosis
The conquering Greeks were giving people jobs based on merit. The Jews found that intolerable because in their society everything was based on linage. Martin Luther and some Christians today, believe God determines who is born to rule and who is born to be a servant. Martin Luther thought God decided who is born to be a leader and who is born to serve. We come out of a Judo/Christian society that was very much determined by our lineage, not our merit.

Now look at the word "Divination" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinization_(Christian)

The term originally was used in Greco-Roman pagan society to venerate a ruler. It was inconceivable to Jewish piety. Yet, with time, it was adopted in Eastern Christianity by the Greek Fathers to describe spiritual transformation of a Christian. The change of human nature was understood by them as a consequence of a baptized person being incorporated into the Church as the Body of Christ. Divinization was thus developed within the context of incarnational theology. — Wikipedia

:rofl: That notion of being divine is a whole lot different from Zeus having sex with your mother. Thank you again for your question. :heart:

I read your article. So Jews would say the Trinity was pagan and although there is 3 in God there is not three persons? Is this how modern Jews see it?
— Gregory
I don't have enough personal experience with Jewish theology to answer that. — Gnomon

It is my understanding the Christians were killing each other during Contanople's time because of the debate of if God was three or one. This was a problem with language. Romans did not have a word for such a trinity but for the Greeks, who had a word for it, had no problem accepting such a trinity. It is my understanding Greek Jews were the first to write a Bible. Using the Greek language would make the trinity of God possible. So the answer to the question is what language were the Jews using. Also, the Romans created a word that made the trinity palatable to them.

Given today's reality, we are thrilled with a loving God, but our understanding of a loving God was not as it is today, until our bellies were full. Not that long ago God was jealous, revengeful, fearsome, and punishing the Satan had demons who could possess us. We are good with arguing the existence of God ignoring the reality of Satan and demons. Today's believers have a whole different understanding of God and Satan because the condition of our lives is so different.

Bottom line, what language are we using, and what is the condition of our lives that makes this or that believable.

Here is an interesting explanation of how concepts evolved to make the trinity of God palatable.

Doctrine, the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead. The doctrine of the Trinity is considered to be one of the central Christian affirmations about God. It is rooted in the fact that God came to meet Christians in a threefold figure: (1) as Creator, Lord of the history of salvation, Father, and Judge, as revealed in the Old Testament; (2) as the Lord who, in the incarnated figure of Jesus Christ, lived among human beings and was present in their midst as the “Resurrected One”; and (3) as the Holy Spirit, whom they experienced as the helper or intercessor in the power of the new life. — Britannica

God is the same as his power and his love and his justice and everything about him. He is one thing. That is what monotheism is about. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share an intellect and will. There is ONE God but three relations of consciousness within it.
— Gregory

Yes. Unfortunately, you can't expect atheists and anti-Christians to understand that. Yet they are allowed to dominate the debate and even encouraged for some strange reason. — Apollodorus

Huh? Love and justice are abstracts. A Father and Son can be tangible when they are the result of tangle humans who have sex, but the existence of supernatural beings who some argue is only one being, seems a con game to me, trying to convince something intangible is tangible. I don't know about the Holy Spirit having anything like a tangible existence. The Christian understanding of a god is not the only one, and why would we assume the Christian notion of a god is the only possible one to exist? What about Apollo the power to create and reason? Isn't he also an important god?

Not sure if I’m following this. There would be no time in nothingness, at least in how I conceive of it. Time is something. Also, wouldn’t the possibility of the big bang itself be something? — Paul Michael

Time is not something. Time is not tangible. Time like math is an abstract. It is an invention of our minds and applied to what exists.

According to the explanation of the cosmos I heard last night, nothing existed before the big bang and then gases were the first to exist, and existence, as we know it today, took a very long time to evolve out of nothing, starting with hydrogen and helium.

↪Athena Canada. I used to vote. My friends used to vote. Most don't now, for the reasons I listed. Nobody listens to our letters, might as well burn them, the end result is the same. I figure democracy is a scam: nice sales pitch but the final product isn't worth a damn. — Book273

Democracy is what we make it, but to get something changed requires a huge effort and connecting with the people who are willing to work for the change. Timing is also important. I discovered it is much easier to make change happen when someone like the governor is new to the office and wants to make change. Today our children's services policy is very different from the past and grandparents have rights by law.

I'd agree with you that it becomes increasingly difficult to assess equality when we live in generically different scenarios. I guess it depends on whether you look at humanity via a macro or micro lens. — john27

I think our consideration of equality is equal under that law, not equally beautiful, or equally talented, or equally motivated. As some businesses are discovering today, hiring practices that include those who have been marginalized, is kind of like finding diamonds in ugly stones.

I drive people nuts with my talk of education and values and the Military Industrial Complex but our only hope is becoming aware of how the 1958 National Defense Education Act changed education, and why this has huge, social, economic, and political ramifications.

Equal opportunity is a democratic principle and in a way, education for technology increases that equal opportunity, but in another way, it marginalizes people and destroys their equal opportunity.

When it comes to our voting system, as some are talking about, the education we once had, would prevent the effort to control the voting process that is happening today. This is only one of the political ramifications of the change in education. We now have the reactionary politics that put Hitler in power.

Here we can't do anything until the next election, and then we have a choice about which lying sack of crap gets in, — Book273

Where do you live? Where I live we can write to our representatives, and write letters to the editor, and protest in the streets, attend public hearings on the city, county, and state levels. This activity can lead to people uniting and having a much stronger voice than an individual. Such as the National Rifle Association. It is possible to write a bill and get have a vote on it.

I have actively changed law at a local level and bureaucratic policy at the state level, by working with others. What is really horrible is I seem to be the only one in forums who understands what citizens can do and that the meaning of citizenship is being responsible for such things. Democracy means the people have the power. We just aren't educating for that anymore.

I'm not sure if you've seen a lot of US schools.. but a lot of them have nothing to do with the kind of education needed to engineer weapons.. Are we talking urban or suburban schools? Because urban schools are often just trying to keep the kids and its own funding afloat for four years... — schopenhauer1

You are responding to a post where I said the Military-Industrial Complex has been in control of education since the 1958 National Defense Education Act. That is not an issue of city or rural schools, nor is it about this state or that state. It is about education for technology replacing what Eisenhower called our "domestic education". Our domestic education added on vocational training when we mobilized for the first world war, but we retained education for good citizenship and transmitted an American mythology and education for citizenship, until the National Defense Education Act.

Education is like a genii in a bottle, the defined purpose is the wish and the students are the genii. We changed the wish in 1958.

A primary purpose of domestic education was preparing the young for good moral judgment and that means teaching the children how to think, not what to think. Our liberty and social order really depend on that past education. Education for technology is amoral and tries to program the child's brain to be of use to industry and the military. Does that make sense, the difference between education to achieve a democratic and social goal, or education to achieve industrial and military goals?

I have no argument with the observation that many, many schools are just struggling to survive. Students in those schools are being cheated of having an education because what they are getting will not help them in any way and the environment is largely responsible for the failure of the schools. The 1958 National Defense Education Act was supposed to end in 4 years. It obviously did not end and it may be too late to save our democracy now. We took our culture for granted and that was a big mistake!

That is, we have to fight the enemy within and not just the enemies without. — tim wood

The enemy was welcomed with open arms at the end of WWII, Not only did nations compete for German scientists, but the US also adopted Germany's models of bureaucracy and education. We replaced our education with the German model of education for technology. Only when democracy is defended in the classroom is it defended. That ended in 1958 and yes the enemy is within.

For instance, now we see movies with HEROES in the Viet Nam war. (US-Viet Kong.) At the time the youth was opposing it and condemned it. Famous rockers and philosophers (John Lennon, Bob Dylan et al) condemned the war. People protested against it all over the world, not just on US soil. Now the war is viewed as a just war, producing heroes. And people gobble this new, albeit false, image down, because they still in the same groove as always in the West: believing the facts, believing the commentary. — god must be atheist

And people believe the Military-Industrial Complex is just theory and the same things as Hitler's New World Order.

Charles Sarolea's book "The Angle German Problem" is perhaps one of the most important books to read in order to understand what has happened to the US since implementing the 1958 National Defense Education Act. One of the first things the Prussians did when they took control of the whole of Germany was to centralize public education and focus it on technology for military and industrial purpose. The Prussians lived for military might as the citizens of the US lived for a love of God. Religion is good for war and war is good religion.

The Tea Party that is an essential part of the US history was opposition to Britain taxing US citizens to pay for the military essential to its control of the colonies. When the US entered the second world war its military strength ranked 17th, far below the military strength of much smaller countries. The US and democracy were best known as forces of peace, not forces of war.

Do the math. Are Americans voting sensibly? Does the ballot demonstrate/indicate that education makes a difference? I dunno, just askin'. Edify me, pleeaaase. — TheMadFool

Thank you, you are so right! Americans are not voting sensibly and the change in education is why they are not.

Mad Fool, I don't think you are getting the nuances of my post?

The US Republican-Trump party is now working to install loyalists in swing-state election-admin posts, so that they can manipulate the 2024 count to ensure he wins - all in defense of the stop-the-steal lie, which 2/3 of them still believe. — Tim3003

And they will probably succeed because we have been educated for that. Trump is our Hitler and the supporters of both men have had the same education for technology. Our power and glory is all about our military might, right? That has always made American great, isn't it? (absolutely not!) That and the blessings of a God who takes care of us and favors us above all others.

Here is our great former President Trump. I am posting it because it is exactly what Chis Hedge explains in his book.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NsrwH9I9vE

Chris Hedges's book "THE END OF LITERACY AND THE TRIUMPH OF SPECTACLE?" is a must-read for this thread.

"The more we sever ourselves from a literate, print-based world- a world of complexity and nuance, a world of ideas- for one informed by comforting, reassuring images, fantasies, slogans, and a celebration of violence, the more we implode."

Deomcracy is, bottom line, a compromise between totalitarianism and anarchy. The deal we've agreed to is a fixed term (4 years in the USA, think Trump) of dictatorship interrupted by short spells of anarchy (elections). There's nothing great about democracy when you look at it that way; as it is authoritarianism is being favored, given we have to live with it for 4 years, in democracy and that speaks volumes. It seems the logic of democracy boils down to getting robbed by different people is better than getting robbed by the same person. I somehow fail to see the difference. — TheMadFool

And if religions put away their holy books and began teaching math and science, they would be as weak as our democracy is now. Autocracy does not require an educated mass. Democracy does require preparing citizens to be responsible adults who live by shared principles and will defend those principles. Our liberty is impossible without that. Knowing the principles of democracy is as important to a democracy as a Christian knowing the 10 commandments is important to Christianity. Knowing the history and philosophy of democracy is as important to democracy, as Bible stories are important to being an indoctrinated Christian. Without that education, we have anarchy, not democracy.

My IQ score is on the wrong side of 69 (Wechsler). Does that explain everything going on between us? — TheMadFool

No, but I will walk away hoping this morning is just an off day and not what can be expected in the future.

Up until the last 2 decades the spreading of news was controlled by the orthodox media - TV and newspapers. That news was written by employed journalists; edited, audited for truth and generally respectable if sometimes opinionated - if it wasn't other broadcasters and informed readers would make its shortcomings clear. So the public had reasonably reliable sources. — Tim3003

That past is the result of education for citizenship specifically a citizen of the US. I think the Brits also have a very strong history of freedom of speech and honor. I have read their education was about being English, manners, and customs and they rejected education for technology because they wanted to protect the class social order, and education for technology tends to erase the inherited class order. Germany under Prussian control focused on education for technology for military and industrial purposes. Now you might imagine education for technology is amoral and does not transmit a culture as the US and Britain were focused on their cultures.

The US added vocational training to education when it entered the first world war and there were wonderful benefits to that. However, at that time, war depended more onpatriotism than technology so our schools were used to mobilize us for war and be sure everyone understood our democracy and why it must be defended. Teachers defended our democracy in the classroom. Attorneys defended justice. Newsmen such as our local newspaper called the Register Gaurd defending our liberty with the truth. Investigative reporters had the defined purpose of exposing those things that threatened our democratic principles.

I was greatly saddened when I spoke and a reporter who had no concept of his importance as a reporter because education is no longer explaining what citizens have to do with defending our democracy. We are preparing our young to be products for industry not adults in a democracy. The news business is now about making a profit and it is dying like the goose that laid the golden eggs.

Step one, end education for good moral judgment and leave moral training to the church.
Step two, educate everyone for a technological society with unknown values.
Step three, watch our democracy fall because it is no longer defended.

We are witnessing many serious problems with the internet, but it can also be a place where people learn the principles of democracy and unite to defend it.

I'm sorry, Athena my Goddess, if you feel that way. Your vengeful reputation precedes you and I don't wanna be in your bad books. Let's just say that I'm wrong and you're right! :smile: — TheMadFool

What is the subject of the disagreement? And I swear, I am not behind the storms that are causing major flooding in Seattle right now. I don't have a desire to judge and punish anyone, except perhaps the young kid who replied to what I said and needs to learn good manners. :lol:

Not backwards! :grin: :joke: — TheMadFool

What does that mean? I am really disappointed this morning. I am not seeing any post that I consider worthy of contemplation and a considerate reply. Maybe another thread will be more interesting?

You've got it backwards as far as I can tell. — TheMadFool

How do you understand things?

Yeah, screaming "Stop murdering us in the streets" like the bunch of fascists they are :vomit: — Kenosha Kid

I suspect your goal was to be sarcastic and to ridicule what I said, please correct me if I am wrong.

I have been the person on the street and in public hearings standing on a table screaming for justice and escorted out by the police with the threat of being arrested for criminal trespassing. I know about acting out to get media attention and to have a voice strong enough to be heard when advocating for the homeless. This political activism was especially important when the state took my grandchildren illegally and made them wards of the state. We had a new governor who wanted to change things, so it was a good time for grandparents to unite and bring about a change in family law and the operation of the children's protective service. We fought for our grandchildren and won politically and I got my grandchildren back.

My granddaughter has been very active in the last several years and has gone to jail where was brutally abused by jail staff. My sister has also been extremely active on the streets, in hospitals, and in the state legislature's public hearings.

What was the point you wanted to make?

It might seem that there's more to a person than his intelligence but who in the hell decided to call our species homo sapiens (wise man)? Let's overlook this misnomer and what it implies for the moment and discuss the significance of intelligence (IQ). — TheMadFool

Well, we certainly have agreements on that point! I have been looking into this problem, and it appears there is a strong argument that God puts thoughts in our heads. That is a different topic, but one that might be worth exploring.

Are we to hold a mentally challenged individual (low IQ) responsible for an act that results in death, injury or loss of property? Let's, arguendo, say retarded people are held to account for their actions. That they surely didn't intend the illegal act must amount to something: like should be treated like and so, unlike should be treated...? With malice aforethought vs. unintentional/accidental/plain bad luck.

Ouch, ouch :gasp: please that is a totally different subject, but boy would it interesting to explore that. The US has a terrible record of incarcerating mentally disturbed people. Perhaps that goes with our unrealistic notion of a god and humans? What you said about intent, separates the Rittenhouse trial from the trial of the 3 men behaving as the KKK hunting down the coon.

As one poster in another thread said, many of the criminals who've been found to have low IQs are in prison precisely because they have low IQs. There are some wrinkles to iron out, nevertheless doesn't that mean we're mistreating (sending to the slammer is a form of psychological torture and the death penalty has its own issues) the disabled (low IQ folks)? There really is no difference between a gaol and a mental asylum, psychologically/psychiatrically speaking bit as to the manner in which they're treated, they're poles apart. :grin:

Oh yes, don't get me going on this one because I am highly emotional about our hugh justice failures. Have you noticed all the men being released from prisons lately?

Because my son, and also years later, a dear retarded friend were accused of crimes, I know our justice system is very corrupt! The goal is to nail someone for the crime and the system favors this goal, not justice. Thankfully I found an honest cop in a less than honest community, who got the case against my son reopened and the guilty teenager was correctly identified clearing my son of any wrong. Even the attorney I paid $300 to defend my son, was a corrupt SOB. He denied my son the lie detector test that he requested and then he decided to base my son's defense on convincing the court my son's friend did the crime. When I reeled in horror protesting my son's friend had nothing to do with the crime, the attorney said "what do you care as long as I get your son off". That SOB walked with my $300 and I never spoke to him again so he did nothing to earn his fee.

My retarded friend was not as lucky because his attorney stopped at getting my friend to plead guilty to a lesser crime rather than risk prison for a worse crime. There is no choice when the attorney is just out to make an easy buck and doesn't care about justice, and the charged person does not have the money for a better defense attorney.

I think its more specific than politics, its race. As you observed, even normally astute, academic types lose their shit as soon as someone says “black”. Fact after fact after fact unanswered, they just shift to a different attack vector and completely dismiss how they were just uncontroversially shown to be wrong. Its emotionally driven fantasy.
It would be nice to have a real discussion about any of it but as has been shown quite clearly in this thread you just can’t. You might say something that contradicts the dogmatic narrative and then there is no chance at an honest discussion. — DingoJones

Since 1958 we have focused on preparing our young to be products for industry. We have been teaching them what to think, not how to think. Now everyone is in the streets screaming what they want others to think, and part of not feeling heard is smashing windows and ransacking the city like a horde of barbarians sacking Rome.

I have been a political activist and after attending public hearings at the local and state levels, it is clear to me we are not well organized for democracy and resolving our problems through discussion. The internet is a great opportunity to improve our reality, but that means informed citizens taking on the responsibility of expanding our social consciousness and increasing awareness of democratic principles.

We have a ways to go to reach our democratic human potential and not many people who want to focus on that. As long as the Military-Industrial Complex controls education we are not going to get there.

If you wanted to do the research, I am confident that you would find that the mean high school and college GPAs as well as standardized test scores and scores on intelligence tests are all much higher among, say, electrical engineers than among police officers or firefighters.
— Michael Zwingli

It might be true, especially when you are comparing a group who may not need college level training, and another group who needs at least a BA, and maybe an MA.

If you collect the relevant statistics and display them in rank order, low scores to high scores across the board, there probably will be more high scores among engineers and doctors than among police officers and firemen. But... so what?

Training for even professional jobs is at least partly on-the-job. Just because your engineer has higher scores, doesn't mean that he or she would have the ability to function as a police officer, and just because the police officer doesn't have a BA, doesn't mean that he wouldn't have the wherewithal to earn one, even in engineering. — Bitter Crank

Yowsa! Those IQ tests should not be used to judge human beings! I have known geniuses who are totally unfit human beings. IQ testing in our schools, radically changed how we judge human beings and this has serious moral consequences. IQ testing is the mentality of the Military-Industrial complex and is about helping school staff select out those best suited for higher education for military and industrial purposes. This is our take on a German model of education and is what gave Germany reactionary politics and lead to Hitler and Nazis, and Texas thinking it is a good idea to have citizens report their family members and neighbors to authority. (law to prevent abortions).

What goes with this education is merit hiring. An arguably very bad way of judging people, that almost guarantees only those who have been processed through college will have an opportunity to have high-paying jobs or sit in the seats of power. An ugly reality that makes intelligent parents hysterical if their child is not in the top 10%. A few large employers have gone back to judging people by interviewing them to determine their drive and their potential and at least one company found ex-cons who were superachievers and the company saw in them a great benefit. This is different from not giving someone a chance if the person does not have the right education, from the right college, or has something else a file that is detracting. Those files used to be protected private information.

That effort to know people and the willingness to be part of their development goes with the democratic model of industry and our democracy would be much stronger and less violent if we had better awareness of the importance of childhood and education and believing in human beings.

„Every society has the criminals it deserves.“ — Emma Goldman anarchist known for her political activism, writing, and speeches 1868 - 1940

Source: https://quotepark.com/quotes/1221440-val-mcdermid-a-society-gets-the-criminals-it-deserves/ — quotepark

We created Rittenhouse and Travis McMichael, 35; his father, Gregory McMichael, 65; and their neighbor William Bryan, 52. The blood is on our hands.

reckless endangerment should have been maintained. That kid was stupid for role-playing the hero with a deadly weapon, and now he's a celebrity. This will set a precedent for young male vigilantes, if it did not already exist. — _db

I totally agree with you, and perhaps we want to explore if our society played a role in this? I am horrified by public broadcasting shows for children where the children are acting like adults. I think that sends a very bad message to children! That is besides all the violence of TV that appeals to young males and is paid for by commercials designed to get us to buy things.

On the other hand, playing that is an imitation of adults is very important to good social development, but we have been destroying childhood in many ways. As the 1958 National Defense Education Act continues to control education, we are pressed to stimulate our children to be as geniuses and the pressure is for them to perform as college students as soon as they are school age. There is no playtime that is not structured by an adult to achieve a specific goal that is dictated by the Military-Industrial Complex and our need to be competitive! God forbid that a child is not a top competitor and can not get into the best colleges, because that could mean being one of those dirty homeless people. I keep holding my breath hoping someday we figure out what the change in education has to do with social, economic, and political changes. So we get Rittenhouse who is far from being an adult, playing a superhero as you said. A very poor connection with reality!

But then we have the father and son who were found guilty of murdering Arbery and many breathe a sigh of relief knowing if these two were not found guilty, there would be rioting! People of color have gained more power than they ever had, and so have women gained power, and this is also a result of the change in education. The change is not all bad, but our lack of awareness is not good.

with what instrument do we perceive celestial bodies too distant to be seen by the unaided eye? — Leghorn

This list of space telescopes (astronomical space observatories) is grouped by major frequency ranges: gamma ray, x-ray, ultraviolet, visible, infrared, microwave and radio. Telescopes that work in multiple frequency bands are included in all of the appropriate sections. Space telescopes that collect particles, such as cosmic ray nuclei and/or electrons, as well as instruments that aim to detect gravitational waves, are also listed. Missions with specific targets within the Solar System (e.g. our Sun and its planets), are excluded; see List of Solar System probes for these, and List of Earth observation satellites for missions targeting our planet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_telescopes — Wikipedia

Our intelligence is not just what we know, but also our ability to ask good questions. It also helps to know where to look for good answers. :lol: Wikipedia may not be the supreme authority but it is a good starting place.

I don't have any argument with you however if it has not already been introduced, I would like to say we are animals, and we all, including the animals, are equal under the sun. But obviously, a man is not a bull, and a woman is not a cat. There are different species and ours follows the line of apes. That means we are mammals and we are social animals, and such animals have different individual statuses. The most useful is the alpha male and the least valued members are pushed to the outside where they are most likely to be eaten by a preditor. So within equality, we have inequality.

We have learned animals teach each other culture and those that learn the culture best will have a favored position and others will want to be around them but not all will be allowed to come too close. Also in herd animals, we see a sign of democracy. Rather than one alpha male determining when the herd will move to the river, this is a group decision. With movement members of the herd will communicate a desire to move to the river and when enough agree it is time to move to the river, they start moving and everyone joins them. This is fine as long as the need to move is not a predator. In times of emergency, we might want an alpha male we trust, who can immediately call us to action. In an emergency, there isn't time for debate.

Bottom line, we are equal under the sun, but we exist in very different circumstances. The difference in circumstances will improve the survival of some, but not all. Our children need stability, security, and very good schools, and unfortunately, that is not our reality so some will be pushed out of mainstream society and will experience greater threats to their lives and sanity.

That is not how either understands their act of abuse unless they are aware of being angry and wanting to hurt the other person
— Athena
Could you rephrase this. I said
I can't see a problem with someone who is sexually abused blaming someone who abused them.
— Bylaw
I think some people do frame their sexual interaction with an adult when they were a child as sexual abuse. I think they would also say they blame the person in some way or other. So, I am not sure what you mean by it not being 'how either understands their act of abuse...'
I am including females as sexual predators, because of news stories of female teachers lusting for a young male student and acting on it.
— Athena
And some of them have blame, the young men and the adults they become, especially if they were very young.

I don't see how 'blame' is inappropriate as a rule.
How many men fake a climax to make the woman feel good and to stop the action that is not appealing because the hormone level is not where it needs to be to enjoy sex?
— Athena
I have no idea how you got here or what this has to do with what I wrote.
If we think of nature we might be a little less hysterical about the behavior and behave according to nature's rules, instead of flaunting the rules and then crying about the man's act of nature. :monkey:
— Athena
I don't think I was hysterical. I don't think your response makes much sense as a response to my post A young man who rapes someone in the way you describe is a very dangerous person but I guess I kinda hope he watches the guy who wants to be killed and eaten by that German guy before he meets you. You won't have any blame for him or complaints if he kills and eats you. He will have thought you wanted it. It would be hysterical of you to think his behavior was blameworthy even if he starts eating first before the kill. — Bylaw

Oh my goodness, I didn't mean for any statements to be taken personally. I think we have a whole lot of misunderstandings.

I am quite sure none of the men who attempted to have sex with me thought they were harming me. Why would anyone assume it was their intent to harm someone? I am not saying that harm can be done. I am just saying that was not the intent.

Comparing a cannibalistic pervert with most of the people who are charged with rape is a false comparison. However, I remember long ago there was a news story about such a perverted person. Thank goodness the high school and college males are only wanting sex and are not intent on harming the female.

Yes, I would rather not have life than be an Afghanistan mother right now. Finding happiness in a situation of powerlessness as one's children die, would be perverse don't you think?

Hmm...I think this is a really difficult question, with a lot of different sides, and maybe no good one answer. Again, I don't have a lot of info on the topic, so I'm just going to relate my thoughts on what I've heard on the radio and whatnot.

I think its important to note that the loss of importance of family comes from a lot of different sectors.

For example gender dysphoria: A rising mental condition that makes some girls physically feel that they belong more in a guys body. I don't suppose that they would be particularly receptive to oxytocin, or stimulation via maternal instinct if they felt more physically inclined to be a man. So perhaps if we could conclude that a variant expression of oxytocin exists within woman in general, it definitely would not be hard to believe that some women just feel less inclined/binded to maternal instincts like other girls would be.

Theres also scientific advancement. I think were getting to a point where now you can actually choose the eye colour of your child, hair colour, specific immunities against certain disabilities etc... we may eventually come to a point where its more cost effective to just make a baby in a lab, then go through the natural process.

Overall ignorance might be a point too. Since celibacy is gaining traction, some people don't know exactly how powerful the sentiments are after having a kid. How it completely takes over your life.
They might just view the practical/physical aspects of it, and go, "meh, not for me. Costs too much."

Finally there's just the fact that there are too many people on earth! I think men are less incentivized to have babies when they know they might contribute to the overpopulation of earth.

Now does/would all this contribute to the devaluation of a woman?

Well depends on how you would define one. I think gender is a really complicated issue right now in terms of definition, and in my belief I think it might be better to restate the question to how can we sustain the individual, who NEEDS maternal instinct to validate themselves? If one day family is out of the picture, how can we still stay connected?

Do these advancements destroy family fidelity?

Well yeah. Now you have to define yourself by yourself, whether you want to or not. — john27

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I love your questions about gender dysphoria.

Can hormones affect gender identity?
The hormonal theory of sexuality and gender identity holds that, just as exposure to certain hormones plays a role in fetal sex differentiation, such exposure also influences the sexual orientation and or gender identity that emerges later in the adult.

Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation - Wikipedia — Wikipedia

However, gender dysphoria can also be a defense mechanism resulting from childhood trauma. However, we have always had Tomboys, and why not? The restrictions that were once put on females made being a boy appear a lot more fun.

"a point where its more cost effective to just make a baby in a lab, then go through the natural process." Bad idea. Bonding begins in the womb, and no female animal will produce milk until a baby is born. Once the milk begins to flow, we can keep it flowing by milking the goat, cow, or a human mother and as I mentioned the baby suckling on the mother triggers the mother's hormones and heightens bonding. But so does learning a language begin in the womb and while in the womb the baby recognizes the mother's voice. I hope we come to pay attention to what makes us humans. We might be able grow babies as the novel and movie The Brave New World speaks of growing beings, but I am not exactly sure they would be humans instead of androids. Mammals are conditioned by their relationships and environment.

"some people don't know exactly how powerful the sentiments are after having a kid". Oh yeah! I tried to warn my son about how a baby would change his life and he didn't pay attention. Like the ignorance could be, not knowing what one is missing or not knowing what one wants to avoid. Being a parent is a human experience and unless someone has had the experience, it is hard to relate what that experience is. Facts have little meaning without experience. However, not all parents want to be parents, so they do not respond to the child emotionally, and you causing me to think about this, is very appreciated. It just is not the same for all people.

Many people are thinking our planet is overpopulated and global warming is making matters much worse and it is best to not have children.

"Now does/would all this contribute to the devaluation of a woman?" The value of the woman was radically changed when it was decided the man puts the baby inside the woman. I would love to turn the clock back to when we thought life came through the woman and we loved our earth mother. If we need women to reproduce and nurture children, and all of us, she can not be devalued, but we can fail to recognize her value. I think our role in civilization has been overlooked and I have no desire to live in an all male world. Male domination was bad enough. This is when we should be stronger and bolder about being women and not one of the guys.

I can't see a problem with someone who is sexually abused blaming someone who abused them. — Bylaw

That is not how either understands their act of abuse unless they are aware of being angry and wanting to hurt the other person. I am including females as sexual predators, because of news stories of female teachers lusting for a young male student and acting on it. Normally sexual behavior comes from knowledge of self, not knowledge of the other person. Some thoughtful people may read a book about sex and technologically be sex experts, and they can not know how the other feels without asking? :lol: How many men fake a climax to make the woman feel good and to stop the action that is not appealing because the hormone level is not where it needs to be to enjoy sex?

The young man who recently entered an older woman's home and raped her had been watching porn of women waking up to a rapist and being delighted. He expected her to enjoy the sex. He is not the only rapist who expected the female to enjoy the sex. In the past women were expected to say no, and men were expected to not take no for an answer. From the Carol Burnet Show to Mash and Gomer Pile sex is a mating dance of females rejecting the male and the male continuing to pursue the female and it is funny or pathetic when the roles are reversed. If we think of nature we might be a little less hysterical about the behavior and behave according to nature's rules, instead of flaunting the rules and then crying about the man's act of nature. :monkey: