Most glaringly, an absolute authority figure (more than an idealized personality), and an aspect of transcendence. — praxis

That appears to be the Christian hang up I hope we get past. Christians have humanized a God and that is not necessary to have a belief in a mighty and strong force that manifest our three-dimensional experience of reality. The Christian God authority is counterproductive. I promise you there is no God that wanted animal sacrifices. However, there is a right way and wrong way of doing things. When we do things right we get good results and when we do things wrong we get bad results. Believing a God will save our sorry asses so we don't have to use science to figure things out, is a mistake. Do you see the difference between believing there is a supernatural authority and believing science is important to staying out of trouble? Going from town to town flogging yourself or burning witches will not spot plagues, but science can.

First of all, you need to stop saying that it's unknowable if you're going to tell me about it. That's a blatant contradiction. — S

Why is it a contradiction to say there is a mighty and powerful force that is beyond our comprehension? We can know creation is the result of a mighty and powerful force. We experience the manifestation of that mighty and powerful force and we can study the manifestation of this force, so we can know of the manifestation, but the mighty and powerful is beyond our comprehension. Maybe someday as we explore the energy of all creation more fully or/and if we come to understand multiple dimensions, we might think we comprehend the mighty and powerful force, but not today. There is no contradiction. We do not know everything.

I like the saying, the beginning of wisdom is "I don't know." When we think we know something, we stop learning of it. It is better to think we don't know, than to believe we do know. That is to say when we think we know God, we know not God, but only what we think we know.

I do not agree at all that the concept of an abstract god is trivial. This unknowable God is essential to preventing humans from believing they are the highest power and preventing them from projecting themselves into a concept of a god and believing they can know the know the will of God. All they can know is what is going on in their human minds. They can not know God nor the will of a god. That is something we need to make perfectly clear. The mighty force is not a human force, nor a superhuman force. We must stop projecting ourselves into a notion of this mighty force.

The Greeks moved away from their gods when they got into math and science. We now know earthquakes, volcanoes, droughts, and hurricane, and so on, happen because of natural cause-effect. The Greeks concluded even the gods were under the law. Unlike the God of Abraham, especially when this God is taken over by Christians, becomes a God who can do anything he wants, and violate any laws of nature He wants to violate. A supernatural god who can be manipulated with our piety, offerings, and rituals. That is a supernatural god far beyond the powers of nature gods, and these Christian yahoos destroyed the pagan temples where math and medicine were taught and set us back thousands of years cutting off from the knowledge that had been gained over many centuries.

Cicero, one of the most important men in Roman, read by all who were curious of democracy, explained what happens is about nature, cause and effect, and our sacrifices and prayers will not change the consequences of what we say and do.

However, trying to understand the unknowable god, that mighty force, universal law, the cause and effect that rules our lives, means opening our minds to infinity and all possibilities. Now and only now is there a hope of democracy meaning rule by reason, and not rule by authority over us. This is not trivial and atheist who deny a mighty force greater than their own, are not an improvement.

Or, as I like to call it, false vs. trivial. — S

I do not understand that logic. Can you explain how the difference between abstract and concrete can equal the difference between false vs. trivial? Possibly illusion versus reality- everything is energy but we perceive a solid reality, however, this does not make our perception false. Ice is made of water, but that does make ice a false concept. And judging our perception of a solid reality as trivial isn't very helpful. "Trivial" is a completely different judgment than one of truth and falseness. As long we are caught up in space and time, understanding this disillusion seems paramount. A reality outside of time and space would matter why?

This in that both God and the self in the above definitions are outside time and space, giving justification to the idea that God’s “Self” could be part of a Being like us, — Elrondo

I am totally cool with a god being outside time and space, but how could such a god be a being like us?
Such a god could not experience what we experience and therefore could not have knowledge of the experience of being human, and therefore could not be a being like us. We experience time and space as limited and that includes a life span and losing people we love. Isn't there an argument that Jesus was the solution to this problem? God had to become incarnate to have the experience and therefore gain the knowledge of being human. But then one has to believe the Hebrew and Christian mythology to believe that, and I do not know why we should do that?

This is the same bad logic that gun advocates use. You can kill someone with almost anything, therefore we shouldn't ban guns. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Should we ban people?

Except that people kill people with guns, and guns are a good tool for that job. Similarly, terrorists blow people up, and religion is a good tool for creating terrorists. — S

I love your explanation of logic. :cheer:

Wars are good for religion and religion is good for war. :wink:

AngryBear
13
↪S Agreed, however I think Athiesm is relatively young, and so in time I think people will get to a point were godless philosophy could be used to kill and terrorize. I hope i'm wrong. — AngryBear

We need to look no further than (Christian) Nazi Germany and Communist countries to answer that question. People who believe they can know absolute truth, are absolutely dangerous. However, when God is an abstract, no one can know absolute truth. An abstract god is unknowable and beyond our comprehension. An abstract god is not a humanized god like Zeus and the God of Abraham, and for sure an abstract god does not have favorites, or help people win wars, or protect humans from their own folly.

Only when there is no perceived power greater than humans, or when God is a concrete notion, such as Zeus or the God of Abraham, can people believe they know absolute truth and become a threat to others. Such a god can and does pull people into wars and lead to very bad judgment such was putting the economy first and destroying the planet with ignorance.

Yowee! you got me in a corner. I was hoping someone else would understand this difference in education and the difference in abstract and concrete thinking and say things better than I have said them. But now that you ask, I am excited by the thoughts that come to mind.

I looked for a definition of "god" and got "a mighty and powerful force". Okay, that applies to all gods because it is an abstract, universal thought. We can have so much applying this abstract notion of a god, to the Greek gods. Each god and goddess is a concept, I like Jean Shinoda Bolen, M.D.'s explanation of gods and goddesses as archetypes best. Each of us has an inner god or goddess and the one that dominates us may change as we age. I was a Demeter goddess when I was a mother. Now I am Athena because my focus is political and about teaching men how to rule themselves, or defending democracy as I understand it. There is absolutely no question in my mind that these gods and goddess exist, as Bolen understands them. Concepts are very powerful! Now apply this reasoning to the God of Abraham. Exactly what is this God?

Every discussion I have seen uses only the Christian concept of God, and there are only two choices, either you believe in this one and only God, or you are an atheist. Bull shit! That is concrete thinking, not abstract thinking. Something happened to human consciousness and I am not exactly sure what but to hold there are can be only one god, the god of Abraham, is to concrete and not abstract thinking of god. Whatever god can be? Once we attempt to define god, we know not god.

Paul was wrong when he defined the unknown god as the knowable Jesus. We do not directly experience God, therefore, we can not know God, but some people did directly experience Jesus. It is sort of sleight of hand to make something as concrete as a human being the God that is beyond our comprehension. Does anyone else see this? It is the difference between concrete thinking and abstract thinking. A god that is unknowable and beyond our comprehension is an abstract god. A god that is jealous, revengeful, punishing and fearsome is not an abstract god. As soon as we ascribe human traits to a god, it is no longer an abstract concept of god and now we have another sleight of hand.

It becomes impossible to discuss an abstract god, the moment that god is made concrete, (humanized). Now we are not talking about God, an abstract concept, but what we believe about a god and the rightness of this god's mythology. This is a trap like the tar baby in the Brer Rabbit stories. The more you hit the tar baby created by concrete mythology (humanized god), the more stuck you are in the tar. Did God make man out of mud and was there a flood? Sumerian stories tell us this so, only Sumerian stories are about many gods. We have no scientific reason to believe a god made us of mud and walked in a garden with us. Abstract thinking of a mighty and powerful force just doesn't take our minds there. There is no god who had favorite people, but at that time, everyone thought they had a patron god or goddess who took care of them. This false concept of gods and goddess became the one and only god and we still go to war believing this god is on our side, even when we are fighting a Christian enemy. This is not the god of all. The god of all is an abstract mighty and powerful force with no favorites and no human characteristics, no jealousy and no desire for revenge. Concrete versus abstract.

Alright. Maybe it was a bit full-on considering the context. I will say I've seen writers go on for years at the same not-very-good level while receiving all the while warm well-intended praise/encouragement that only serves to prevent them improving, but, yes, criticism can be misplaced too. — Baden

I will agree constructive criticism is a benefit. And so is just looking for information about how to write, how to publish, and whatever information the book may need. The internet is great for getting information, and there are really good books to help an aspiring writer. Reading is important to writing. We read to learn style and technological points such as how to construct a sentence, or how to develop a character. Writing a factual book is different from writing a novel, and in our technological society, I have seen a greater focus on validating facts, than in the past, if one is writing non-fiction. It is a little intimidating. Serious authors often have the money to travel around the world and dine with influential people. That is not a benefit I have.

No matter why we write, the effort benefits our thinking and that can make it worth the effort even if we don't publish.

I love "The Never Ending Story" and also "Sophies World".

Sophie's World: A Novel About the History of Philosophy (FSG ...
https://www.amazon.com/Sophies-World-History-Philosophy-Classics/.../0374530718
A page-turning novel that is also an exploration of the great philosophical ... with a mysterious philosopher, while receiving letters addressed to another girl.
21 Books Written by and About Women That Men Would Benefit From ... — Amazon

What I like about "Sophie's World" is learning about classical philosophy with the added mystery of who was writing those notes? I could identify with the young girl and I enjoyed the hiding places as they reminded me of when I was young and exploring and hiding, so I would say the ability to identify with a character is important too.

Googling philosophy novels resulted in finding many links.

How about Christians preventing education in the higher order thinking skills, as was the agenda of the 2012 Texas Republicans? How about Christians insisting science books include their story of creation, which they did do Texas until a supreme court decided with the people of science that the creation story is not science. Without liberal education, Christians have become a very serious problem. Christianity without liberal education is what Germany had, and now that is what we have.

I agree that religions are very negative. They'd be fine if folks could somehow just keep their beliefs to themselves, but religions massively impact cultural mores, laws, etc. That's not just keeping the beliefs to oneself. — Terrapin Station

If we focus on the difference between concrete thinking and abstract thinking, we might change the argument enough to make some progress instead of repeating the same arguments again and again and again.

Trump is the result of replacing abstract thinking (liberal education) with concrete thinking (education for technology) and that is the end of the democracy we defended in two world wars. This is a religious and political problem. It returns us to tribalism and intensifies conflicts instead of uniting us.

There was a time when Jews, Muslims, and Christians believed they worshipped the same god. The three religions believing the God of Abraham, is the one and only true God. Then each new religious group thought they needed to correct the mistakes made those who when before. Same god, just differences how we understand God's truth and what is required of us. That is a problem with being concrete instead of abstract. If we were thinking abstractly, we would not be so sure of ourselves and ready to argue against another person's understanding of God.

We do not directly experience God, therefore God is unknowable. All we can know is stories of gods, not God. God is an abstract concept, that can be dressed up however the people chose to create their god or gods.

However, Jesus is concrete and essential to religion because we can not have an emotional relationship with an abstract concept, right? Paul went to the Greeks and argued for making an abstract God a concrete one, right? He is saying Jesus is a god and that is very concrete. He is saying a man is a god and that is concrete, not abstract.

Acts 17:22-31 (WEB): 22 Paul stood in the middle of the Areopagus, and said, “You men of Athens, I perceive that you are very religious in all things. 23 For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription: ‘TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.’ What therefore you worship in ignorance, this I announce to you. 24 The God who made the world and all things in it, he, being Lord of heaven and earth, doesn’t dwell in temples made with hands, 25 neither is he served by men’s hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he himself gives to all life and breath, and all things. 26 He made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the surface of the earth, having determined appointed seasons, and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 that they should seek the Lord, if perhaps they might reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live, and move, and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also his offspring.’ 29 Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold, or silver, or stone, engraved by art and design of man. 30 The times of ignorance therefore God overlooked. But now he commands that all people everywhere should repent, 31 because he has appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he has ordained; of which he has given assurance to all men, in that he has raised him from the dead.” — Bible

If questioning the mods were not tolerated, there wouldn't be a feedback category. Plus, the guidelines specifically state that mods can not only be questioned, but censured and their decisions overturned. — Baden

This assures me important principles are being practiced.

It's not a democracy, it's a community with rules which overall work quite well in maintaining standards. But again, read the guidelines, and please note therein:

"If you feel from the get-go that their [the guidelines] very existence impinges on your right to free speech, this is probably not the place for you." — Baden

It's not a democracy, it's a community with rules which overall work quite well in maintaining standards. But again, read the guidelines, and please note therein:

"If you feel from the get-go that their [the guidelines] very existence impinges on your right to free speech, this is probably not the place for you." — Baden

Why did you feel a need to add the warning to your statement of principles? What is happening here?

I am sure what is happening is not the same thing for me as it is for you? I am having insights, little moments of ah, ha this is why the difference between concrete and abstract thinking is so important. I am concerned you are not thinking of the communication with the same abstract thinking. I am wanting to defend principles and you seem to perceive a possible threat to the tribe/community? The book "Suicide of West" throws a completely different meaning on my last words of tribalism/community than a person who has not read the book would have.

There is great danger in our communications because our words do not hold exact meanings. We come to everything from different points of view and we can see very different things although we think we are talking about the same thing. I think the principles you first mentioned are very important. I am worried that you thought it necessary to add a warning.

Bitter Crank
6.9k
↪Janis Someone should welcome you to The Philosophy Forum, so I will. Consider yourself one of the family. We're kind of a prickly family, however, so don't be surprised if you run into a bit of adversity every now and then.

The moderators are all volunteers: unpaid, unthanked, unappreciated, unrewarded, unloved, un-etc. They are mysterious behind the scenery characters. Like god, they move in mysterious ways. — Bitter Crank

But are they abstract thinkers of concrete thinkers?

Janis
11
Thanks for your response fdrake. It was not restored. I thought that maybe links to a book were not allowed. It seems that forums have different rules. It's an important work and to deny interested people the opportunity to read the first three chapters would be unfortunate. I'm not one who is going to debate a ruling though. — Janis

In a democracy with people who value liberty, what can more important than debating a ruling? Wouldn't that lead to rule by reason, rather rule by authority over the people? Oh, I know very well that questioning the mods is not tolerated and that the defense argument is these forums are privately owned and the rights of property trump everything else.

I am deeply concerned that we have accepted this reality without question. It is as though we have forgotten why we have trial by jury and why we allow the person charged to have a defense. :lol: I just posted in another thread the difference between abstract thinking and concrete thinking, and how we stopped educating for conceptual thinking. Understanding what I have said concretely or conceptually will result in extremely different interpretations of what I have said. Will the mods see this as concern about a fundamental principle (abstract) or will the mods see a personal challenge (concrete)? Do we want a reality where we afraid to say what we think is important or we are afraid to defend ourselves? What do we want our school children to learn? Keep your mouths shut and obey (concrete), or argue your point until there is a consensus on the best reasoning (abstract).

May we consider what education has to do with how we interpret a holy book? The masses were not educated for scientific thinking until the twentieth century. Where people are still ignorant they believe in Satan and demons and do terrible things to children and each other. Our God, was a jealous, revengeful, fearsome, punishing God and we believed demons could possess people, until our bellies were full and we gain better knowledge and security. Only in modern times has this God become a loving God. But it is more than this.

We can interpret the holy books concretely or abstractly. It is a matter of how to learn to think. A liberal education encourages abstract thinking, so the stories in holy books are like the moral stories we read our children, not to taken literally. Education for technology did not prepare us for abstract thinking as well as liberal education did. The result in being concrete thinkers. That means understanding the story of Adam and Eve literally instead of abstractly.

abstract thinking
n.
Thinking characterized by the ability to use concepts and to make and understand generalizations, such as of the properties or pattern shared by a variety of specific items or events. — https://www.dictionary.com/browse/abstract-thinking

Concrete thinking is literal thinking that is focused on the physical world. It is the opposite of abstract thinking. People engaged in concrete thinking are focused on facts in the here and now, physical objects, and literal definitions.Aug 4, 2015
Concrete Thinking - GoodTherapy
https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/psychpedia/concrete-thinking — goodtherapy

When we had liberal education, we used the Conceptual Method for teaching. Students learned progressively more complex concepts.

Education for technology uses the Behaviorist Method and that is used for training dogs! :gasp: This is extremely bad for our liberty and democracy and Christianity with this education is what lead to Nazi, Germany.

Christianity is not compatible with democracy and for me that is a huge problem. The US used to have education for good moral judgment and that is essential to our liberty and democracy manifesting a good life. Coming from Greek philosophy, the foundation of our democracy, a moral is a matter of cause and effect, and the more their philosophy leaned on math and science, the less important their gods as controlling powers, became.

But the atheist also have it wrong. The Greeks preserved a notion of universal law and our technologically smart society seems to think it is fine to act like the selfish gene, put one's self first and deny any need to consider anyone else or even the planet. We have turned technology into some kind of god that will resolve all problems, no matter what we do. Both atheist and religious folks ignoring universal laws.

We must get back to education for good moral judgment and that is learning how to think, not what to think. Basing our decisions on how we feel about this or that, instead of what we know about this about that, is deadly. We must stop acting like the selfish gene. Being ruled by feelings instead of knowledge. However, we must not ignore feelings....

All holy books have good advice about being better humans. They all contain the high points of human wisdom or they would not have been reserved. The bible says things like we should forgive people their debts in 7 years. This does not apply to 30 year contracts, but we might apply it to debts that were not an agreed on contract? Giving a person a clean start is one of the most humane things we can do for each other. It boosts the spirit of love and I think that is important. Our spirit (how we feel) is perhaps more important than facts because what we think and do is very much about how we feel.

Thank you :cry: I can not watch it because it is too upsetting but we should know it was not that long ago when we beat the devil out of our children, and our criminal justice system in the US is still based the Christian mentality of evil people and punishment and saving souls by forcing them to do penitence, the reason we have penitentiaries instead of a system of counseling and socialising people and a school system that reduces the number of people who get into trouble in the first place.

I have to stress the main reason I oppose Christianity is the failure of education for technology and inhuman correction system. Both based on false Christian notions of human worthless.

Hello :smile: yes, in Australia we are very relaxed and layed back. A lot of people were brought to Australia from England for pettie and serious crimes. Isn’t it funny, the people who disobeyed the law created a country that did even better? :lol: — Mattiesse

Yes, it is one of my favorite lessons from history! A lesson we might consider when considering we are born in sin and need someone appointed by God to rule over us, and that to honor this God we should be obedient and good slaves.

I am impressed by the notion that Australians are pretty strong on human dignity and self-reliance. Compared to a Christian reliance on God and the idea that a God has chosen people and only a select few are allowed into heaven. :lol:

What is earth, an apartment for low-income people, that by law, can not discriminate against undesirables? We all know, the people we associate with influence us, and I suppose we all want to be among the select few who are chosen for heaven. But think about how much easier it would be to be among the deserving people if we didn't have to share our planet with so many undesirables. :rofl:

I see you are Australian. :grin: Australians have a history that should make them very aware that Christianity is not about liberty and democracy because good Christian England used the island for a prison colony. Young women were picked up for minor offenses and sent to Australia to civilize the men. These people pretty much had to figure out how to manage on their own and from what I have heard they have done a great job of that and have a better voting system than in the US. Who picks the leaders in the Bible?

I don't know if it is clear, that the factors I use in interpreting the Bible are a knowledge of history, including the history of education, and different religions?

I think we've both gone off topic. How about another discussion about, "where do values come from?" — BrianW

The mentality for democracy and the values essential to liberty came from the Greek and Roman classics. The immigrants who came to the US were mostly Christian and they did not come with an understanding of democratic institutions and citizenship in a democracy that granted everyone liberty. Democracy does not come from the bible. Believing humans are capable of ruling themselves and they should have liberty, sure does not come from the bible! Christian beliefs are not compatible with democracy and all religions teach people to nice to one another but do not prepare people for liberty and democracy. Literacy in the Greek and Roman classics, or Americanize versions of Greek and Roman thinking, is essential to our liberty and democracy.

I think we have a problem because of Christianity and also because textbooks Americanized the essential lessons for democracy and the masses became ignorant of the source of that knowledge coming to believe it was okay to stop transmitting a culture and leave moral training to the church. Oh my God! Our deist forefathers must be turning over in their graves because education for technology leaves moral training to the church and we no longer have a clue what moral judgment has to do with science and logic.

I think education for a technological society is a problem only if we think technology will solve all human problems which we (as a human collective and especially governments and institutions) have began to realise the limitations. — BrianW

What if all the churches put their holy books on a shelve and focused on teaching the technical skills of reading and writing and preparing the young to hold jobs? What would happen to Christianity then? You, and perhaps everyone else, are living with a false notion of citizenship and who must teach it. Education for technology does not transmit a culture. There are two ways to have social order, culture or authority over the people. Which do you want? If you want liberty then it is pretty important you understand what education must do transmit the necessary culture.

We had education for good citizenship and good moral judgment until 1958, Now people are talking about Satan being on earth and the last days. No, education for technology will not manifest a liberal democracy. In fact, at least half of our nation thinks liberals are the enemy of democracy and we need a strong man like Trump to do what needs to be done even if he has to shut down our government to get things done, ending the democratic process. The population that elected Trump is the result of education for technology. This education is not going to make us a strong and united democracy.

Seeking equality, knowledge, compassion, etc, all the values we deem virtuous, must begin with the individual before it can be shared with or transmitted to others. — BrianW

Oh my goodness and by what magic do individuals hear this word of God? I am afraid you and I got off topic, but we can get back on topic with the notion that out of the ether an individual will become aware of the virtues. I don't think it happens that way. For centuries everywhere in the world, the learning came from spiritual leaders and grandmothers and then was formalized into religion. We learn the virtues from others and when we don't know people who know them, we don't learn them, and when we don't learn them, we can not teach them to our children. I think the chant that parents must teach their children is rather new. The original purpose of education in the US was teaching citizenship, knowing the immigrant parents would learn citizenship in our democracy from their children. Vocational training was added to education in 1917, That education is like religion only instead of relying on a mystical god it relies on the goodness of humans that can be learned and then manifested is self-government. But first it must be learned and it is bad logic to expect parents to teach what they have not learned.

Mattiesse
7
I cannot say god exists, Nore can I say he doesn’t. The bible is most likely the biggest game of Chinese whispers ever created, a story taking parts from other religions and put together, told and translated over and over again. — Mattiesse

I wish we all had agreement on twhat you said. When I read a book explaining what was written in Sumer, it was so obvious at least five biblical stories originated in Sumer. And Isis was the bread and water before Jesus was the bread and wine. And Jesus is a retelling of Mithra mythology. The Romans used Roman law of nature that was used to settle legal disputs between people from different city/states to get agreements for the Christian religion. Blending the most common and popular beliefs into one religion. Like if God spoke to anyone, He spoke to everyone, and those who heard him explained the word of God in his own way.

Why ask Brain and not me? — Tomseltje

Because your words were so profound, I didn't expect you to be a real person here and now. :grin:

The world bank has acquired its power from what people collectively have given it (the implicit trust in the financial institutions which latter, modern, doubters have failed to convince people otherwise). Banks didn't just roll out of hell and begin to subjugate people. They offer services and people were, and still are, blinded by comfort so much so that they would set aside work for pleasure and enjoyments. It's that kind of mentality that presents that other 'ugly' side of reality. Institutions operate as designated by governments and governments are run according to people. The larger percentage of people are 'mindless drones', which is a bad commentary on their hard work but sadly true in terms of why and how they work. Your statement is testament to that, "and the citizens in all countries are unaware of why education was changed." There's no collective responsibility without personal responsibility. Governments and institutions don't work for people, people work for themselves through them. These (the governments and instituions) are just tools and means. I think it's sad when people turn up in the tens or hundreds of millions to vote for a leader without realising that it's more important to vote for leadership.
Yes, there's lots of statistics about which institutions have the capacity to do what and where but, the truth of it is, against the collective power of a united people, all that ability means nought.
My point is, people keep wasting their energies in all the wrong activities. If we wanted to regain the power and resources which institutions have and which is obviously denied to the majority, the answer is not to beg for it. People must first realise their power, and then use it to take what's theirs, what they're owed. — BrianW

Let us start with how are the masses suppose to know what you said? Unless we have education for democracy, the masses will not know what you have explained, right?

Secondly, this is all about organization, and the more efficient a government is, the less power the people will have. The US had a creative but inefficient bureaucracy, and this was changed when the US adopted the German model of bureaucracy that shifts power and authority from the individual to the state. I have attempted to get this discussion going for years, and people just don't talk about the important things like education and bureaucratic order. At least not with information. Everyone has opinions but opinions are not going to give us power.

Democracy is a state of mind and only when we have education for democracy and our employers use the democratic model instead of the autocratic one, will we have the state of mind essential for democracy. I am not willing to accept it is my fault we are failing, when for years I have attempted to get the necessary discussions going and people do not participate in the necessary discussions. Maybe in this forum there is a chance of having the discussion we need?

For me, that's a good win. We need to learn to see everything, religious teachings included, from an investigative, analytic, logical, idealistic and practical perspectives, which is something science (philosophy included) does better than other fields of knowledge. Science is, at present, one of the biggest propagators of a 'think for yourself' mentality, far superior to religion in that respect. — BrianW

I think today we have technology confused with science. We have education for a technological society with unknown values. The International Bank has promoted this around the world. I believe Diego is aware of the change in education in the 1980's when the Military Industrial Complex was strong enough to make the International Bank very strong. You know, the New World Order that Hitler and Bush enjoyed ruling.

Confusing education for technological society with education for science is not good for democracy or liberty and it is not education for science. The driving forces of education are International banking and the Military Industrial Complex and our ignorance that leaves us wide open for being ruled by authority. Education for technology has always been for slaves. If we go back 200 years, People didn't rely on college educations as much as they relied on self-education and communicating with each other. The Military Industrial Complex uses merit hiring and that requires a college education, being self-taught does not work in a nation that is authoritarian and relies on authority and documentation from authority. On top of this, we have specialized and this is disastrous to democracy, and we have no idea how authoritarian we have become. Science is essential to our liberty and it was promoted by liberal education along with the idea that democracy is about responsibility, and life long, independent learning.

Anarchy begins with individuals. Democracy begins with education and the transmission of a culture that civilizes us and promotes working together. Education for technology does not transmit a culture for self-government and results is anarchy controlled by authority. Education for technology leads to anarchy and authoritarianism, not rule by reason.

Bottom line, we have about as much power as the people in North Korea because we have education that has prepared us for the New World Order and we are ignorant of the controlling powers and therefore powerless against them.

I think we're lost the moment we fail to realise our ability in determining our circumstances. The parents and care-givers determine to a far reaching extent what the children learn. When the children see their superiors subjecting themselves to institutions as if they (the institutions) have any real power over them, then most of them (the children) suppose they have no choice but to comply with the stat quo.
Neither banks nor religions determine our reality. We (humans) have given them too much influence over us but, if we determined to, we could reclaim it. The only deterrent is, unlike the collective handing over of power, those who wish to reclaim are often individuals who cannot muster the resources of the collective. — BrianW

Excuse me, where do you get your information? It is different from the information I have. The World Bank has influenced education around the world and the citizens in all countries are unaware of why education was changed.

Education - World Bank Group
https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/education
Education is fundamental to development and growth. ... to promoting learning for all, the World Bank Group plays a significant role in education globally. — World Bank

And for religion, my goodness teachers took the Texas school system to court in a fight over if science book should include the Christian creation story, and the teachers won at the supreme court level.

Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of teaching creationism. The Court considered a Louisiana law requiring that where evolutionary science was taught in public schools, creation science must also be taught.
Edwards v. Aguillard - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard — Wikipedia

And 2012 Texas Republican agenda was Christian school interference. This gauntees students will not learn independent thinking skills.

Texas GOP rejects 'critical thinking' skills. Really. - The Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../texas-gop.../2012/07/.../gJQAHNpFXW_blog.htm...
Jul 9, 2012 - In the you-can't-make-up-this-stuff department, the Republican Party of Texas wrote in its 2012 platform that itopposes the teaching of “higher ... — Washington Post

Because Texas buys so many textbooks, makers of textbooks cater to Texas.

(That is what I tell my family - It's not what you have that determines who you are but who you are determines what you have. Also, that it's more important to be than to have because, in the end, all you have is who you are.) — BrianW

What you have said is very important, and I want to know what education do you think leads the character you speak of? Greek and Roman classics lead to that kind of character and there may be other sources of education of which I am not aware.

People complain due to many reasons, primarily desperation, and all those reasons are signs of weakness. I have it and so do many others too. The only solution is to fight against the weakness and resolve to fight even if by oneself. But if someone is only willing to fight if supported by others then they should also be willing to wait until those others are ready and willing, even if it means never. — BrianW

At this point, I have no idea what you think we should fight for and what we are fighting against. Of what do people complain? I am saying without the education the Christians stand against, everyone is prepared to be owned by the banks. We may be saying the same thing in different ways? If not we need to continue the argument until we have an agreement.


za

Yes, governments and institutions do play their part in directing people but, they are run by people who must have proper values in the first place. — BrianW

What are the values held by international banking and how do you feel about the bankers determining what our children learn? Which do you think is playing a stronger role in determining our reality, religious organizations or the bankers? Do you think these people share the same values?

DiegoT
227
↪Terrapin Station ↪Athena this mindset is called Luciferian, and it´s important for masons and other secret societies. They don´t believe in a physical Devil but they know they can get what he promises through "natural magic". Natural Magic is what Italian philosophers in the early Modern Age called what we know refer as Science; but their understanding was better because it doesn´t hide the Faustean side of technology and research, that we are all talked thousands of times, is "neutral" and "good". Magic is good or bad, white or black, but never neutral because the essence of Magic is manifesting projects through the power of concentration of an ego.

Luciferians want to turn their egos into godlike entities: inmortal, and with inimaginable power. They want to transcend matter, that is, to go digital. It has took them more than two millennia to get there, but are very close and a global extinction is not something against their plan but a tabula rasa they expect to use to reshape the planet from scratch to their interests. They have always seem Morality and Nature as divine, that is: opposed to their luciferian goals. Because freemasons and other societies have contributed enormously to shape our civilization, our society is led by values that serve their purposes.
21 hours ago — DiegoT

You have made the Hindu concern about ego even more interesting. The Luciferian intent looks like the anti-Christ? I have not held this combination of thoughts before, so I will play with them. The Luciferian would be as the monster of destruction that eats everything until all that is left is to eat itself. One god, one mind, one entity, one ego.

Two types of selves
The Self is universal, eternal, one and without divisions. The expansive or exalted feeling that I am everything and I am all this does not constitute egoism. However, the feeling that I am so and so, or I have this and that constitute egoism or ahamkar. When the universal Self is covered with the impurities of delusion and ignorance, it develops this limited view of itself as a separate entity, which we recognize as ego.

Thus, the ego is the feeling of separateness, the sense of duality, or the idea of being distinct and different from others. It is the false perception of oneself as a separate being or a limited being. Egoism creates the limitations of space and time in which we become stuck. Since it exists in all of us as individual consciousness, it is a universal feeling. Ahamkar is that which is shaped by egoism. It manifests in us in several ways such as the following...
https://www.hinduwebsite.com/ego.asp — Jayaram V

So are we separate from God? The desire to be part of the Hegelian state, the Borg or a computer run society with immortal power, is a Luciferian intent?

Are we conscious of our desire to be separate or a part of what? Sorry for that question. I am not sure of what I am asking but maybe someone can answer it?

I once experienced a consciousness of being one with everything, and can say in this state of mind one is not a separate ego. There is not even a separation of mind and matter, as all is energy.

Is the Western concept of consciousness that same as the Hindu concept of consciousness? Is it possible to have altered states of consciousness that are valid and not just imaginary or hallucinations?

The truth that makes most sense considering it's context. Words by themselves are meaningless, words get their meaning by the context they are placed in.
Hence to understand the word, one must read the sentence.
To understand the sentence one must read the paragraph.
To understand the paragraph one must read the chapter.
To understand the chapter one must read the book.
To understand the book, one must know the society/culture it was written in.
To understand the society/culture one must know it's circumstances like:
existence in time, geographical location and (pre)history.
All those are minimum requirements in order to understand them in an even greater context like the devine. — Tomseltje

BrianW

Those words are worth repeating. What can you tell us of Tomseltje? What is his geography and time?

DiegoT
226
↪Athena the I.C.T.s of the first centuries of our era, Piscis, were the alphabet, the papyrus and durable ink. This new technologies were propagated throughout the Ancient World, creating a brave new world. It was very easy for people back then to think that written texts were magic, because they could communicate your thoughts and those thoughts remained even after you died, or traveled thousands of miles. Amulets and hexes used alphabetic writing to charge their incantations, and anybody could do it. — DiegoT

I so remember when I thought it possible that sounds/words could have magical power. I also remember I was afraid I was possessed by Satan. That was a very bad time in my life. I had a choice, I could start killing people because I was too weak to oppose Satan, or I could decide those religious notions were false, there is no Satan and whatever I do falls totally on me and the need for me to be responsible for what I do. At the time Satanism was popular and quite a few young people went to prison because of killing someone under the influence of Satanism. I am glad I decided the whole God and Satan story is not a good explanation of reality. But when we are young, we are impressionable and there is a tendency to be attracted to the occult, magic spells and magic potions. There is a dark side to Christianity and I think it has contributed to social problems throughout history.

This explains the rise of literary cults. Cults where books are considered divine, or epyphanies of the Divinity. Since then, we have characters in written stories are our gods, and the voice of Heaven is no longer in the signs Nature as Celts, Egyptians or Iberians or Mesopotamians believed, but in published books. — DiegoT

Yes, if I understand you correctly, superstition followed a period of time when people were not superstitious and didn't study a holy book but nature. It is so paradoxical that a book that is 100% supernatural is supposed to be the truth. This is a political problem. Democracy depends on understanding nature, not supernatural forces. When our gods were nature gods we had a better understanding of nature, and opposed the notion that a man could be a god. Granted we could be sons and daughters of a god, and this belief gave Alexander a strong following of men willing to follow him into war, but the folks in Athens, who were pulling away from superstition, didn't find it believable that a human could be a god. But we do have a problem with Egypt. At least Cleopatra was able to convince some that she was the incarnation of Isis. Wasn't her attraction to Ceasar in part the possibility of being considered a god? Something that was not possible in Rome.

Didn't Mesopotamia go back and further on the notion about gods and man? It seems to me, in places where priests had a lot of power the people had a story that justified the priest having a lot of power, but the Greeks didn't have powerful priest did they? We learn a lot about Greek philosophers without hearing of them having powerful priests. However, when the Greeks moved into Egypt they took advantage of Egypt's religious beliefs to gain power and greatly improve the economy by developing a market for religious paraphernalia? Then we move on to a later date and Byzantine tears itself apart fighting over religious if icons are to be considered holy and have power or considered taboo.

With Christianity, I am sure the biggest draw is a belief in immortality. At least I sure struggled with the fear that I would loose my immortality if I turned against Christian belief. Eastern religions and the notion of reincarnation helped me get over that. However, I have a Christian friend who totally believes Jesus is a supernatural power that answers our prayers. She handles all her life fears by clinging to Jesus and a belief in the power of prayer. I believe that works, but not because there is a supernatural power. Facing a challenge and saying "I think I can. I think I can." also works.

I find Christianity confusing. How does a person know if life is bad because God is punishing them for their sins, or because Satan has power?

I am not sure I am understanding your post. The book "Suicide of the West" speaks of a return to tribalism and the education that prevents that. Would the word "tribalism" work in an explanation of the problem?

aware of our biases and negativities — BrianW

When we were not aware of biases and negatives? Is what you said a positive or a negative? Awareness of our faults brings us closer to resolving them. Awareness of the faults of others can make matters worse of better depending on how we deal with that. For example prejudice against native Americans, Asians, people of color, immigrants from Italy and Irland have been serious problems in the US at different times. Cultural differences are problematic and the US used education for transmitting a culture to resolve the cultural conflict problem but that stopped in 1958. Without education for culture and the conditions of poverty, there are countercultures and these can become a serious social problem.

I watched a program documenting a school's struggle with underachieving children in a city school in a neighborhood with severe poverty and addicted parents who were failing their children. Most of these children will drop out of school because they are not learning and cannot keep up when the schools require more of children, and there are fewer labour jobs for them. These children do not have life skills and may never become part of mainstream society. We do not have quick solutions for dealing with this, but a rapidly increasing homeless population and increasing prison population. It is not a problem that can be managed by police, jails and prisons and the point of the document is these schools are underfunded and are not given the resources necessary for correcting the problem.

Yipes, this thread is about interpreting the Bible. Oh gee, the problem is God has allowed Satan to come to earth. We are not seeing the number people possessed by demons that were the problem during the hundreds of years of witch hunts, but we are seeing the problem with humans being degenerates who cannot possibly govern themselves and must have authority over them, and aren't we lucky that Trump is being such a good father to our nation? Ah, that Biblical explanation is not exactly how I understand the problems, but who should we believe, anthropologist and socialogiist or the Bible?

My goodness, what you said is fascinating! I want to focus on what you have said but once again I have spent way too much time in the forum. The day is more than half over and I haven't even begun to do everything scheduled for the day. Perhaps a thread specifically for this hidden hand and how we might deal with it and why it is important for us to do so is appropriate? PM me if you start the thread.

Without us as meaning-makers and subjective experiencers, society is just a machine, and not one that will work for long. — DiegoT

:scream: :sweat: :grin: I love that line. We fought two world wars against Germany's mechanical society and then proceeded to imitate it is every significant way. The intentions were good, but not wise. Can I fall back on Zeus? He was afraid this would happen.

I am quite sure there are men dominated and female dominated societies. One is a matriarchy and another is patriarchy. And I am not sure, but I think on sex may be able to dominate culture while the opposite one dominates politics? I think that was true of the US until education for technology and "women's liberation" made it taboo to be feminine?

This is Jacquelin Kennedy the first lady of the US in the 60's.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3ZvIzL1JbI

Now here is Hilary Clinton and a changing society

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgQfRod_Iv0

When the military dominates as it came to dominate in Rome and Germany and the US, being feminine is seen as a weakness. In communist Russia the woman who stayed home to care for the family was called a "non-productive" member of society. In the US she became "just a housewife". Who wants to be a non-productive member of society or just a housewife? Who wants to sacrifice her life to her husband's and children's success when there is no social reward for this? Women have been shamed into leaving their families and entering the paid workforce and this is means increasing the economy that is essential to supporting the military. The military, not a national health program and education.

I am not going to emulate Jacquelin Kennedy in today's society, but I did when I brought my children into this world. I am still bruised by my fall from being the 1950 ideal woman and 60-70 earth mother goddess to "just a housewife".

People with more caring and affectionate attitudes in our society are a by-product of people who are particularly tough, and sometimes cruel. V — DiegoT

I am impressed by how the military in Rome came to dominate and also came to benefit their veterans with land and political power, and how today the veteran's administration takes very good care of veterans. My son benefited a lot from his years of service. On the other hand, we begrudge women on welfare our support. Veterans have health benefits but not everyone, not their divorced wives and mothers. Yes, I would say we need a strong measure of toughness and cruelty to get social benefits, and as tough as Hilary Clinton was, it was not enough to get a national medical system.

Very nice people can afford all that niceness because someone else, actual people or procedures in the system such as law enforcement, are assuming all the hard ways that very friendly and compassionate people do without. — DiegoT

I am attempting to shift my great-grandchildren from being angry and intimidating to remaining calm and firm. If we do not have social agreements, we will have to rely on authority above us and that authority will have to more power then we do. I am working on it, but I think we need to work on character, virtues and social agreements? Relying too much on authority over the people is not a good thing. The goal is not to have kings ruling over us as children, but to be a society of adults.

I agree with there needs to be balance. When I was a teenager it was exciting to be ready to fight with fist and brute force, and I sent one intended rapist to the doctor with a broken bone. At this time in my life, I think I need to take different steps? My grandmother who was a school teacher, could just look at someone and get control. It was obvious the power of God stood behind her and He would strike a child, or a full grown man, dead if she was displeased a second time and she never raised her voice or a hand. That is possible when everyone is working with a notion of virtues and have social agreements. Today, a child throws a tantrum and the teacher removes everyone except the misbehaving child from the room and the police are called to deal with the child who is out of control. I am horrified that schools have taken so much authority from the teachers, the teachers can no longer maintain their authority in the classroom. Something is very wrong! What does it mean to be strong, and is having strength the same in all circumstances?

PM me.

I am hoping that as increasing numbers of us enter our later years, we will use the internet to reinvent a more humane society. I am sorely disappointed by the number of long-lived people who have dropped out and are no longer sure we can manifest a better world. That is nuts! We are gaining the technology that is essential to manifesting a better reality, and we are dropping out?! :gasp: I want to shake members of my generation and tell them the Older American's Act that claims we are entitled to social benefits is not about treating us as children, but enabling us after our years of experience to contribute to society.

If something doesn't take us down when we are young, old age will surely throw a few stumbling blocks in our path of life. :lol: These are gifts to improve our humanness and I have great hope of what we can do when we pick up our responsibility for manifesting a better world.

Societies swing. Since 1958 we have been focused on advancing technology and this is wonderful, but it is time to swing back to human values. Our technology can be a terrible curse if we only concern ourselves with being smart and not with wisdom. That is what Zeus feared would happen when we agained the technology of fire, and why he gave the first man and Pandora a box full of miseries. He was hoping to slow us down, so this day would not come too soon. The day we think we don't need the gods because all we need is technology. We are ignoring the gods and looking for a computer to rule over us. :death:

DiegoT
215
I can not find "The soul machine". The search engine gives me a rap singer who must be all the rage now. Who wrote it? — DiegoT

Might this be the book?

Soul Machine: The Invention of the Modern Mind: George Makari ...
https://www.amazon.com/Soul-Machine-Invention-Modern-Mind/dp/1531819567

I goolged for a book titled The Soul Machine and different books were offered. It looks like an interesting book.

Not
15
↪Athena That is true! My mother told us how she solved a complex geometry problem whilst asleep! :-) I am still quite bothered of changes in fortune and how we don't seem to get up to speed on the new life. It can be anything......illness, divorce, etc etc.......What part of us won't accept....is it based in Memory? We remember? I cannot pinpoint it. — Not

Oh put that way, I have a whole different understanding of what you are getting at! I was trapped in hell until one day while riding down the freeway with a friend, she screamed at me for holding onto my past, and I was so upset I almost left a vehicle going 70 miles an hour and she started slowing down and pulling to the right. Fortunately, our friendship was strong enough to get us through this day and it changed my life. I wanted out of the hell I was in for many years but I was lost in Hades. Hades is where we must all go for a sense of meaning, but we should never go there without the help of the gods (concepts of life that help us make good choices).

My first life-changing experience was a divorce and later I was disabled. To contrast these experiences I will begin with the second life-changing experience.

When I became disabled my life fell apart and I don't think our culture is organized well to help people past this point. There was no recognition of the grief and nothing was done to help me know what I could do with my changed body. Being independent, my income, depended on being physical fit and I was not. I was working with a government department of rehabilitation. These programs are supposed to be run by experts but what happens when the experts are clueless? I think this is a cultural problem. In a male-dominated culture, we don't allow much room for being human. I would like to see a resort for people adjusting to a major life change. This would be a more holistic approach.

So is the problem memory? How about values? I valued myself as a wife and mother and my husband who left our lives did not. A local college has classes for homemakers transitioning to jobs outside of the home. That approach to helping a person transition was better than my voc rehab experience because it was more holistic. It was created by women who understood the human experience, and I am not so sure men are that holistic. I think men tend to be goal oriented? The goal is getting a job verse the goal is a life transition.

Philosophically there are so many questions to ask when we are forced to deal with a life change that we may not want. How does this change who I am? What pieces of who I am can I pick up and build on to be a new me? How does this change my sense of value in this world? It is the pits when can no longer be the person we valued because of a life-changing event out of our control.

:chin: I am not sure we want our values to be too fluid? :cool: you tickle me with the idea our values should be fluid because it causes me to think. If our math values were fluid they would be no good to us, and perhaps civilized values are the same? Perhaps we should allow for civilizations having different values, just we might allow for individuals to have different values? And yet we need constant and shared values if we are going to get along.

We value being responsible human beings, but is not caring for children being responsible? Should we support mothers who want to stay home be full-time homemakers? Personally, I think nothing is more important than raising our children. But we seem to think people who are not working for the beast do not deserve the necessities of life. :worry: That is having shared values but not exactly the same values. Because we are not in agreement we have many children growing at risk and this becomes a costly social problem. Before the New Order World, we had family order, and I think the New World Order is about serving the beast, not the family. I mention this because the beast is mentioned in the Bible. We are warned against the beast and yet we seem to be supporting it 100%.