If the world was a moral place place there would be no charities, they would not be needed. — Sir2u

That recent high isn't the result of a slow climb, nor is it due to inflation. In constant dollars, U.S. foreign aid obligations jumped from $56.3 billion in 2021 to $70.4 billion in 2022, the latest year for which final data is available from a federal tracker.Jan 18, 2024

Countries That Receive the Most Foreign Aid From the U.S https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/countries-that-receive-the-most-foreign-aid-from-the-u-s#:~:text=That%20recent%20high%20isn't,available%20from%20a%20federal%20tracker.

[/quote]Defense spending by the United States accounted for nearly 40 percent of military expenditures by countries around the world in 2023, according to recently released figures from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). U.S. defense spending increased by $55 billion from 2022 to 2023, in part due to additional military aid sent to support Ukraine in its ongoing conflict. The United States spends more on defense than the next nine countries combined. https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2024/04/the-united-states-spends-more-on-defense-than-the-next-9-countries-combined [/quote] There is a graph at this link saying the defense spending in $916 Billion.

The defense spending is quite a bit more than the foreign aid spending, but the foreign spending does not include the cost of dealing with immigrants. I don't like the wording of this next link but the facts are important.

WASHINGTON, D.C.—This week, the House Committee on Homeland Security majority, led by Chairman Mark E. Green, MD (R-TN), released a shocking new interim report as part of its ongoing, comprehensive oversight investigation into Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and President Joe Biden’s reckless open-borders policies that have facilitated in the worst border crisis in American history. This report details the immense financial costs of the unprecedented border crisis being borne by American taxpayers, including the costs for health care, shelter, education, and law enforcement, as well as costs forced on private property owners and businesses. According to one estimate, housing and other services just to those who have been released into the United States on Mayorkas’ watch, or entered as known gotaways, could exceed $451 billion. https://homeland.house.gov/2023/11/16/what-they-are-saying-homeland-majoritys-fourth-interim-report-on-the-financial-cost-of-secretary-mayorkas-border-crisis/

So if we add $70 billion and $451 billion we get $521 billion and if we look at this as charity we can add another trillion to this.

The United States' welfare budget totaled $1.101 trillion in fiscal year 2023, or 18% of all federal outlays. Eight different federal agencies run welfare. This analysis pulls information from the agencies to show a combined federal welfare budget. The welfare program listing is shown below.

welfare budget - Federal Safety Net https://www.google.com/search?q=welfare+cost+in+US&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS926US926&oq=welfare+cost+in+US&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIICAEQABgWGB4yCAgCEAAYFhgeMg0IAxAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IBBAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IBRAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMgoIBhAAGIAEGKIEMgoIBxAAGIAEGKIE0gEKMTE0NzVqMGoxNagCCLACAQ&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Maybe that means more is spent on caring for other humans than is spent on military defense. Would we like to reduce that military spending by denying military support to our allies? Would that be cost effective? :grimace: I do not like giving Israel weapons but some of them a strictly defense preventing bombs from landing. Truly defensive weapons save lives and may prevent the use of destructive weapons. I don't think the choices are simple.

How can someone become a billionaire if they have been donating most of their income throughout their life? I have donated a large percentage of my income to charities since I was four years old. How could a human become a millionaire (i.e. have USD 1,000,000 in their bank account and/or own assets of this value) if they donated most of their annual net income, never mind a billionaire? It's impossible. — Truth Seeker

Wow, I wish everyone would acknowledge what I say by adding facts to what was said.:heart: It made want to read the link carefully. I am so pleased that the rich are getting richer because that means it is possible to increase wealth.

It would help to understand what are the rules for increasing wealth? What if charities learned the rules for increasing wealth and by using those rules they became wealthy and could do more? I seriously think government needs to take control of something like say the internet or AI and get its revenue that way instead of taxing people. The problem is not knowing how to increase wealth, but not knowing how to increase wealth. Our taxing system from the past and inappropriate for a high-tech society.

If you were struggling to keep your family alive as was so in 1820 as people moved west and struggled to survive on their homesteads, and knew nothing except what your church and neighbors told you, you would not be so unhappy about our failure to provide everyone with the good life. We are demanding more for everyone because we are accustomed to abundance. This is important because it means we need to change our thinking for a new reality. WHAT TO DO WE KNOW ABOUT ECONOMICS? Please, stop talking to me about rich people being greedy, and talk to me about economics and social organization. Your notion of people being greedy and not compassionate is myth. The big lie/myth is we need to be saved and we are not moral until we are saved. The truth is God was not a loving God until people's bellies were full. Around the world people of all faiths are very caring. The poor peasants are very willing to share a meal and be gracious host to the stranger. At least the geologist I have spoken with say that is so. Hawaiians didn't need Christianity to have beautiful spirits and a good culture. Many cultures put a high value on giving.

If the world was a moral place place there would be no charities, they would not be needed. — Sir2u

Oh really? and how is that organized? In the middle ages some Christian groups were strongly in favor of communism. Perhaps you are a reincarnated anabaptist?

Anabaptism (from Neo-Latin anabaptista,[1] from the Greek ἀναβαπτισμός: ἀνά- 're-' and βαπτισμός 'baptism',[1] German: Täufer, earlier also Wiedertäufer)[a] is a Christian movement which traces its origins to the Radical Reformation in the 16th century. Anabaptists believe that baptism is valid only when candidates freely confess their faith in Christ and request to be baptized. Commonly referred to as believer's baptism, it is opposed to baptism of infants, who are not able to make a conscious decision to be baptized. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabaptism

In the late 1520s Bernard Rothmann became the leader for religious reform in the city of Münster.....

The pamphlets at first denounced Catholicism from a radical Lutheran perspective, but soon started to proclaim that the Bible called for the absolute equality of man in all matters, including the distribution of wealth. The pamphlets, which were distributed throughout northern Germany, called upon the poor of the region to join the citizens of Münster to share the wealth of the town and benefit spiritually from being the elect of Heaven. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Rothmann

From what I have read the attempt to have complete equality became anarchy with people leaving their doors unlocked and people having sex with anyone whenever they pleased. The objection is there isn't even family order and I do not believe the complete lack of social order would be viable. I also do not believe a leader is equal to a follower, a peasant is equal to a scientist. Complete equality is not viable.

Have you looked at https://inequality.org/facts/wealth-inequality ? I know that some billionaires are generous but most are not. If they were so generous from the beginning they wouldn't get to be billionaires in the first place. — Truth Seeker

This is not working. We are doing unimaginably better than in the past and can either agree with than or defend what appears to be your notion that great progress has not been made. How could you possibly know most billionaires are not generous? The answer to that question requires how you got that information. How can you know more about "them" than you know about me?

Did you look at https://www.anonymousforthevoiceless.org/kill-counter and https://inequality.org/facts/global-inequality ? We slaughter more sentient organisms than ever before. Global inequality keeps growing. The rich get richer and the poor die out. — Truth Seeker

I have to run. I really regret that and I hope I have the energy to get back to the forum this afternoon. However, at the moment, I think if we limit the discussion to humans it will be more comprehensive. But if you want to include animals I think that should cover all the animals that are nearing extinction because we have taken the land and natural resources that they must have to live.

To stay on topic you might pick a moment in history when animals were slaughtered and rewrite that history, telling us how the world would be better if our past had been better. We can do a lot with a discussion like that. :grin:

Could you tell me what language the video you posted uses, I am pretty sure that it is Hindi. And if there is an English version of it. — Sir2u

Good grief that was unexpected! Here it is in English.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqXVAo7dVRU

Actually a lot of suffering and death could be avoided, except that no one really wants to foot the bill for it. There are mas reserves of vital grains and other food stocks around the world, but it costs a lot of money that the tax payers would bitch about to take it where it is needed. — Sir2u

Come on, people around the world are very involved with saving those suffering from famine and war.

30 Organizations Working to End Hunger

Human Rights Careers
https://www.humanrightscareers.com › magazine › orga...
Rise Against Hunger. Rise Against Hunger is a global organization the recognizes that ending hunger is more than just feeding people. The organization is driven ...
Missing: afflicted ‎| Show results with: afflicted

What the hell is going on? A few hundred years ago people didn't name their children until they were 3 years old because they were not expected to live. Today most children in modern countries live at least 70 years. What we have accomplished and continue to accomplish is amazing and everyone is writing the Christain myth that humans are miserable, self-centered pieces of shit. Something is really wrong with this upside-down mentality. How do you all justify the denial of good and caring?

Those who have, do not want to share with those who do not have. So sad — Truth Seeker

That is not true!

Here are the billionaires who give away the most money, according to Forbes
Warren Buffett. Warren Buffett has a lifetime giving of $56.7 billion. ...
Bill Gates and Melinda French Gates. ...
George Soros. ...
Michael Bloomberg. ...
MacKenzie Scott. ...
Jim and Marilyn Simons. ...
Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan. ...
Steve and Connie Ballmer.

We are biologically programmed to care about others. That comes with being a social animal.

I see your point. In that case, how do we solve the problems of suffering, inequality, injustice, and death? — Truth Seeker

We can not end death and we may not want to. I have heard the gods think we are better off because we are not immortal. :chin: Perhaps we should start a thread asking why do we want life?

The other problems of suffering. inequality and injustice, are a matter of technology and education. I am sure if the people living 300 years ago saw what we can achieve today, they would be amazed by how far we come. For a better discussion, you might start a thread for each factor, one at a time.

I think the whole world should be one egalitarian country. — Truth Seeker

Heck, many wives can't even get their husbands to help with housework and child care. I do not see egalitarianism coming any time soon. Also, I work a lot and I don't others willing to do that. I don't think a free ride brings out the best in people. A better society means every child is well cared for and has the advantages that enable him/her to be the best s/he can be. I am willing to focus on that, but that is not making people equal.

What has that got to do with the price of Polish cod? But I have no idea and I doubt you do either. — Sir2u

I love your post. I strongly disagree with you about the importance of Scholasticism, but everything else is moving in the right direction. Something that is not well known is HOW we think is as important as WHAT we think and Scholasticism taught people to think critically.



In our age of technology we are taking critical thinking for granted BUT by that I do not mean people are thinking critically. A conspiracy thinker thinks s/he is being rational but in fact they are not. They are NOT questioning the nutty ideas they believe. They are adding a new belief to the beliefs they have lived with for years and think they are being rational. What is important here is before Schalisticism people were not critical thinkers AND- :grin: I get so excited when a discussion is going well---

"Is transubstantiated bread and wine real?" Is a critical question!!! It demands questioning what is believed and it demands empirical information. Now believers believed, if it is said in the Bible that is the word of God. That doesn't really qualify as critical thinking, but no matter. The transubstantiated bread and wine are not in the Bible. :scream: It is a lie! Carrying around images of saints for their protection is also a superstitious lie.

We are dealing with superstition here and the power of the Church. If you believe the creation story, you also believe in heaven and that a person must be saved to get to heaven. How we handle our sins is vital to if we go to heaven or not, and if you are Catholic, the only way to heaven is through the Church and the Church has magic powers, such as turning bread and wine into the essence of Jesus himself. We are really talking about cannibalism here. Anyway, if you don't believe that superstitious stuff the Church is like "The King With No Clothes". Protestants thought science would reveal God as it already exposed the lie of needing the Church to go to heaven.

Through Scholasticism, people learned HOW to think. Martin Luther believed God decided who would be a master and who would be a slave/serf. That belief gave not only the Church power but also the King! When Protestants began questioning the social order that also put the whole organization of society into question!

For the modestly rich knight class, yes, they had the most to lose. Changes in the technology of war put them out of business so they depended on their land for an income and it was rumored the Catholics shouldn't even own land. Certainly not the lying Church. This was an opportunity for them to get more land and return to the higher standard of living they wanted. These educated people used their education for a war that would increase their wealth and no one would benefit more from the change in social order than the peasants.

But before it truly could, the bubonic plague and the Mongol invasions started. — Tzeentch

I could understand that part of the lectures I am learning from. Just before everything went so wrong, they had overpopulation and could not produce enough food. The plague depleted the size of the population so much that they turned to serfdom and tied the peasants to the land, stripping them of all freedom! That situation was intolerable! They justified it with Roman law, as Rome also tied people to the land to force their labor in growing food.

We appear to be food safe, but I wonder what would we do if our systems broke down and we needed more labor in our fields?

You will find comprehensive answers here:
The Theological Origins of Modernity, Michael Gillespie

And you don't even have to read the whole thing.

https://www.amazon.com/Theological-Origins-Modernity-Michael-Gillespie/dp/0226293467/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2W2DQ8DXXV8C0&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.G5iRyE9Wgb6mk6RP_S0uCt9RcZdxPmXw1qJw3WOuHEAmq5QU0qX7u7_8N_FKT6JtULdBVuCTIymlheuzkZoql3SiQBnUpQ8cm1r1kenATO19A2D4BcwW1b_ZxEF1ZbFXclZqM-QpJ84Kbacm9_kxlYPuEB9UMmV-vUOhR-ufB09Thv66GfImc8CLLRpzOjl9AoNEjdTs7gTyjHYbzRVaCzdD_P_oqyhizYONfEfUS8k.1hAKMATODsRXIHEP06_vuvR9b87bDJMLtoJJGRAtY4o&dib_tag=se&keywords=The+Theological+Origins+of+Modernity&qid=1715787555&sprefix=the+theological+origins+of+modernity%2Caps%2C108&sr=8-1

Or if you're lucky, your local library. — tim wood

Pefect!! "Exposing the religious roots of our ostensibly godless age, Michael Allen Gillespie reveals in this landmark study that modernity is much less secular than conventional wisdom suggests."

I am so happy you posted what I attempted to say in my post just before this one. I am afraid I need that book. :grimace: I already have too many books, but this particular subject is what is most interesting to me at the moment. :up:

This was all centuries after West Rome came apart, and what does Genesis have to do with it?
The thread doesn't have a clear topic. — Lionino

:lol: I accept that I do not meet a higher standard of writing. I will always be more personal than technologically correct and I will always wonder and enjoy what others think.

The importance of Genesis is the mythology that has molded the whole of Western civilization. I don't think anything is more important to societies than their shared mythology. Even for those of us who do not believe the Bible is the word of God, it is still a strong part of our lives because it is the foundation of our culture, along with the Greek and Roman classics. We can not escape it. The word "human" means moist soil. Our failure to be aware of how Christianity affects our lives does not mean we are free from that mythology.

The story of creation was not actually a christian idea, it came from African tribes and was already ancient when the christians adopted it.

The western part of the Roman empire was broken down into many little kingdoms that over centuries became larger with only one king and developed the feudal system of government.
Christianity expanded and became the major religion in western Europe and separated for the Orthodox church in the east.

Over the centuries both the church and the lords eventually became so corrupt that the peasants revolted against both.

During the Early and High Middle ages, most advancements came about through the inventiveness of the peasants, better farming methods and tool technology, the use of wind and water power.

The Late Middle Ages was when the started to re-discover the ideas of the ancient Greeks and that started the renaissance. — Sir2u

That looks like a good account of what happened. I am learning from The Great Courses and I am having a devil of time comprehending the break up of Rome and eventual development of nations. I need to see a map. It would be really cool to see a map that changed colors as people moved from one area to the next. It is easier for me to grasp a thought if I can see it.

Have you watched "Star Trek: The Next Generation"? They don't have any money. Look at the world and its history. It's full of suffering, inequality, injustice, and death. The system I proposed will minimise suffering, inequality, injustice, and death. We will share everything instead of the divisive system we now have. Look what non-vegans do to sentient animals every second: — Truth Seeker

Star Trek is a fantasy. On a ship, all things are provided by the shipping company. This was so for Star Trek and the three ships Columbus led across the ocean. However, when reaching the new planet there must be a means of exchange. Hopefully, this exchange is better than "Give me everything I want and we let you live".

All social animals organize themselves around a leader and family order. Under the sun we are the same, but in relation to each other, we are not. A technological society is not as ordered around family as we once were. In the past, the whole family could determine our opportunities, such as getting a job with the railways because one's father worked for the railway, or getting the job of dog father because your uncle is the major. Technology has changed that old order and the New World Order is based on individual abilities. Today we are specialized and our job depends on our merit. This is very so in Star Trek.

There are good and bad things about this New World Order. If you want to resolve problems you must first identify what the problems are and then what the solution is. Or we can just jump to assuming the world you imagine does exist. Why does anyone do anything? How do individuals gain the ability to do anything? What values do they learn and how do they learn them? What motivates them to do anything?

It should be democratic and there should be a separation between the government and religions. Policies should promote environmental sustainability, the elimination of pollution and promote the equal rights of all sentient beings. Everyone should receive according to their needs and contribute according to their abilities. Everyone should have equal social status from conception to death. We should all be vegans. Everyone should have equal standards of living. Money should be banned. All means of production should be owned by everyone equally. — Truth Seeker

Why would people want that?

How does an economy without money work?

I think the whole world should be one egalitarian country. — Truth Seeker

And how is that organized?

The only ones that really behaved themselves while the church had power were the poor peasants. And even they got to the point where enough was enough and revolted against the church. — Sir2u

Yes and what is that enough, of which you speak?
Who started the peasants' rebellion? Might the trouble have begun with people with a degree of wealth and education who riled up the peasants? Might that rebellion have begun with Scholasticism?

Scholasticism is the term given to a medieval philosophical movement that combined Catholic theology with the philosophies of more ancient writers such as Augustine and Aristotle. During what is called the Carolingian Renaissance, Charlemagne set up schools in every church throughout the Holy Roman Empire. The monks began to study and learn in these schools, and the schools attracted learners from all over Europe. The word scholasticism comes from the word for “school” because the movement began in Charlemagne’s schools.

Plato’s and Aristotle’s ideas and traditional Catholic dogma were influences on Scholasticism. Scholars sought to apply logic and reason to theology and to create a “web” of distinct truths that, when compared to one another, show truth to be an internally consistent whole. The same process can be seen in many academic systematic theologies today. https://www.gotquestions.org/Scholasticism.html

Is transubstantiated bread and wine real? :chin:

According to the eucharistic doctrine of Roman Catholicism, the elements of the consecrated bread and wine are transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ: their substance is converted into the substance of the body and blood, although the outward appearances of the elements, their “accidents,” remain.Apr 17, 2024
Eucharist | Definition, Symbols, Meaning, Significance, & Facts

That's great. You probably have a local humanist organisation depending on which country you live in. Try Googling for it. — Truth Seeker

The closet organization is in another state. There is nothing in the northwest of the US. I need to look into the organization very carefully because if it is what I am looking for I will contribute money and my time and energy. I would have to attract like minded people and develop an organization that is part of the larger organization. That would be a great way to use my Toastmistress training.

I think, I would like to devote myself to bringing Jerusalem under international control and an international historic site. And how about moving on to creating Athens as an international historic site, and what other places should be added to the international historic sites?

And if a being could only make the perfect choice, would there ever be any option or choice to make? Wouldn’t that mean such beings had no reason to ever choose, as each “choice” was really just a seeking of the knowing the one way to act?

And if you didn’t already know the right way to act, knowing the perfect choice (as when you pause to consider options), how can you say you are all-knowing?

But that said, people are so damn intolerant, willing to act unreasonably, self-centered, and just plain hurtful, it’s worth thinking about how to change this without losing the real circumstances that beg us to tolerate differences, to be patient enough to find reasonableness, to consider others before ourselves and seek to help others instead of hurt them.

I wouldn’t change the world. If I could change myself, and we all could, this world could be good enough. — Fire Ologist

"God's law is 'right reason.' When perfectly understood it is called 'wisdom.' When applied by government in regulating human relations it is called 'justice." Cicero

I agree with your final statement, but we need to extend our desire for the good life to all people because we are in this swimming pool together and what one does affects another. :grimace: I grimace because while that is true, when it lacks the liberty of all, attempting to have the perfect world can be a terrible experience. The "Anabaptist dominion of Münster" and tyranny of Calvin and his followers began with good intentions and I am not sure all would have gone well even if they were allowed to continue.

Perfection demands balance and that makes imperfection possible but it is a whole lot better than tyranny. While we have negative qualities as you listed, I must argue your point because we also have so many good qualities. Circumstances can bring out the best in us or the worst in us. Again to agreeing with your final statement, I don't think anything could be better than what we have because we have not reached our full potential and if we don't exterminate ourselves we may achieve a better better. :grin:

The Renaissance was a long process that came about because of curiosity and the unwillingness of people to keep on blaming god for everything, not because of peoples fantasies.
If Martin Luther had not caused the loss of Catholic authority someone else would have, the situation was ripe for the things that happened. And there were already different ways of seeing the bible, the Jews and the Orthodox amongst others church disagreed with the Catholics on many things. — Sir2u

I want to work with what I am learning about the Renaissance and the Reformation so that I can gain a better understanding of it. Working with the topic of this thread, what would have happened if there had been no Black Plague in the autumn of 1347? Did that plague lead to the weakening of the Catholic church and the rise of Protestantism? What could have happened if the "Anabaptist dominion of Münster" had been allowed to continue?

Especially the "Anabaptist dominion of Münster" should appeal to @Truth Seeker wish for love and peace without government suppression. The anarchy following the weakening of Catholic power and control is a lesson for us, isn't it?

I bookmarked that site. It is something I want to look into. I think I would very much like to join like-minded people in an organized manner. The social function of the church is very important. For all of us who can not go that route, we need a choice that serves that social function but is compatible with what we believe.

A huge benefit would be ending the Christian myth that we need a supernatural power to think and do good.

I am listing to a professor's lectures on the Renaissance and Reformation, times of big changes. I think we come to another period of big changes. Is there anything from the past that might help us today?

Fantasies are helpful in creating the future. What would have happened if there was no Renaissance? What if Martin Luther had not caused the loss of Catholic authority and a new way of seeing the Bible?

So we agree religions are made up by people, but we are at a cross road that demands a new story. For more and more people it is impossible to become a member of a religious group because given what we know today, it is impossible to see truth in the religion. What can unite us and give us social agreements, when religion fails to do this for a growing number of people?

I am listening to a professor's lectures about the Renaissance and Reformation. The1400s was a terrible period in history with overpopulation then plagues and wars and such a decrease in populations, peasants were legally chained to the land and forced to be farm laborers. All their freedoms were lost as they supported the greater society with their labor and tax money. Then the shit really hit the fan when Martin Luther challenged the authority of the Catholic church and the exploited people began fighting for their freedom and better lives using the Bible to justify their rebellion. We might ask what is the moral we can take from history?

We can begin with Socrates. When people are exploited, sooner and later, they become a problem to those who exploit them. You know we are being dehumanized when AI handles such things as our application for a job and we can not get an interview. That is one of the problems with overpopulation. We do not need everyone, so people get marginalized and once they are marginalized it can be difficult to reenter the workforce. What can we expect to happen when people are pushed to the margins of society? That is a moral question. How do we start including everyone in society?

We have Goodwill stores that hire and train people with problems getting a job. I have heard Germany does an excellent job of getting unemployed people employed. I wish I knew more about what Germany does to help people get jobs. On the other side are our homeless people who become like feral cats as they lose their ability to function socially. It just is not a good thing to marginalize people and not include them in society. Let me establish some authority on this subject by letting it be known I was one of those people on the outside. I was so overwhelmed I was dysfunctional.

Okay, today AI is dehumanizing and I am quite sure this will increasingly become a problem until things are so bad we are forced to do things differently. It would just be nice if we could think things through before things get any worse.

Thank you for sharing your experience with us. So, are you a deist or a polytheist or a pantheist or a panentheist? I am an agnostic about the existence and nature of all Gods. — Truth Seeker

I am sure the story of the creation of Adam and Eve should not be understood literally. It is most likely a plagiarized Sumerian story about a river that flooded and was dying until the Goddess causing him to die changed her mind and another goddess healed him. Then the river asked for help staying in its banks and a goddess used mud to create a man and woman and breathed life into them. Abraham and his people lived in the Sumerian city of Ur before starting their trek to Egypt.

I am sure the Biblical god is a tribal god and a story of a god leading people to promised land is not unique to the Hebrews. Believing a place is sacred is not unique to Hebrews. Believing people can be favored by a god is offensive and a false justification for wars.

I believe the universe follows laws that can not be broken and this fact does not depend on a god. Surely not a god that is like a human as Zeus and the God of Abraham are very human.

I am not convinced that God or Gods exist. Are you convinced that God or Gods exist? If so, which God or Gods exist? How do you know this? — Truth Seeker

I like life as it is because there is so much to change and we have the potential to make that change. Let us play with the understanding of God.

Christians carry the Greek understandings of logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe, and the trinity of God, Father Son, and Holy Ghost.

The Greeks began with Egyptian concepts of gods and the Egyptian trinity of our being. When we die one part of the trinity dies with the body. A second part of the trinity is judged and may or may not enter the good afterlife, depending on the weight of our hearts. :grin: We need to be light-hearted. The last part returns to the source, no matter what. Understanding Eastern thinking is very important to our understanding.

Chardin, a Catholic priest who was sent to China, learned from the East. He explained, "God is asleep in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals, to know self in man." We are God's consciousness. We do not question the notion that we must have brains to think, but oddly we think a God can think without a brain. Of what could such a god think? We get this when we deified Jesus. Jews acknowledged our lives can not be known without the physical experience of being humans. What follows that understanding is a deified man. The big problem here is the need to stick with one god. To Constantine's horror, Christians started killing each other over the problem of the trinity being 3 gods or 1. In Latin, there was no word for a trinity of one God so they had to invent a word to explain the trinity of God before the Christians could stop killing each other.

The trinity of God externalizes God and the trinity of humans internalizes God. We are spiritual beings having a human experience.

I know what I know because of a lifetime of seeking knowledge and in my old age, I realize most of our disagreements are about perspective. When we do not know a concept, we can not think about it. By trying to learn of God by attempting to know all beliefs, I have a very wide perspective. Whereas a Jew, Christian or Muslim will have a very small perspective. A few religious people attempt to know more than their holy book, but not the mass of religious humans.

The idea of being objective or subjective is often approached from the perspective of rationality. However, it may come down to core values, which may be more complex, in standing back and thinking critically, as they are so involved in daily life and bound up with the reflective processes in philosophy and philosophy. This may involve fetters that get in the way of self-awareness, leading to blindspots, which may be stumbling blocks in philosophical understanding, making the distinction between the subjective and objective into a blur of confusion so often. The only possible way to disentangle this may be by looking to the depths and sources of underlying beliefs, especially in relation to core values. — Jack Cummins

Wow!

I cheated and edited what you said with Grammarly hoping to make it easier to understand because you express such deep thoughts and I want so much to better understand what you are saying. As I read what you said, I reflected on how I wish I had known what I know today when I was younger and I wish I knew today what I hope to learn about myself and my blind spots and how to do things better.

Your title asks us to think politically and what a thrill that is when we realize what all our different points of view have to do with expanding our consciousness and having better moral judgment. :heart: Someone told me a Hawaiian greeting is "I am sorry. I love you. Will you forgive me?" What if all of us could humble ourselves enough to come from love instead of judgments of each other? And to do this politically so we hold shared ideas of what is and what ought to be and the best way to manifest that change. To me, that is what democracy is about.

Maybe God wills that for you, so you must buy lottery tickets because that is what God wants you to do.

Why are people the way they are? — Truth Seeker

In part because of their stories. If we lived with Greek gods or a creator who didn't have favorites nor an evil counterpart, we would be different from people who believe there is only one god and that they can know the will of that god, who is always in favor of what they want. A god who expects them to kill for what they believe is rightly theirs. A god who justifies their wars with the belief it is the other who is evil and so it is God's will that be exterminated the others.

I very much like your argument. Who would want to play Monopoly if every game were the same? I thrill at the possibility that things could be different and I might effect that difference and nothing is more fun than reading a different point of view that gives me a better sense of meaning than I had before.

The bottom line is I pretty much like life as it is, but I would love to go back in history and change history, putting all of us on a different projector. Such as, what would happen if Abraham and his followers had never settled and remained nomadic herders? What if Athens had the power of Rome and Rome did not have military power? Or what if the Native Americans had been able to keep their land and the only way Europeans could live in America was to conform to the way of the Iroquois Confederacy? What if the US did not take Britain's side in WWI?

The problem may be with religious fundamentalism and its various forms. The subjective ans objective aspects of thinking may be important, especially the way in which ethical ideals and values are based on assumptions of religious belief, or secular perspectives of 'reality', with the religious ones being considered as more objective, in the absolutism of perspectives of religious thinking. — Jack Cummins

Last night, I watched a Nova explanation of "intelligent design" being a modern way of explaining "Creationism" and why it is not science. Creationism can not explain cause and effect and can not predict. Science explains cause and effect and a good check on that explanation is if it can predict the effect of a cause.

I do not have a good understanding of being objective or subjective. If I am trying to figure out how something works, am I being objective or subjective, or how about just curious? Like is wondering subjective of objective? What if we imagine something and check if it can be true like Einstein?

Or if I can get closer to the subject- do we know enough about economics to make good decisions about things that affect our economy? Would that be subjective or objective?

You all inspired me to look for a definition of the word "fact"

A fact is a true datum about one or more aspects of a circumstance. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means. For example, "This sentence contains words." Wikipedia

Now I need to know what a datum is and this definition causes me to think about the Greek philosophers and what math had to do with the separation of rational thinking from the gods and the evolution of science coming out of philosophy.

A geodetic datum or geodetic system is a global datum reference or reference frame for precisely representing the position of locations on Earth or other planetary bodies by means of geodetic coordinates. Wikipedia

A fact is a fact if we are aware of it or not. Washing one's hands in polluted water can spread disease if observers realize that is what is happening or not. Making the ritual of washing of hands in an area that is wet and the well is close to the sewage a hazardous practice leading some to think the ritual of washing hands is not a good idea.

When reading the Bible we might want to do some fact checking before believing it is the word of God.

A theory might or might not be a fact. We can not judge that without checking and rechecking what we believe is true.

Myth is a genre of folklore or theology consisting primarily of narratives that play a fundamental role in a society, such as foundational tales or origin myths. For folklorists, historians, philosophers or theologians this is very different from the use of "myth" simply indicating that something is not true. Wikipedia

It is not factual. It is not science. It can not predict. What we think about myths is an opinion of what is true and believable.

I would love to go back in time and prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths. I would love to make all living things all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful but I can't. — Truth Seeker

Hey, should we start a thread for that? Everyone can pick his/her time in history and place and say what should be changed, why, and how?

I loved Genghis Khan, the early Nintendo game. I loved that we could save the game and repeat a part of it if things went really wrong. I also liked how it expanded my ideas of what is important and how to balance everything. Most important lesson, war can destroy your empire, so don't go to war if it can be avoided. However, if the British are causing the people to starve to death there is no good choice but to try to get rid of them.

↪Athena I live in the U.K. currently but I was born in Bangladesh. I have read the book "Brave New World" and I don't have the time to watch the movie but thank you for the recommendation. Governments are supposed to protect people but they don't always succeed. — Truth Seeker

Why would anyone leave Bangladesh? I think of Bangladesh as very exotic and with a rich history. Meaning, that some of the earliest people at least passed through the region and later inhabitants developed pottery and things of metal. They had a very impressive military with elephants, surely the tanks of their day. That may have kept Alexander the Great from tromping all over them.

Today Bangladesh is one of the most threatened countries because of global warming but when the first people walked through it must have been a paradise with abundant food. I would love to go back in time and check it out.

Who gets to concentrate the wealth that farmers, miners, urban centers, traders, etc. create? — BC

That is a delicious question! But I want to point out the killing of which Truth Teller speaks is emotional and I don't think the US has ever dealt with the number of emotionally unstable people that it has today. Our western TV seems to focus on killing. Every episode someone is killed and that probably is not a realistic account of our past. But today the number of mass murders committed by emotionally unstable people is alarming. I think we need to get past the notion of good and bad people, and be more scientific about our understanding of such behavior. The moral being a matter of cause and effect.

I have noticed some people have a strong opinion of what it means to be a strong person and how this person should have control. I am not sure if they are part of the problem or part of the solution.

Now you have stated an opinion I don't agree with, and we were getting along so well! :smile: — BC

Not where he grew up. He has dealt with a lot of killing and lawlessness. There are areas on earth that are not healthy for humans because humans tend to fill their heads full of lies and than act on them in destructive ways. Hum, that could make a good thread. What is required for safe communities?

↪Athena That's interesting. Time will tell. Thank you for telling me about it. — Truth Seeker

For darn sure we are not going to achieve our full potential with the God of Abrahman and Biblical explanation of reality. As long as we cling to superstition we will not have good judgment about reality and ourselves.

↪Athena I am just going by what I have observed. 99.9% of all the species to evolve so far on Earth are already extinct. The world is full of omnivores, carnivores, herbivores, and parasites. Why aren't all living things autotrophs the way all plants (except for carnivorous plants) are? It would be even better if all living things were nonconsumers. Human history and our present are full of violence, murder, war, exploitation, slavery, genocide, rape, torture, robbery, theft, etc. I have been kidnapped, raped, beaten up and robbed. Six of my relatives were murdered in separate incidents. My best friend was also murdered. The criminals got away with the crimes. If hard determinism is true, the criminals are not even morally culpable. "Might is right. Adapt or die" is what I have seen from my earliest memories to the present. I hate all the suffering, inequality, injustice, and death in the world. I wish we lived in a nice world where everyone is forever happy. I don't think it would be boring. If every living thing were all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful and owned an infinite number of universes each, how could we be bored? — Truth Seeker

Where do you live, Chicago, New York, L.A. the jungles of Africa? We institute governments to protect ourselves from ourselves. However, that alone is not enough. :heart:

There can be no liberty without education for liberty, and perhaps there can be no security until every child experiences security. For sure, technology is essential to better lives, but until we figure out governments must be funded by thesource of income, we will not achieve the economic power required for better lives. When machines replace human labor, the source of income is those computers and machines and they must be taxed because they replace the human laborer that is taxed.
This is not a new idea, taxation began with property taxes, and our machines are property.

Securing the resources for low and high-tech economies can lead to war, so we have to be 100% honest about our need for resources and how to share the resources with the world. This is an intellectual feat we have not achieved. Religion has not helped us one bit when it comes to sharing the earth with others nor has the Bible given us the intellectual capacity for the honesty world peace requires.

Yipes as I struggle to imagine a perfect world, I am reminded of the novel/movie Brave New World. Have you seen it?

It could be fun to form a group that can commit to watching that movie 30 minutes at a time and then comment after each viewing. We must remember our best intentions can go very wrong.