Silence. — Banno

The problem is, it seems to me, worship – idol-making – not g/G per se. Theism is idolatry. The apophatics got it right, I think: anything said or imag(in)ed (e.g. "graven images", scriptures, theologies, sermons) about the infinite is necessarily finite and thereby false; even (especially) the belief that the infinite "exists" is idolatrous. — 180 Proof

That's ironically escapist when it comes from people who have a combative, authoritarian attitude toward people; but when it comes to God, they turn to putty. Even Job had more fighting spirit!

Nothingness. If he would exist I would imagine him as the pure representation of silence and emptiness. — javi2541997

Nah. I imagine God as a Trumpista.
Look at the world: it's full of killing, raping, and pillaging. If God exists and has created the world, then he approves of all this killing, raping, and pillaging. It's how he wants things to be. Anything that proposes to tbe "the genuine word of God" needs to reflect that.

NONE OF IT WAS DOWN TO GOD(s)! It was all down to our behaviour! — universeness

God, in his infinite wisdom and goodness, could have arranged for less bloody ways of humans acting on their free will. But he didn't.

What a genuine word of God would look like

In order to be credible, it would need to be in line with scientific theories, specifically, the Theory of Evolution. That is, it would need to be a narrative full of killing, raping, and pillaging; life would need to be presented as a struggle for survival; full of might makes right. IOW, exactly the way mainstream theologies do. As such, the Bible is an excellent contender for being The Genuine Word of God.

Communism is on the rise in the U.S.? That's news to me. — Pierre-Normand

Americans have ... a peculiar understanding of communism.

I still see Republicans defending him or arguing that prosecuting him could lead to violence, which in bait-speak is saying people should riot if Trump is prosecuted. — Benkei

Is it only Republicans who think that way?
It seems that one of the likeliest explanations for why the Democrats (and the US general public) are so ineffective against Trump is precisely because they fear what being a tad more effective could bring about.

From the perspective of the Democrats, the really offensive thing about events like Jan. 6 is not that it was orchestrated by Republicans, but that a bunch of plebeians stormed an establishment in which they, the plebeians, are anything but welcome.

Nobody, not the Republicans and not the Democrats, wants the disenfranchized, the poor, the plebeians.

You're conflating hardship with the psychological experience of hardship.

Hardship, as in, a broken bone, poverty, hunger, cold, heat, working 12-hour shifts 6 days per week for minimum wage, etc.

The psychological experience of hardship is how one thinks and feels about having a broken bone, living in poverty, being hungry etc.

Again, an overreaction. — Banno

Only to someone in a position of power.
For everyone else, might makes right, and one must hold as true whatever the person says who holds more power than oneself. Or else, face socioeconomic consequences.

So what are you going to do about it?

I expect death to be just like it was for me two hundred, two thousand years ago. In other words, nothing. To me that sounds perfectly fine. Nothingness is not to be feared or lamented. Am I happy about it? Happiness is such a puerile term. — Tom Storm

The question is whether an oulook like yours can be arrived at deliberately.

But now we are here in the phase where she apologizes with nearly breaking up in tears ... — ssu

Why did she do that?

If partying and drinking are so great and make her so capable of ruling her people, then why apologize for partying and drinking??

If she were to stand by her partying, the whole thing wouldn't be suspect at all. But if she's making it clear that even she herself doesn't believe in what she's doing, then why should we believe in her, how can we believe in her??

Why didn't she say something like, "Yes, I'm a Prime Minister. Yes, I party. Yay!" ? And perhaps throw a "Deal with it!" in the mix.
It's the absence of her approving of her partying that is conspicuous and a reason for doubting her.

If she wants to be a politician of a new era, then she should behave like one consistently and play by the new rules, not the old ones.

I support the idea that statesmen and leaders shouldn't behave like how she behaved in that party. She has a responsibility to her entire nation and a role model to the public. — L'éléphant

No. It is not about double standard. She is the PM and public representative of a nation. She has the aim to act in the most honorable and rectitude way possible. We are living in a difficult social context and we expect from a statesman to be, at least, professional. Right?
It is quite contradictory, isn't it? Probably she has the average discourse of how to be an exemplary citizen and look at her dancing and acting like an immature teenager. — javi2541997

Agreed.

The actual difficulty has to do with making sense of democracy and the standards of morality for democratically elected officials.

A person in a position of power isn't an ordinary person anymore, because they have that power.

But at the same time, since they have been elected from and by the people with whom they are at least nominally equal, they are still ordinary in one sense.

I still think people in positions of power should be beyond the need for frivolous fun. It's not even about "being responsible"; it's about being so capable, so smart, so superior to the masses that one doesn't need the cheap emotional outlets that the masses do.

I think the feeling is mutual with the Slavophiles in Russia. — ssu

Why should the Western hatred of Russians (and Slavic people in general) be considered morally right?

The assumption by many seems to be 'politics is sober and serious, please don't have a life too.'
— Tom Storm

I wonder who else is covered under this assumption, doctors, lawyers, Sunday school teachers? — Fooloso4

Politics _should_ be sober and serious. Similar applies to many other professions.

It's frightening the way people are willing to lower their standards and to consider various professions as "just another job".

Russia takes upon itself the role of the shortest man in the gang. — Banno

I can't actually think of a single American film or tv series where I could say with certainty that it doesn't ridicule Russia or present Russians as anything other than stupid or hostile. Russophobia is pervasively present in American culture and has been for a long time.
And similar for other Western cultures.

Then US presidents, esp. the Democrats: all Russophobes to the bone.

I can't think of an EU politician who hasn't been a Russophobe. It's part of what counts for "being civilized" around here, and it's been like that for as long as I can remember, at least 30 years.

And to then hear someone claim that the Russians chose this negative image that Westerners have of them!

In fact, Russia is fighting the notorious collective West, defending its very existence as a country, a people, a civilization.
We must constantly remember that Russophobia in Europe has deep roots. And what is happening today is not a sudden, short-term episode, but a constant component of the social and political life of the West.

That's odd. Sure, there was Sovietphobia in most or many places. After that, things changed, there was optimism, friendships, seeking trust. 2-3 decades ago, something like that, I personally know people that went to Russia, business and otherwise. But now, ironically, Putin and compadres stomped that out good and well. To the extent it's real, Matviyenko's "Russophobia" was/is like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Except, who has been wanting Russia to cease existing...? — jorndoe

Russia takes upon itself the role of the shortest man in the gang. — Banno

Wow. The pretense is astounding.

The Fine-Tuning Argument says “that the present Universe (including the laws that govern it and the initial conditions from which it has evolved) permits life only because these laws and conditions take a very special form, small changes in which would make life impossible.” — Art48

This is typically Western theology infused by secularism; a bottom-up approach, explaining theological matters from the perspective of humans.

So, why would God bother to create an intricately fine-tuned universe for the sake of souls

"Because it pleases God to do so," a more old-fashioned theologist would say.

Many Christians love to cite the following verse. Aren't WE special?

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16. — ThinkOfOne

It's interesting that some people think this is about humans being "special".

I've always interpreted it in the sense of, "Even though humans are so bad and evil and undeserving, God still loves us! Isn't God great!!"

When hatred and contempt are normalized, it's only a question of time before there will be a war.

I said:

What you're asking for cannot be done in the framework of secular culture and science. — baker

Indeed. And as I've been saying, both antinatalists and the natalists tend to be hedonists.

The trick is in having the power to define what is pure and what is evil — praxis

And this is also one of the problems with an intrapersonal understanding of karma. Without regard for other people, who gets to define what the pure deeds are and what the evil ones?

There is nothing that would stop such a self-referential-only person from developing into an absolute egomaniacal narcissist that goes around killing, raping, and pillaging, feeling good about himself because he defined those deeds of his as pure and good.

Yes. If you live by the sword, you'll die by the sword. — Tate

Only in fatalistic conceptions of karma. Such fatalistic conceptions deny that in the present moment one has any chance to act any differently than in the past and that one is hopelessly at the mercy of one's past actions.

But I'm having the impression that the OP is only after the intrapersonal theory of karma and considers the interpersonal one "irrational".

Karma presupposes supernatural record keeping and judgment.
— creativesoul
Why can it not simply be natural cause and effect? Very few (if any) actions absolutely terminate in their intended consequences. Anything you do continues on, past, and through what you intend. — Pantagruel

Various theories of karma have in common that they view karma as a feedback loop, but they differ in the scope of this feedback loop (and thus in the applicability and usefulness of the concept of karma).

For some, like the OP, the scope of karma is strictly intrapersonal, psycho-physiological, operating only within the particular person.

Some populist theories of karma propose an interpersonal scope of the feedback loop (what you do to others, others will do to you).

Some theories go further and expand the feedback loop over several lifetimes, ie. they introduce the notion of reincarnation/rebirth (whereby they can conceive of the feedback loop as being either intrapersonal only, or interpersonal, or both).

The fundamental problem with “is” seems to be the person using that word seemingly speaks with a god-like authority
— Art48

Not to any competent language user. — SophistiCat

Only under the proviso that such a "competent language user" holds certain other beliefs.
Such as, "Whatever a person says is only their own opinion and not necessarily objective truth."

The fundamental problem with “is” seems to be the person using that word seemingly speaks with a god-like authority — Art48

And the problem doesn't go away when using other words instead of "is".
Because the problem isn't in the verb "to be", but primarily in the use of the indicative grammatical mood for making declarative statetments about other people and things.

To avoid the feel of speaking with god-like authority, one would need to speak in I-messages.

And with medievel diet we have to remember it wasn't fresh, the food that could be preserved. The idea was to eat only the food from the last season, not this one as you didn't know just how the it would be this year. So a lot of salt. — ssu

It's not clear what you mean, some words are missing in those sentences. Are you talking about the preservation of meat in climates where people eat mostly meat?

Anyway, it's not germane to the OP.

I had no idea that I was talking to a women. — ssu

I generally take a dim view of gender issues, but even I am starting to feel offended for so often being categorized wrongly, despite repeated clarification.

And it's A womAn.
WomEn is plural.

Insofar is the fear of a civil unrests a factor in the ineffectiveness of the actions so far taken against Trump?

Do there exist any analyses on this?

Seems likely that the underlying concepts of karma, as it's commonly understood today, are rooted in a fear of living in an "unjust" world.
Seems likely that the underlying concepts of reincarnation are rooted in the fear of death.

Neither hold up to scrutiny. They are the products of irrational thought as a way to alleviate the anxieties of those fears. Many believe them today for those very reasons. — ThinkOfOne

Parallel to that, the refusal to believe that the consequences of one's actions will come back to haunt one is what makes people refuse to even consider karma and reincarnation/rebirth.

If you believe that if you lie, someone will lie to you, would you still lie?
If you believe that if you steal, someone will steal from you, would you still steal?

@obscurelaunting

It's very possible for me to see all there is to life, the good and the bad and yet still not think this is enough for me to stay. Life is nothing but a slip of consciousness and just like that you could say it is amazing but I will say this is to be destroyed. Why? Because it can. Do not tell me it's a matter of what feels good and what doesn't, because then choosing to feel bad by choosing to die becomes something that feels good; so feeling good isn't the pinpoint at hand here.

So since I CAN think like this, how can I not think like this? Do not tell me to just be one with life in experience because this is futile and never has been fulfilling. Do not tell me that if I can choose either I should choose life, because I'm saying to you my choice IS non-existence, this is the dilemma: the choice and the confusion of life.

I am looking for the answer that breaks down this thinking and builds myself a new thought basis.

What you're asking for cannot be done in the framework of secular culture and science. They'll just write you off as mentally ill, as an aberration. They certainly don't think you have some insight into the futility of life as it is usually lived.

Nonsense. Where do you get these ideas???
— baker

Of course it's nonsense, but haven't you noticed these sentiments? — ssu

Sure. But what are the metaphysical assumptions behind them?

By comparing it to a bad meal, not to no meal.
— baker

We've been created to go well without food for one day, actually. It's water that we need basically daily. — ssu

You're forgetting you're talking to a woman. I've been hungry almost as much as the average hungry African.

Well, sort of. Assume if you had eaten for your entire life exceptionally great meals, basically always something of the level that one gets in Michelin star restaurants, with added detail to the healthiness of your diet.

And for a good part of my life, I have eaten exceptionally good food, and I've grown proper organic food until recently.

You wouldn't know how bad food actually people e

I do know. It makes me want to puke.

For an anecdote, I remember once on a Finnish Navy island garrison the commanding officer decided to remember the Winter War by having the conscripts exactly the same kind of food with the historical amount during winter that soldiers were given during WW2...at the same naval fortress. The records were they, so the kitchen had no trouble in recreating the WW2-era cuisine. Hence they got a small portion of porridge (without honey or sugar) and that's it. As the garrison was on a fortress island, the conscript didn't have the chance to order pizza or anything in the evening. The conscripts (who had been born in the 1980's) hadn't experienced cold and hunger. Many said that they respected differently the war veterans after that experience.

The average peasant in the Dark Ages ate healthier food than most people do today.

I'm absolutely sure that we wouldn't image just what people ate thousands of years ago.

Certainly no pesticides and no GMOs. In the old times, food was much healthier, much more satiating because it had real taste.

Changing the world seems easy compared with being asked to change your self - to challenge the unconscious roots of your standard issue modern world identity. — apokrisis

To give up on one's self-confidence?? To give up on one's sense of entitlement?? No, better to die!

Actually, it's our inherent love of a good tune that will ultimately drown us. Can't blame the pipe or the piper for that. — Baden

And when the power runs out, we'll just hum.

Secularism does rock, though. You gotta admit. — Tate

Really? Encouraging people to be senseless consumerist zombies destroying the planet?

I'm supposed to believe that this is what grandfather fought for?



Really? They fought and died in order to establish ridicule and hostility as civilizational achievements????

*sigh*

The exact workings of the Sharia law are irrelevant in this. All we need to know is that
1. Sharia law foresees the death penalty for some offenses,
and
2. the ultimate authority in the government of Iran is vested in an autocratic "Supreme Leader" (who has the authority to interpret Sharia law).
Which is exactly what happened. (And why on earth would they issue him a death verdict if not because they thought that what he did was harmful to Islam?)

If you don't like that, sue them. You're a lawyer, you know how that works. Sue Iran, sue the Shias, sue the Muslims altogether. Sue the UN for allowing such countries and religions to exist. Tell them that they're wrong to take offence at a book. Tell them they have no right to feel and think as they do. Tell them they have no right to retaliate. (And while you're at it, sue, for example, the Thai king. They don't take too kindly to those they deem to be desecrating their religion either.) I would love to see you do that. Sue them. Take action. Don't be a coward. Stop this ineffectiveness. Because the posters of this forum are not the right audience for your grievance.

I candidly do not know what the primary driver of the silence from Imams in the West is. — Hanover

How about instead of speculating, you ask the only people who can answer your question: the imams in the West?

Eight days into the discussion, have you done that? If not, why this absurd insistence on speculation and ineffective problem solving?

Civil war...we can only hope. Unfortunately, just like nothing happened to Bush and Cheney for indisputably being outright war criminals, nothing will happen to Trump for all of his vague quasi-criminal offenses (which every president is more or less guilty of). — Merkwurdichliebe

Is there any real interest to do anything about Trump?

Why the colossal failure of the US justice system and the American public in general?

Good question. What are the practical needs of society? The basics as per Maslow?
If they are not met, then how would that affect any metaphysical beliefs?
Why metaphysical and not personal, economic or political beliefs...? — Amity

Because metaphysical beliefs come first.

One meets one's practical needs because one has certain metaphysical beliefs.

There's no point in eating if you have no idea what you're eating for, living for, or if what you've been living for is gone.

If you've ever apologized for something wrong that you did, or ever tried to make amends, then you were in fact relying on the workings of karma.
— baker

How so? — Amity

Because you believed in the _mitigating_ effects of your apology or efforts to make amends.

My impression of Indian culture before it underwent westernisation, is that it's belief in reincarnation encouraged slower and more sustainable lifestyles,

but that it's belief in karmic justice encouraged social neglect of the downtrodden. — sime

This social neglect is a possible consequence of not believing in karma at all, or of believing oneself to already be "above karma" (and thus not subject to it).

But this neglect is also a way to push the downtrodden to "try harder". It's similar to how secular societies implicitly believe that punishing people will motivate them to better themselves.

For example, if modern society is to survive then it needs to adopt environmentally sustainable lifestyles together with long-term ecological investments that will benefit future generations more than today's. Does this necessity imply that society's environmentally unsustainable belief that "You only live once" will mutate towards a belief in reincarnation that encourages people to work for tomorrows generations rather than today's ?

I don't think so. Belief in reincarnation or rebirth might encourage people to be more careful in what they do; if they seem themselves as the recipients of their own actions down the line, they're less likely to do harmful things. But since belief in reincarnation or rebirth is generally considered woo, we're left only with the tentaive love that people have for their children.

If karma has to be taken seriously, then it is to sensible to identify Karma with causality and then recall the practical impossibility of knowing causal relations with any certainty. — sime

Indeed. In fact, it is said that trying to figure out the exact workings of karma would make one insane.
However, this doesn't detract from the usefulness of the principle of karma for informing one's course of action. Namely, if you predict that suffering for yourself, for others, or for both would ensue from something you intend to do, then you shouldn't do it.