Athena

Can you explain how the X works in algebra? What is the objection to laws based on our knowledge of nature and universal laws? How do you understand the bases of democratic laws? Yes, I am also finding science is really unfathomable. I was really trying hard to grasp what was being said in the thread about orbiting electrons, but do not have a good understanding of all the theories, and then when I couldn't follow someone explanation because it was delete, I was so upset I could no longer focus on a question I have asking for many years. What determines the spin? It seems to mean the big bang could have resulted for a reverse spin, creating a yin and yang effect, resulting in everything coming out of nothing. This stuff is really hard for me to fathom. Something mysterious controls the whole of reality, and you don't have a problem with it. You only have a problem the word "God". I am strongly opposed to the mythology of the God of Abraham, so why do you keep referring to this God's mythology when you argue with me? When you think of right and wrong, what is your point of view? Do you come from your personal point of view, or attempt to imagine universal law? Is your time frame the present, or several generations in the past and future? How well educated are you in the classics, the spread of them, and result of popular awareness of them? How did you go about gaining this knowledge? Was it college classes or a informal, personally directed education? Maybe you can give us some pointers on how to be well informed? Personally, I enjoy tapes from The Teaching Company, and books are also valuable. One of my favorite books is "The Great Political Thinkers" and one of my favorite thinkers is Cicero, although I do fault him for his failure to understand economic reality and its effect on social/ political conditions. I bold my text for those who only skim, hoping they will notice the important points, and knowing they will not read all the explanations. Can you explain your failure to understand why no one can write a book telling us everything we need to know. I think it would be easier for you to write that explanation, than for me to explain why it can not be done. For one thing, our logic is linear and reality is not. In the east it is known that whenever we speak of one thing, we speak of the opposite as well, but in the west this is not understood. Secondly, not even encyclopedias contain the whole truth.

The bible doesn't cover the moral decisions before us today. It is very exciting that have this science, but we have the wisdom to use it well?

Wow, I feel so much better. Now I am ready to answer questions. Let me say, I have often given a lot of thought to how we might disagree with each other without being offensive. What has Christianity got to do with Germany and the US and may add Russia? All these nations and more were Christian. Now they were different flavors of Christian, but the basic mythology is the same. This mythology is about supernatural beings, includes a God who has favorite people, and who gets directly involved in people's lives, punishing and rewarding them as He see fit. A God who also approves of slavery, and led to justifying slavery, and the serf system. Mostly a religion that supports autocratic authority over people, and the notion that someone like Bush junior is doing the will of God when being militarily aggressive and invading countries that God doesn't favor. Like all this has a strong impact on culture. Something else that had a strong impact on cultural is the Greek and Roman classics. Here you have metaphysics instead of religion. The God is unknown, and also called by other names such as prime mover. This God does not have favorites and can not be influenced with sacrifices, burning of candles or prayer, and there is no holy book for this God, but science and a million books that reason why we are as are. Literacy in this God, led to the Enlightenment and rise of democracy, in all the Christian countries. The Enlightenment was more realized in the US than else where, because there was no establishment in the US at the time of the Enlightenment. The people of the US were free to manifest their own establishments, without having to tear down an already established one, and until 1958 the people were educated for this purpose. Now we have to know something of Greek philosophy to grasp the importance of this education. Can ethics be taught? Well, yes and no. The answer really depends on the age of the individual, and liberty depends on mass education for good moral judgment. Why? Well this just is as the laws of nature have made it so, and democracy is suppose is supposed to based on those laws. This is different from laws made by autocracies or say in China where authority set the laws, without citizen participation. What I said of the holy wars is not a misrepresentation of anything, although it is not a complete truth. Complete truths mean huge post that no one reads, and because the guardians of truth are paradox and confusion, not even the best efforts can produce a complete truth, but only a slice of it. Christianity mixed with barbarism lead to warrior cultures and a lot of warring. Or course there are restrictions on freedom of speech and all our freedoms, because we must live by morals. This is universal law. A moral is a matter cause and effect. Something is moral when the effect is good and immoral when the effect is bad. This, by the way, leads to why God is important. God is a point of view that is not limited to our personal point of view. Personally, I think it would great to eliminate many people. By that, I mean kill them. However, I understand if we agree that it is okay to kill based on our personal judgment of who to kill or not kill, there could be some problems with that. So would be there some problems with allowing people to say whatever they want to say. Always, we need to be aware of morals, but how can that happen? Something is immoral because it is destructive. Racism is destructive to democracy, and I personally believe democracy is the way of God, and therefore must be defended. The list of reasons for limiting freedom of speech is excellent. But do these apply to speech regarding our freedom of religion? If someone wants to claim a mountain is sacred ground, what is the harm of this person saying so? If someone wants to say God is a she and wears dresses, what is the harm of saying so? If someone wants to say, God has favorites and rewards of punishes people as He sees fit, what is the harm of saying so? I have a big, big problem with that last one, because those who believe this prevent us from understanding what morals have to do with democracy, but I would not go so far as denying these people freedom of speech. Debate is essential to developing our consciousness, and it also gives us a chance to change what people believe. However, changing what a person believes instead of strengthen it, depends on our approach. What seriously matters is, does the person feel responsible to God or not? To feel responsible to God and hold false beliefs is different from not feeling responsible to God and being without virtues. This is the core issue of this thread. Being wrong in what we believe is not the same as being without virtue. A person who was suspended gave me vitally important information, that might mean I can avoid having days like I had yesterday. How many people have done the college exercise of deciding who to through out of the life boat? When I did this in a college class, the person best suited to increase everyone's chance of survival was among the first to be thrown out of the life boat. Being wrong and being without virtue, are importantly different things. We makes laws against immorality, not against being wrong.

I am having a very difficult time physically for the last 24 hours, and can not trust my judgment nor do I have the energy for detailed explanations. However, I will say it was never my intention to discuss if the moderators have been fair or not. My thoughts and concerns are about changing culture in the US, not the moderators. In a history forum, people are arguing about the best ancient culture, and China's bureaucracy was highly advanced long before Europe developed effective bureaucracy. Is this a plus or a minus? The ancient Athenian understanding of metaphysics gets in the way of such bureaucratic efficiency, and this is tied to our relationship with authority and understanding of law. The female lead of "The Reader" had a technologically correct understanding of authority. Germans were Christians and authoritarian. Christianity without education for democracy, can be authoritarian. Why prevent someone from expressing what s/he believes about God by labeling it preaching, and saying you can't express yourself like that here? I know I don't feel well and that that could effect my judgment, but today, I perceive you as attacking me in an insulting way. What do you know of the classics and the revolution in Russia? Is it enough to judge me wrong? I know folks aren't getting it, so I will clarify there is a relationship between the classics and our understanding of God and authority.

I am not going to engage in this discussion if people are going to get defensive. Sorry everyone, many really good things have been said here, and I really wanted to explain what God has to do with democracy and liberty, but continuing a discussion that makes people defensive just is not a good idea.

WHAT A TERRIBLE NIGHT! I don't want to give up wheat, so I decided rather than throwing it away, I would just not buy any more after eating the wheat products on hand. I was in such terrible pain all night, I could not enjoy my rest. I tossed and turned all night long trying to relieve the pain, and I am saying so here, because today I begin my test. I swear to God, I am not eating any wheat for two weeks, and see if the pain goes away. If the pain goes away, I will eat wheat every day until the pain returns. If I have good nights when I don't eat wheat, and then another night like this one when I eat wheat, I am going to treat wheat as the worst poison on earth. It is just so hard to believe wheat could be doing this to me, but I know I have had better nights, and I know I have eaten more wheat this week than usual. You know, when you think you have to give something up, that is what you want. I have to convince my brain, I am not giving up wheat, but giving up pain. It would be awesome of the pain goes away! Wish me luck.

Yes, another comment from the UK, this is delightful. I do a lot preaching about only highly moral people can have liberty. My dog can not understand the danger of moving things, so he can not have liberty. My grandchildren do not get the liberty of walking without a leash or holding my hand, until they learn to stop when I say stop. I am 100% with Eleanor Roosevelt. With rights come duties, and with freedoms comes responsibility. And some of us who believe it is our responsibility to God and humanity to speak up are being silenced and this is the same wrong as the church committed. It is easy to teach a child to obey, compared to teaching them responsibility and this is at the center of this debate. Someone preaching religion is feeling highly responsible. I don't think this is true of someone inciting racial hatred. This is why we have religious freedom, but not the freedom to violate democratic principles. Racism violates democratic principles. Can we put together the above quote with The more a government governs, the less liberty everyone has. That is why the US and England focused their public education on good citizenship. Going from reasoning, and education, directly to law and rules, eats away at our liberty and freedom. Sorry, this post is so complex, but that is the way reality is. Democracy and liberty depend on freedom of speech, and silencing someone who feels highly responsible, is not the same as enforcing the principles of democracy. Both religion and democracy require a concept of God. Darn I am out of time. This tears me up, because I'd love to devote myself completely to this discussion. Thanks for the question. I'll be back as soon as possible.

I gave in a + because I appreciate your argument. From the beginning of time, law has been based on people's cosmology. This is also true today, and atheist without a God shape our laws differently than those who hold a concept of God. But this is not just about believers and non believers, because Germans were strong Christians and also the enemy of the US. Here the conflict was not believers verses non believers, but authority verses liberty, and since the US has imitated Germany in significant ways, the US is becoming less liberal and more authoritarian. The movie "The Reader" is perfect for making this point. We have accepted the same relationship to authority, for which the female lead of the movie is persecuted. Christianity without education for democracy is not a good thing, but has gotten us in a serious mess! England has a history of religious wars, and if a Catholic was ruling, land would be taken from Protestants and given to Catholics. When a Protestant was ruling, land would be taken from Catholics and given to Protestants. John Locke was opposed to this, and claimed ownership depended on the human effect put into the property. Obviously the past religious customs stopped. Revolt with the round heads (Puritans) seems to have led to more religious tolerance. In Russia, the church supported the practice of land owners having serfs, leading to the communist revolt and forbidding religion. Because I am opposed to religious beliefs ruling people's minds and votes, more than logic, I sometimes wonder if freedom of religion is a good thing. That is why I argue "God" is essential to our liberty. This is not the God of Abraham, which comes with mythology. It is the unknown God, the X factor, that hopefully adds a little wisdom to our sciences and politics.

People are not born with culture; they learn it. In my life time, culture has changed a lot, some for the good and some not so good. We are far more concerned with being technologically correct and our liberty has taken major hits. Until 1958 public education transmitted a culture, and since then we have educated for a technological society with unknown values. Some people think I talk too much about this, but some of the changes do worry a lot. Actually, many of our good laws came from the bible and are no longer effective. I wish I were smart enough to be precise about the legal changes. Anyway, our culture has changed and so have the laws. I believe culture is the most important factor. I already address this and don't want to be repeating myself, and irritating everyone, but do I want to be clear. I am concerned about our liberty and freedom and cultural changes. The people of the US lived for a love God, and that is being replaced with a love for technological correctness, with perhaps some unpleasant social ramifications. I tried to discuss this in the thread about justifying a belief in God, and that thread got too tense, with at least one poster being suspended, and a lot of anger directed at me, so I dropped out of it. Our culture has changed, and I am not sure it is supportive of religious freedom any more. This has much greater social ramifications than we might realize. We have become less humane and caring of others, as we are more concerned about being technologically correct.

Good argument. I also know we can be silenced in public hearings, because we can be arrested for criminal trespassing if we are told to be silent and we do not remain silent. However, outside the building where talking does little good, we can say pretty much anything we please. But the bottom line is, how do we protect our freedoms? Hum, by law? What about culture? Our laws can be changed. What protects our freedoms if it is not the culture?

Many forums have rules against preaching. Of course this means stating a religious point of view, not preaching about the evils of wheat. This common practice and the defense of it, has caused me to question how much longer we might have freedom of religion? The really big question is, how are our freedoms protected?

Okay, and if a forum owner prevented you from saying what you think, whose rights do you think will come first? Your right to freedom of speech or the forum owners right to control what gets posted and who can or can not post?

Questions 1 and 2 can be answered with a yes or no, and I you explain why. Question 3 is a how question. Do you believe freedom of religion should be protected by constitutions? How about freedom of speech? How are such are these freedoms protected?

Thank you. I think maybe this subject would work better in a history forum. Every culture has a consciousness and subconscious. Periodically there are episodes of mass insanity. Witch hunts and wars are such periods, and some consider what happened at Munster to one of those moments of insanity too. But then plenty in the past might seem strange to us today. The Age of Chivalry mixed with Christian superstition lead to a lot of crazy stuff.

Occasionally dealing with mods, leads to me becoming very aware of things that effect our judgment, especially because over many years and in several different forums, the mods always insist they are being impersonal and only following rules. Rules that regulate them and rules they must enforce. Whenever this explanation is given, I remember this quote from a seer in India. I got the quote from a 1917 National Education Association Conference book, where it was used to describe our enemy. "Whatever their efficiency, such great organizations are so impersonal that they bear down on the individual lives of the people like a hydraulic press whose action is completely impersonal and therefore completely effective in crushing out individual liberty and power". Valuing such impersonalness and adherence to rules lead to the killing of many Jews, and I think my closeness to this reality strongly effects my judgment, compared to the young who are so distant from what happened that they are not emotionally aroused as I am, but instead believe being impersonal and efficient and enforcing rules is a good thing. Generations so separate us we are living oceans apart, and I am grieving for something dear that we have lost. We once had a completely different experience of being US citizens, than we have today. I fear terribly what will happen when my generation dies, and that memory of personal liberty and power is lost forever. So what is effecting my judgment is history, and my many years of being a live, and what I have read and understand of what made the US and Germany different. I have the luxury of reading history with many years of life experience and these years of life experience most certainly effect my judgment. I started a thread about Munster that has been ignored, but what happened in Germany in WWII is not the first time Germans commitment such awful acts. The US constitution protecting freedom of religion and speech, made a huge difference between our nation and the one we fought against, and again, I will mention, my closeness to WWII makes this a highly emotional issue for me. As I experience the changes in the US, I am very afraid for future generations. So really, is being impersonal and controlled by rules, something we should value? What effects our judgment of such things? I want to say, often a poster will really piss me off, and then I realize someone I think of as friend has written it, and suddenly my understanding of what was said is totally changed. Has this ever happened to you? Like not only is it easier to come down hard on someone we care nothing about, but also how we understand each other really depends on how well we know each other. Like we can go from intense anger to laughing, when we realize who wrote something, because our understanding of what was said is now also an understanding of the person who wrote it. Sex Age life experiences knowledge of another values and principles

Thank you for acknowledging atheist are using the Christian definition of God to argue there is no God. I am going to stop reading your post at this point, before I read something that I can not resist arguing, because you have the power to ban me, and I have no defense if you and your friends decide to against me. There is a problem when people know science and not history. Part of that problem is the same intolerance and abuses of power, of our worst history. This is not a fair playing field, and I better stop playing with the mods, before being excommunicated. You have my submission, because you have the power, and I do not. Now lets attack another country and fight for democracy.

Yeah a reply! When I read of Munster I was mesmerized by the story. I also saw the connection with my Occupy experience. However, in another forum no one responded to my post, and that is I why came back here. I really want to tear this thing apart, and examine it carefully. I swear, if we had a major earthquake that overwhelmed the police and fire department, like Katina overwhelm public services, we would be in a big trouble. How is it civilized people can become dangerously uncivilized? What is it that makes us civilized in the first place? Religious people speak of our dark side, and you mentioned our animal heritage. Personally, I am aware of it, but I don't understand it at all. On my way to this forum, I saw a news article about bad tornado's and was drawn to it. I felt an excitement and pleasure in the idea that people would get torn up by a tornado, and before being too critical of me, I don't watch TV because I am normally sickened by shows of humans being cruel to each other. I wonder how this can be popular entertainment, and it is the most popular. How could the mercenaries around Munster, watch people die, and the people within the Munster walls, enjoy watching the suffering? What is this dark nature within us and how do we keep it repressed? Oh and about the sharing- obviously mankind has succeeded because of sharing, but it also succeeds because it can control its sharing. The severe reaction to the people of Munster, was about maintaining control of sharing. Katina was about loosing control of sharing. We have a growing population that believes it does not have equal opportunity, and it does not owe those who do have, anything, not even respect of their lives or personal property. At what point should these people become proactive in doing something about be marginalize and pushed out of the mainstream of polite soceity? I did an Occupy survey that questioned if participants had grown up with abuse. We know some parents are abusive. Poverty is abusive and leads to poor parenting. Is this a social problem we should address? Are we living with a time bomb, as were the people in the past.

By gosh you did it. You preached about the evils of wheat. Preaching is against the rules. I hope the mod's have a good sense of humor. That said, you provided very interesting information that could dramatically change people's lives, and it is scientific enough to be tolerated, I hope. I am convinced enough, I am passing all the wheat a neighbor gave me, to someone else, and will add my own wheat products to be given away. Loosing weight is not one of my problems. I wish would loss about 50 pounds. however, feeling like shit and having a lot of pain is normal for me, and if the pain goes away and I have more energy, I will know wheat is not my friend. My neighbors have wonderful glutton free foods, but gosh it is expensive! One of them makes the best salads with all the normal salad stuff and a grain that is tolerated. I will now pay more attention to her recipes. Good substitutes to wheat are essential to me avoiding wheat, because eating habits are very hard to break. My sister will be so happy if I tell her I have given up wheat. She has been pleading with me to give up wheat for a couple of years. I suspect the longer we live, the more likely we are to become aware of such problems. The friend, who gave me all the wheat, is well past retirement age, and was totally shocked to learn her symptoms were associated with eating wheat. She thought she was dying and was frantic to get medical help. Her regular doctors gave her several useless test, and didn't come close to identifying her problem, but an allergy doctor suggested she was allergic to something, and suggested she start with eliminating wheat. She did loose a lot of weight, because her stomach hurt so badly she couldn't stand to eat. Now she is healthy. But she gave me her wheat. May be she isn't my really my friend.

Oh well, I am afraid I have to risk negative repercussions by agreeing with you. Surely one of the main reasons for objecting to religion is all the wrongs the church committed in an effort to maintain power and to control what people think. Also people can preach without even coming close to religion. I have a sister who preaches the harm of eating wheat, because she is convinced wheat is dangerous, and this is becoming a popular concern. People can preach about anything, including that there is not a god. What made the Greeks different from all others was the development of critical thinking. Arguments should be based on critical thinking, not the power to prevent someone from being heard. Why do people who do not want want to discuss God, even enter these discussions anyway? I have not been banned many times, but when I was, it was a mod who could not win agruments about God with me, so he used his power to win, by banning me. That is just so wrong. Just as wrong as the church trying to control what people said and thought. I wish people would express themselves as freely in The Holy Terrors of Munster thread. It is also about the god question, but no one is participating in that discussion. I am sorry. You have an awful lot to say about nothing, and no I don't see what you mean. Nothing is, and if God is nothing than God is. However, Cicero said, "God and the world of Nature must be one, and all the life of the world must be contained within the being God". Now what is at question is how do we know this God? Cicero would say that by studying nature we can infer something about God. Now perhaps this is addressed else where. I am responding to the question of this thread, by saying this is my justification for believing in a God, and moral laws that are suppose to be the foundation of a democracy. I believe this is essential to our liberty and understanding of democracy. I am sure it is my constitutional right to say so. However, I will also acknowledge these forums are privately owned and the mods do not have to respect our constitutional rights. However, what happens when our constitutional rights are not respected? For how long can we maintain what we value, if do not stand for the what we value? Moral- cause and effect. I am afraid quantum physic and the other sciences of matter can not explain the most important things for us to consider. You skipped over the explanation of why we need god, so I judge this is going no where productive, and I best stay out of this thread, before things get worse.

Thanks Hyper, that is enough evidence to convince me, because I know I have really bad days, and something has to cause the trouble. Just cold rainy days don't seem so bad, and where I live there are many of those. But sever storms often come with so much pain, it is hard to ignore. I should perhaps keep my own note book and get a barometer and pay attention to daily weather reports. You all have given me enough information for me to believe it would not be a waste of my time.

Now do you want to argue X is not essential to consciousness of alebra? How well do all the other discussions go with no concept of God? How can you argue there isn't a God without having a concept of what is not? There is nothing? Okay, and how far can discussion of nothing go? Seriously, I am having a problem following your logic. This is a fair explanation of why God is essential to our consciousness. The problem with it is, it seems to assume Christian mythology, instead of using a philosophical understanding of God. The above argument is lacking in an understanding of moral being a matter of cause and effect. The consequences of our words and actions are what they are, so there is absolutely no setting of our own rules. We might want to change the rules, but we can not.

The unknown God is an essential element of our consciousness. It is like the X in algebra. The problem comes with the mythology we call religion. If we just accepted the unknown God, that would end a lot of useless discussion, and from there these discussion could address the mythology of religion and make some progress. Atheist are not helping the matter with their insistence on using the Christian definition of God, and attaching all the mythological superstition to the word "God", instead of questioning the mythology. A concept of God is quite essential to liberty and our understanding of democracy. Morals are a matter of cause and effect, and science gives us a good perspective on determining morality. However, atheist are as bad as Christians in preventing us from doing this. Rule by reason, based on truth is what democracy is about, and both Christians and atheist prevent this from happening.

I want to discuss some shocking human behavior in a series of post taken from history. I am sure we need a shared mythology, but religion is not the perfect mythology. As we know, throughout history humans have done some really awful things based on Christian mythology, and this one story. I am not sure Edmund Stillman association with the modern totalitarian state is not a prejudice that distorts the lesson we need to learn, but his account of what happened deserves our attention. I see a relationship between what happened in Munster and Occupy. Anabaptist competed with Lutherans, and eventually became Mennonites and Amish. Something the later faiths might want to deny because they want to distance themselves from what happened at Munster. However, getting back to Occupy, this was not a religious movement, neither was the Russian revolution exactly a religious movement, because the Russian revolution banned religion. What is shared in common is the dying of an old order and beginning of a new order, also the gathering of rootless and discontent people, who want to believe if we lived communally, sharing everything equally, life would be better. These rootless and discontent people reacting against all forms of authority, and reducing their order to anarchy. Quote: "But Munster would not remain Lutheran, and conservative, for long. When in 1532, the nearby Dutchy of Cleves expelled its Anabaptist, many of them migrated to Munster, carrying with them their doctrinal contagion. From then on the movement grew within the walls of the city. In 1533 new recruits, the first of many, arrived from the Netherlands, among them Jan Bockelson of Leyden, a young man of twenty-four who had been baptized into the movement only a few months before. "And so they came". records a chronicle, "the Dutch and the Frissians and the scoundrels from all parts who had never settled anywhere; they flocked to Munster and collected there." As did the same kind of people flock to the Occupy camps, completely changing the movement from an economic focus to a social focus, and orderly protest to mayhem. As within the walls of Munster private property of all kinds was made communal property, and monogamony gave way to men having many wives and as conditions deteriorated to no sexual restraints but using sex to make up for all the unmet needs, including the need for food. Around the city were mercinaries sent to crush the rebellion, and they laid siege on Munster, preventing any supplies from getting in, leading to starvation. Quote: "At last, in May (1535), when most of the inhabitants had tasted no bread for eight weeks," writes Cohn, "the kind agreed that those who wised should leave the town. Even then he cursed the fugitives, promising them that the reward for their infidelity would be everlasting damnation. Their earthly fate was indeed fearful enough. The able bodied men were at once put the sword; as for the women and old men and children, the Bishop feared- not unreasonably- that if they passed through his lines they would stir up trouble in the rear and accordingly refused to allow them past the blockhouses. These people therefore lingered of for five weeks in the no man's land before the town walls, begging the mercenaries to kill them, crawling about and eathing grass like animals and dying in such numbers that the ground was littered with corpses." Within the city Anabaptist watched from the walls and jeered, acting out the belief so dear to medieval man that the greatest delight of the saved in Paradise was watching the sufferings of the damned in hell. Of course everyone within the city walls, were also starving and the seige ended in them all dying or being killed, and the leaders were hung in cages outside the city wall, where they remained until rather recently. Occupy Eugene was surrounded by a fence, by city orders. Our story is not as dramatic, but when a man was killed in the camp, and the city counselors felt justified in closing the camp, a news photographer took a picture of the councelors, and they were smiling. I had mixed feelings as we did not get the promised social services, but I was also glad to distance myself from the mayham and human suffering.

</h1> This article claims secret source codes shouldn't be secret, because scientist must be able to share information and check each others work. I think this is nuts! Science has done just fine with no computers at all, and I feel sure the old fashioned way of sharing information is good enough. What do you say?

This is the pharaoh's job to keep everything in order. Really I like what you said. With today's sciences we have so much potential for creating heaven on earth, but do we have the discipline to do that? Yea! Jimmy, you are thinking education. I wish we would take time out from the political discussions and talk about education. Education is the most important factor. Well, educated people make much better voters, and conduct themselves better too.