the bible and the goodness of our culture

[me-wonders]

When the Puritans landed in the New Land, they did not come as friends to native Americans, as the Quakers did. The Quakers have a unique interpretation of the bible, and focus their lives on following Jesus. This is not so for all Christians, who come with guns, and assuming they are the only people of God, and with biblical stories of a war God. The majority of Christians come with two goals, conquer and convert, and this problematic around the world.

The culture of these people, includes atheist, who assume the culture created by the war God of Christians, is just a matter of human nature. They don't know of other cultures, so they do not know there aggressiveness and competitiveness is a matter of culture.

We have also confused barbarism with paganism and primitive, largely because it is the prejudices of Christianity that has defined our reality. This contributes to our false understanding of human nature. We look down on cooperative, non aggressive people as ignorant, lazy, unworthy, or perhaps childlike. To be worthy is to be like them, aggressive, competitive, in your face.

Quakers were the strongest supporters of public education and what once was the culture transmitted through public education. The north attempted to resolve the slavery issue with education, but the south caught on and began printing its own text books. The bible can be used to forbid slavery or to support it, and of course the south used the bible to support slavery. Quakers read the bible to say we should love everyone and treat everyone as Jesus would have us do. There is a very important difference between these points of view.

The American sense of equality starts with the Quakers, and went through public education and to create our culture. A part of our culture that is now questioned, as the Republicans argue to cut food supplements and all social assistance programs, and maintain wealth in the hands of a few. How we interpret the bible makes a big difference in our goodness.

Some of that wealth is made producing and selling games where the player kills police and citizens. It is argued this aggressiveness is human nature and we should have this freedom to indulge our lowest impulses if we want, because as atheist insure us there is no God and therefore punishment for indulging our lower, animal selves. Atheist and Christians will assure us we are not people of God, and we have forgotten morality is about logic, not just a religious matter, and civilization is something that is learned. We no longer understand, logos, Rita, moral reasoning, but fight for our freedoms to do as we please, at home and around the world. Invading and attempting to conquer other countries and supporting military force above a decent standard and health care for our own. Hey, God will take care of the deserving, right, and the people of God know they are doing his will, right? Poverty, human neglect and crime, is not about economic reality is it? How good is our culture?

Edited December 21, 2012 by me-wonders

[redhen]

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”

-- Mahatma Gandhi

[me-wonders]

Perhaps the bottom line is, do we think life is sacred or not? That is something that concerns me. In the US we seem to act as though the only life that is sacred, is our own, and not the next guy who we can exploit and take advantage of.

[GoldenWolf]

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”

-- Mahatma Gandhi

If that is true, then it is not a good sign for The U.S.

[me-wonders]

If that is true, then it is not a good sign for The U.S.

Why because we eat meat? I don't think the problem is with eating meat, but not being reverent about it. The earliest humans gave thanks when they took an animal life, and some of them would apologize to the killed animal. Nature makes the killing and eating a necessary part of life, and we can not feel too bad about that. But we can be reverent when we kill and eat.

The school killer was vegan. He assumed the pain of animals killed for food, but evidently did not have reverence for life? There is an important difference.

[+and-then]

Sounds like the Quakers are good folk.

When the Puritans landed in the New Land, they did not come as friends to native Americans, as the Quakers did. The Quakers have a unique interpretation of the bible, and focus their lives on following Jesus. This is not so for all Christians, who come with guns, and assuming they are the only people of God, and with biblical stories of a war God. The majority of Christians come with two goals, conquer and convert, and this problematic around the world.

The culture of these people, includes atheist, who assume the culture created by the war God of Christians, is just a matter of human nature. They don't know of other cultures, so they do not know there aggressiveness and competitiveness is a matter of culture.

We have also confused barbarism with paganism and primitive, largely because it is the prejudices of Christianity that has defined our reality. This contributes to our false understanding of human nature. We look down on cooperative, non aggressive people as ignorant, lazy, unworthy, or perhaps childlike. To be worthy is to be like them, aggressive, competitive, in your face.

Quakers were the strongest supporters of public education and what once was the culture transmitted through public education. The north attempted to resolve the slavery issue with education, but the south caught on and began printing its own text books. The bible can be used to forbid slavery or to support it, and of course the south used the bible to support slavery. Quakers read the bible to say we should love everyone and treat everyone as Jesus would have us do. There is a very important difference between these points of view.

The American sense of equality starts with the Quakers, and went through public education and to create our culture. A part of our culture that is now questioned, as the Republicans argue to cut food supplements and all social assistance programs, and maintain wealth in the hands of a few. How we interpret the bible makes a big difference in our goodness.

Some of that wealth is made producing and selling games where the player kills police and citizens. It is argued this aggressiveness is human nature and we should have this freedom to indulge our lowest impulses if we want, because as atheist insure us there is no God and therefore punishment for indulging our lower, animal selves. Atheist and Christians will assure us we are not people of God, and we have forgotten morality is about logic, not just a religious matter, and civilization is something that is learned. We no longer understand, logos, Rita, moral reasoning, but fight for our freedoms to do as we please, at home and around the world. Invading and attempting to conquer other countries and supporting military force above a decent standard and health care for our own. Hey, God will take care of the deserving, right, and the people of God know they are doing his will, right? Poverty, human neglect and crime, is not about economic reality is it? How good is our culture?

Who exactly are the "Christians" you speak of here? I have read the word often and don't recall any admonition to do anything related to conquering anyone. I think that kind of church was prospering in the medieval time but since has died off. Missionaries carry the word but no weapons. It gets tiresome hearing people slander Christ's church without evidence. The Christians I know wouldn't dream of trying to impose by force their wishes on anyone. They DO call out sin when they see it and many will refuse to take part in it or condone it. Is that the same as invading and conquering?

[redhen]

You've touched on a lot of subjects, but your main question seems to be "How good is our culture?" And by that you mean American society and it's portrayed violent gun culture.

So how "good" is American culture? I only have to point out the extraordinary lengths of time people from other countries are willing to wait for a green card, or the desperate illegal methods others will take to live in the U.S.A.. America will always be a metaphor for freedom and justice.

Why because we eat meat? I don't think the problem is with eating meat, but not being reverent about it. The earliest humans gave thanks when they took an animal life, and some of them would apologize to the killed animal.

If you live in a stone age, hunter-gatherer society, then your premise is granted, otherwise, it is not necessary to eat meat. If it is unnecessary and entails pain, suffering or death, it is by definition cruel.

The school killer was vegan.

Hitler was a vegetarian. Gee, what are we to conclude? Vegans are psychotic, Nazi, elementary school children murderers?

This fallacy is called "poisoning the well" and is not sound logic.

[+DieChecker]

The culture of these people, includes atheist, who assume the culture created by the war God of Christians, is just a matter of human nature. They don't know of other cultures, so they do not know there aggressiveness and competitiveness is a matter of culture.

I think that humans are intrinsically violent and warlike. I am convinced of it. 99% of humans today are violent or warlike. We glorify violence every day on TV and movies and other forms of entertainment. I think it possible that other cultures have reduced violence, but that is not because they went back to some Default human condition, but because they have purposefully trained themselves Not to be violent, and not to be part of the violent world.

Quakers were the strongest supporters of public education and what once was the culture transmitted through public education. The north attempted to resolve the slavery issue with education, but the south caught on and began printing its own text books. The bible can be used to forbid slavery or to support it, and of course the south used the bible to support slavery. Quakers read the bible to say we should love everyone and treat everyone as Jesus would have us do. There is a very important difference between these points of view.

I agree that the Quakers are good people, but if they formed a state of their own, outside the protections of their surrounding violent neighbors, they would quickly be overrun and wiped out. And thus peacefulness would loose again. Non-violence can only be practiced when those willing to commit violence watch over those living in peace.

How good is our culture?

Christianity wise? Very, very good. The US gives to Charity as much as the rest of the world combined. Most of that from Christian Charities of one kind or another. I personnally support a child in Honduras and another in Cameroon. With other charity given on top of those. And a tithe to my church that gives to the homeless, womens shelters, unwed mothers, Overseas orphans and disaster relief here in the US and abroad. In the past when I've confronted people from other nations on their charity, they say that it is their governments job to donate to others, and that their money is theirs. Same with many far left liberals. They talk a good game but give squat to put their money where their mouth is.

US Christianity is far more then going overseas and converting people at the end of a gun... The last time I've heard of such a thing was against the Scandinavians and the Native Americans. I'd be curious to see any modern (100years) instances where US Christians went out and did forced conversion or performed some kind of violence in Jesus's name. I'm not talking about the occational kook that shoots up his neighborhood church because they let their kids play Pokemon, or because they allow gay marriage or whatnot. I'm talking about institutional violence in a modern setting. Please post evidence of such originating in the USA.

[me-wonders]

Sounds like the Quakers are good folk. Who exactly are the "Christians" you speak of here? I have read the word often and don't recall any admonition to do anything related to conquering anyone. I think that kind of church was prospering in the medieval time but since has died off. Missionaries carry the word but no weapons. It gets tiresome hearing people slander Christ's church without evidence. The Christians I know wouldn't dream of trying to impose by force their wishes on anyone. They DO call out sin when they see it and many will refuse to take part in it or condone it. Is that the same as invading and conquering?

I must have failed to communicate the difference between Quakers and other Christians? However, we could also talk of the Methodist difference, and their missionary schools, where they separated native American children from their parents and culture, and forbid them to even speak their native language. They meant well, and so do the other missionaries who run around "converting" people. I find this very objectionable, and your explanation of it offensive. I want to drop things at that, because I don't think any good will come out of discussing this further.

[me-wonders]

I think that humans are intrinsically violent and warlike. I am convinced of it. 99% of humans today are violent or warlike. We glorify violence every day on TV and movies and other forms of entertainment. I think it possible that other cultures have reduced violence, but that is not because they went back to some Default human condition, but because they have purposefully trained themselves Not to be violent, and not to be part of the violent world.

I agree that the Quakers are good people, but if they formed a state of their own, outside the protections of their surrounding violent neighbors, they would quickly be overrun and wiped out. And thus peacefulness would loose again. Non-violence can only be practiced when those willing to commit violence watch over those living in peace.

Christianity wise? Very, very good. The US gives to Charity as much as the rest of the world combined. Most of that from Christian Charities of one kind or another. I personnally support a child in Honduras and another in Cameroon. With other charity given on top of those. And a tithe to my church that gives to the homeless, womens shelters, unwed mothers, Overseas orphans and disaster relief here in the US and abroad. In the past when I've confronted people from other nations on their charity, they say that it is their governments job to donate to others, and that their money is theirs. Same with many far left liberals. They talk a good game but give squat to put their money where their mouth is.

US Christianity is far more then going overseas and converting people at the end of a gun... The last time I've heard of such a thing was against the Scandinavians and the Native Americans. I'd be curious to see any modern (100years) instances where US Christians went out and did forced conversion or performed some kind of violence in Jesus's name. I'm not talking about the occational kook that shoots up his neighborhood church because they let their kids play Pokemon, or because they allow gay marriage or whatnot. I'm talking about institutional violence in a modern setting. Please post evidence of such originating in the USA.

How many cultures have your experienced?

And for Christian violence against others- it was the Christian right who voted Bush Jr a second term after he invaded Iraq. Up until this time, I was very reluctant to discuss religion. I thought it was bad manners, and I also believe religious people need their faith, regardless of what that faith is. Like in my book it was as wrong to say anything against Christianity as it is wrong to say something against a bushman's faith. However, when the Christian right supported Bush after he invaded Iraq, I lost my tolerance of the Christianity. I am truly sorry, but it has become very difficult for me to be tolerant of people who think they are better than others, and that it is God's will they invade and kill people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pomz_9SzapA

Edited December 25, 2012 by me-wonders

[+DieChecker]

How many cultures have your experienced?

And for Christian violence against others- it was the Christian right who voted Bush Jr a second term after he invaded Iraq. Up until this time, I was very reluctant to discuss religion. I thought it was bad manners, and I also believe religious people need their faith, regardless of what that faith is. Like in my book it was as wrong to say anything against Christianity as it is wrong to say something against a bushman's faith. However, when the Christian right supported Bush after he invaded Iraq, I lost my tolerance of the Christianity. I am truly sorry, but it has become very difficult for me to be tolerant of people who think they are better than others, and that it is God's will they invade and kill people.

And it was Progressive Liberals who voted Obama into office and he has not just maintained but expanded the USs role in fighting in the middle east. He sent soldiers into Pakistan to kill Osama Bin Laden. He ordered the US to get involved in Libya and several other sensitive areas. Bush is far from being innocent, but Christians voting for him is far from supporting Violence, unless you want to lump Progressive Liberals in as violent also??

The entire US Congress supported Bush when he invaded Iraq. The polls at the time were 90% in favor. 90%!!!!!! Are you going to now go intolernat of the 90% now? Not to mention that 20 other Nations were involved with the US invasion. Are you going to loose tolerance with those 20 nations?

Better then others? The entire Progressive agenda is based on being better then others. Progressive Liberals believe that since they are smarter, or more educated, or more experienced, that they need to take responsibilities away from the Public and make them Federal responsiblities. It is called power grabbing.

None of which has anything to do with Christians other then that they vote Republican more often then Democrat. It is like loosing faith in the Jews because they more commonly vote Democrat and so have failed to bring the economy around quickly. It makes no sense.

How many cultures have your experienced?

Irrelivant...

Do you give to Charity? Or is that the Governments Job?

Edited December 26, 2012 by DieChecker

[Hasina]

Individuals can be 'good' or 'bad'. Start talking about groups of people being 'good' or 'bad', then it just becomes silly.

[Beany]

And it was Progressive Liberals who voted Obama into office and he has not just maintained but expanded the USs role in fighting in the middle east. He sent soldiers into Pakistan to kill Osama Bin Laden. He ordered the US to get involved in Libya and several other sensitive areas. Bush is far from being innocent, but Christians voting for him is far from supporting Violence, unless you want to lump Progressive Liberals in as violent also??

The entire US Congress supported Bush when he invaded Iraq. The polls at the time were 90% in favor. 90%!!!!!! Are you going to now go intolernat of the 90% now? Not to mention that 20 other Nations were involved with the US invasion. Are you going to loose tolerance with those 20 nations?

Better then others? The entire Progressive agenda is based on being better then others. Progressive Liberals believe that since they are smarter, or more educated, or more experienced, that they need to take responsibilities away from the Public and make them Federal responsiblities. It is called power grabbing.

None of which has anything to do with Christians other then that they vote Republican more often then Democrat. It is like loosing faith in the Jews because they more commonly vote Democrat and so have failed to bring the economy around quickly. It makes no sense.

Irrelivant...

Do you give to Charity? Or is that the Governments Job?

And it was Progressive Liberals who voted Obama into office and he has not just maintained but expanded the USs role in fighting in the middle east. He sent soldiers into Pakistan to kill Osama Bin Laden. He ordered the US to get involved in Libya and several other sensitive areas. Bush is far from being innocent, but Christians voting for him is far from supporting Violence, unless you want to lump Progressive Liberals in as violent also??

The entire US Congress supported Bush when he invaded Iraq. The polls at the time were 90% in favor. 90%!!!!!! Are you going to now go intolernat of the 90% now? Not to mention that 20 other Nations were involved with the US invasion. Are you going to loose tolerance with those 20 nations?

Better then others? The entire Progressive agenda is based on being better then others. Progressive Liberals believe that since they are smarter, or more educated, or more experienced, that they need to take responsibilities away from the Public and make them Federal responsiblities. It is called power grabbing.

None of which has anything to do with Christians other then that they vote Republican more often then Democrat. It is like loosing faith in the Jews because they more commonly vote Democrat and so have failed to bring the economy around quickly. It makes no sense.

Irrelivant...

Do you give to Charity? Or is that the Governments Job?

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”

-- Mahatma Gandhi

Or the way we treat our children. Or our poor. We have too many children going to bed hungry every night, and some of us power-grabbing liberals think our government, as well as people in the private sector, ought to help feed them. Hey, maybe that DOES make us smarter. All this compassion, and I'm not even Christian. But isn't there something in the bible that speaks about reaching out to the less fortunate?

[me-wonders]

And it was Progressive Liberals who voted Obama into office and he has not just maintained but expanded the USs role in fighting in the middle east. He sent soldiers into Pakistan to kill Osama Bin Laden. He ordered the US to get involved in Libya and several other sensitive areas. Bush is far from being innocent, but Christians voting for him is far from supporting Violence, unless you want to lump Progressive Liberals in as violent also??

The entire US Congress supported Bush when he invaded Iraq. The polls at the time were 90% in favor. 90%!!!!!! Are you going to now go intolernat of the 90% now? Not to mention that 20 other Nations were involved with the US invasion. Are you going to loose tolerance with those 20 nations?

Better then others? The entire Progressive agenda is based on being better then others. Progressive Liberals believe that since they are smarter, or more educated, or more experienced, that they need to take responsibilities away from the Public and make them Federal responsiblities. It is called power grabbing.

None of which has anything to do with Christians other then that they vote Republican more often then Democrat. It is like loosing faith in the Jews because they more commonly vote Democrat and so have failed to bring the economy around quickly. It makes no sense.

Irrelivant...

Do you give to Charity? Or is that the Governments Job?

Well, yes I will be intolerant of the whole congress who voted for the invasion of Iraq, and the Christian right who thought Bush was doing the will of God. I am also on record for protesting that invasion from the time it was first mentioned as a possibility. My record of speaking about the Military Industrial Complex is well known, and a thread about India is giving new me arguments against a western culture tied to the Christian idea that they are God's favored people and doing the will of God.

However, complaining about the invasion of Iraq is like complaining about who left the barn door open, when the animals are long gone. Considering the role the US played in making Sadam and Bin Ladin so powerful in the first place.

Did you watch the video before objecting to what I am saying? Do you believe US Christians are God's favorite people and that they are doing the will of God, rather the will of corporations?

[me-wonders]

Individuals can be 'good' or 'bad'. Start talking about groups of people being 'good' or 'bad', then it just becomes silly.

I do not think it is silly to question a belief that mobilizes millions of people to accept a war against people who were no threat to the US. Around the world this belief in being God's favored people, and has lead to injustice. I meaning all the prejudices that goes with this belief, such as our military occupying Iran and blaming Iranians for the large number of people run over by military personnel, instead of making this intolerable. Which is the same thing that lead to India rebelling against British rule. With Christianity comes ideas about being God's favored people and God's will, and how things work, that I do not find agreeable.

Do you give to Charity? Or is that the Governments Job?

We are the government. Unfortunately, we do not know enough to govern ourselves, and have been like content cattle. It is low wage earners who support the high standard of living that only a few enjoy, and it is reasonable for government to bring some balance into this reality.

Or the way we treat our children. Or our poor. We have too many children going to bed hungry every night, and some of us power-grabbing liberals think our government, as well as people in the private sector, ought to help feed them. Hey, maybe that DOES make us smarter. All this compassion, and I'm not even Christian. But isn't there something in the bible that speaks about reaching out to the less fortunate?

My Christians friends pray for the needy. They don't have the money for charity. The problem here is not their unwillingness to give, and not their greed. The problem is they do not understand how things work, and like to believe a God will do what they can not figure out how to do. They really, really want to believe their prayers are as good as actually doing something. To me, this is a big problem!

Edited December 28, 2012 by me-wonders

[me-wonders]

You've touched on a lot of subjects, but your main question seems to be "How good is our culture?" And by that you mean American society and it's portrayed violent gun culture.

So how "good" is American culture? I only have to point out the extraordinary lengths of time people from other countries are willing to wait for a green card, or the desperate illegal methods others will take to live in the U.S.A.. America will always be a metaphor for freedom and justice.

If you live in a stone age, hunter-gatherer society, then your premise is granted, otherwise, it is not necessary to eat meat. If it is unnecessary and entails pain, suffering or death, it is by definition cruel.

Hitler was a vegetarian. Gee, what are we to conclude? Vegans are psychotic, Nazi, elementary school children murderers?

This fallacy is called "poisoning the well" and is not sound logic.

The number of illegals trying to enter the US has declined since the economic turn down. The Illegal Mexican I worked with, could not have cared less about politics and freedom. He was working in the US for the money, which he enjoyed spending. He also sent money to his family in Mexico.

Are you arguing a reverence for life is not important or that someone who eats meat can not be a reverent person? Human beings have different metabolisms and some people do better with a meat diet.

[+DieChecker]

Well, yes I will be intolerant of the whole congress who voted for the invasion of Iraq, and the Christian right who thought Bush was doing the will of God. I am also on record for protesting that invasion from the time it was first mentioned as a possibility. My record of speaking about the Military Industrial Complex is well known, and a thread about India is giving new me arguments against a western culture tied to the Christian idea that they are God's favored people and doing the will of God.

You do know that 60% plus of the US population is not "Christian Right", right? The "Christian Right" are not even powerful enough to prevent Same Sex Marriage in most states, or prevent Legalized Pot. You're making a minor religious (But Vocal) group into a boogieman. Just as those Religious Right have made Homosexuals into a boogieman, though they are only like 3% of the population.

Most Christians are simply good people. You want to judge a section of population by a minority sample. Just as taking black gangmembers as a sample should not be used to judge all black people.

Did you watch the video before objecting to what I am saying? Do you believe US Christians are God's favorite people and that they are doing the will of God, rather the will of corporations?

I believe the US Christians are Christians, and it is the Christian belief that they are correct in their traditions. Just as the Muslims, and Jews, and Hindus, and Buddists all believe in their own traditions. I believe that to a degree all Christians believe they are doing God's will, just as Obama, Nancy Peloci and Harry Reid (All Christians - and supposed Church goers) believe what they are doing is what God would have them do.

I'm not objecting to your video, I am objecting to a Blanket statement that all Christians are Bad or Evil, simply for being Christian. Which is what you were strongly implying was the case.

[+DieChecker]

I do not think it is silly to question a belief that mobilizes millions of people to accept a war against people who were no threat to the US. Around the world this belief in being God's favored people, and has lead to injustice. I meaning all the prejudices that goes with this belief, such as our military occupying Iran and blaming Iranians for the large number of people run over by military personnel, instead of making this intolerable. Which is the same thing that lead to India rebelling against British rule. With Christianity comes ideas about being God's favored people and God's will, and how things work, that I do not find agreeable.

Americans don't need religion to feel superior. We come by that naturally to every American who has been here a couple generations. Because it is true. We are the movers and shakers of this Era, just as the Romans and the British Empire were once upon a time. We make ourselves into the Favored People, and we don't need God to do that for us.

Western Nations come with the ideas and how things work, not Christians. That leaders are Christians is besides the point. These values have been with Western Civilization for a thousand years.

I think you must have meant Iraq and not Iran. We've not invaded Iran yet.

We are the government. Unfortunately, we do not know enough to govern ourselves, and have been like content cattle. It is low wage earners who support the high standard of living that only a few enjoy, and it is reasonable for government to bring some balance into this reality.

That is a cop out way of saying, "No I do not give to charity." and "Helping others is the governments job.". Clearly you and others have internet service. That could feed a family of 4 each month if you gave it up.

It does not take a fortune to donate $25 a month... $600 a year to save a child from starvation, disease and lack of education.

My Christians friends pray for the needy. They don't have the money for charity. The problem here is not their unwillingness to give, and not their greed. The problem is they do not understand how things work, and like to believe a God will do what they can not figure out how to do. They really, really want to believe their prayers are as good as actually doing something. To me, this is a big problem!

Praying for others is Laudable, and Excellent, and if that is all you can do, then that is all you can do.... But, vollinteering is also free... if you have the time to spare.

The problem is that praying to God is not useless. And that if this is the only way they think they can get something done, then what is the harm in it? You just said they can't do anything (money, time...) but pray....

[me-wonders]

Americans don't need religion to feel superior. We come by that naturally to every American who has been here a couple generations. Because it is true. We are the movers and shakers of this Era, just as the Romans and the British Empire were once upon a time. We make ourselves into the Favored People, and we don't need God to do that for us.

Western Nations come with the ideas and how things work, not Christians. That leaders are Christians is besides the point. These values have been with Western Civilization for a thousand years.

I think you must have meant Iraq and not Iran. We've not invaded Iran yet.

That is a cop out way of saying, "No I do not give to charity." and "Helping others is the governments job.". Clearly you and others have internet service. That could feed a family of 4 each month if you gave it up.

It does not take a fortune to donate $25 a month... $600 a year to save a child from starvation, disease and lack of education.

Praying for others is Laudable, and Excellent, and if that is all you can do, then that is all you can do.... But, vollinteering is also free... if you have the time to spare.

The problem is that praying to God is not useless. And that if this is the only way they think they can get something done, then what is the harm in it? You just said they can't do anything (money, time...) but pray....

Yes, I goofed. I did mean Iraq.

I am pretty offended by your comment "That is a cop out way of saying, "No I do not give to charity." and "Helping others is the governments job.". Clearly you and others have internet service. That could feed a family of 4 each month if you gave it up."

Taking political responsibility for the welfare of our country is not a cop out and works a whole lot better than praying. To be politically responsible requires understand human nature, economics, organizations of all kinds, and sure as blazes does not mean not doing unpaid work. Democracy is away of life, and unfortunately there seems to be very little understanding of that.

I need to drop down to your last statement "The problem is that praying to God is not useless. And that if this is the only way they think they can get something done, then what is the harm in it? You just said they can't do anything (money, time...) but pray...."

What is the harm of it is, it does not get things done! Praying comforts their conscience while they do nothing! It is a substitute for action. It is what people do when they do not have the necessary information, or will, to take action. While my good Christian friends pray; I feed and shelter the homeless, and advocate for them, and take political action.. Which do you think is more effective? I assure you, their prayers did not get the shelter and food distribution we need. To get things done, action must taken.

As for the expense of my Internet connection, I strongly believe I can effect a positive outcome far better with this connection to the world, than by buying a family of 4 one meal a month. This is not a toy. It is essential to being informed and spreading information and that is essential to democracy (away of life).

I pray often, and I am strongly in favor of believing there is a God. However, I have a problem with religions, when there is no education for independent, abstract thinking, and the bible is interpreted concretely instead of abstractly, and people are Christians, but are not living democracy. That is, they live on superstition, instead of reason.

Edited January 2, 2013 by me-wonders

[+DieChecker]

Taking political responsibility for the welfare of our country is not a cop out and works a whole lot better than praying. To be politically responsible requires understand human nature, economics, organizations of all kinds, and sure as blazes does not mean not doing unpaid work. Democracy is away of life, and unfortunately there seems to be very little understanding of that.

Would you say that doing unpaid work for a good cause is "Good"?

Would you argue that giving to charity (if you can afford it) is "Good"?

I think taking political responsibility is a noble thing, and though I am mostly Conservative and a Republican, I very much can respect and admire those who are very Liberal if they stick to their beliefs. Just because they don't believe exactly as I do does not make them wrong, just as because Christians believe something different they you does not make them "Evil".

I need to drop down to your last statement "The problem is that praying to God is not useless. And that if this is the only way they think they can get something done, then what is the harm in it? You just said they can't do anything (money, time...) but pray...."

What is the harm of it is, it does not get things done! Praying comforts their conscience while they do nothing! It is a substitute for action. It is what people do when they do not have the necessary information, or will, to take action. While my good Christian friends pray; I feed and shelter the homeless, and advocate for them, and take political action.. Which do you think is more effective? I assure you, their prayers did not get the shelter and food distribution we need. To get things done, action must taken.

I'd argue that if the only thing they get out of it is feeling better, then it is worth it. But, statistical studies have shown that Prayer does have an effect, maybe a Placebo effect, but an effect none the less... where if those who are being prayed for Know they are being prayed for they statistically have more favorable results. People heal faster, people recover from irreversable prognoises, treatments work better. And not to mention that they have more hope, happiness and better attitudes.

Praying for national or worldwide events, obviously, is not going to be as effective. Joe Shmoe is not going to Pray Obama out of office, or Pray Iran to stop nuclear research. It simply is not going to statistically happen. In those cases the only people that can be affected are the community that witnesses the praying.

I would say that action is far more preferable, as that directly 100% helps people rather then whatever chance prayer provides. But, you did say that your friends are Too Poor to do such things. Or are you meaning time and effort? In which case I would agree with you. Doing something rather then praying is admirable, and praying without doing anything is also admirable, but less so.

As for the expense of my Internet connection, I strongly believe I can effect a positive outcome far better with this connection to the world, than by buying a family of 4 one meal a month. This is not a toy. It is essential to being informed and spreading information and that is essential to democracy (away of life).

That would be for you to decide, but I meant only to point out the Option exists.

I pray often, and I am strongly in favor of believing there is a God. However, I have a problem with religions, when there is no education for independent, abstract thinking, and the bible is interpreted concretely instead of abstractly, and people are Christians, but are not living democracy. That is, they live on superstition, instead of reason.

I will agree that when people turn from Practicing Christianity to following a Religion, that they are doing themselves a disservice. The Bible is not a set of Rules, it is Inspiration and Leasons. Jesus came to break the rules and establish a new rule of loving others, not going all Pharasee on people. The Pharasees were the enemy as far as Jesus was conserved.

[Jinxdom]

That is a cop out way of saying, "No I do not give to charity." and "Helping others is the governments job.". Clearly you and others have internet service. That could feed a family of 4 each month if you gave it up.

It does not take a fortune to donate $25 a month... $600 a year to save a child from starvation, disease and lack of education.

As for the expense of my Internet connection, I strongly believe I can effect a positive outcome far better with this connection to the world, than by buying a family of 4 one meal a month. This is not a toy. It is essential to being informed and spreading information and that is essential to democracy (away of life).

What we need to do is stop doing one or the other we need to do both. Spreading the word that doing good is awesome but not doing it yourself just screams do as I say not as I do. Which is just a tad bit hypocritical. (People don't like hypocrites not saying you are because of the next part).

Although people need to stop converting everything down to money then applying that cost to other things. The internet cost applying to food is silly because the internet is not food. You need to have forms of communication to be productive to society

We need more then food, water, shelter these days just to stay in the game(let alone to stay head), not to acknowledge that is silly.(Unless you want our people to live in a 3rd world country) You have to have everything you need to be successful in society before you can help out. If you can't then you need help yourself. Deluding yourself that you(or somebody else) don't need help when you/they do is silly. (Problem is the way economics is run makes realizing that you need help harder before it really becomes a problem).

Taxes are supposed to be to improve this country. Warmongering should be only used to take over a rival nation who keeps breaking basic rights not money(It's should an investment to the country instead of a companies). Ideally if we could break the countries we are fighting with and implement our rights on them. Then actually let them choose and protect it would come back to us. We can't do that and implement it properly and look at what it does to the world. We are a country are investing our money with no return to us nor the people who we fight. That's just bad business.

But we can't do that because society says that killing things is wrong. That includes governments. How good is letting a serial killer out to do what he wants? Not very. So why are governments allowed to do so? Because people's versions of what is right and what is wrong is completely and utterly screwed.

[+DieChecker]

Because people's versions of what is right and what is wrong is completely and utterly screwed.

Agree. It is not Christianity that is screwing the USA up, it is our society. Society including our Media that are only interested in their profit and political pandering, including our politicians who also pander for money and for the Media, and our overall way of raising kids, which is creating generations of callous b******* raised by minimum wage daycare workers.