# Questions for conservatives...



## C M Dess (May 7, 2010)

I want to delete all my posts.


----------



## José Herring (May 7, 2010)

Mentioning that we live more than one life is way out of the realm of understanding of most of western civilization much less conservatives.

Best you can do is convince them that if they have kids some of their DNA will be passed on to future generations ect....

But trying to convince 99% of the "civilized" world that they're nothing more than a collection of cells is an uphill battle. We are taught very early that its ashes to ashes dust to dust.

Best of luck in your quest. I'm with you. But you won't find many that are. It is very true that what we die out of we get born into. So it is in everybody's best interest to leave behind the best world possible because the future is long and we'll all be in it. But even the mention of that at the least gets you strange stares and at its worst sends people into stark raving mad fits of terror.


----------



## Jack Weaver (May 7, 2010)

My love for God generates both conservatism (as a way of caring for my fellow man and upholding a vision of their self-determination) and an observance of reincarnation (as a mechanism for God’s grace to allow us to fulfill our Divine purposes, our dharma).

.


----------



## Narval (May 7, 2010)

I once read a theory saying something like: the dead are continuously putting pressure upon us, the living, by _forcing_ us to carry and then to pass on their own heritage to the unborn. Sounds spooky, I know, but if you come to think of it, we are actually living in a world that is set up and led by the dead's rules: their laws, their ideas, their culture. What is our own input in all this? Apparently, almost nonexistent. It's like the dead and the unborn have made a pact over our heads that ensures their perpetuity/ immortality at the expense of our lives. What is for sure is that _they_, the dead and the unborn, to the greatest extent, determine the way we are living our short lives. 

Where does that leave the concepts of freedom, choice, free will, self-determinism? And a even tougher question: without their (dead&unborn) pressure upon us, what would our lives look like? In the lack of historical past and future, will we, as _freed_ individuals, be happier? Are we aware of what we are losing for the sake of "happiness," as we understand it now? Not really, I'd say. And is it worth it? Not very sure about that. But will we be capable to willingly lose both the values of the past and the concerns for the future, while in return re-gaining the present for ourselves? and then live it in complete respect for each other, in true brotherhood, without envy, contempt, hypocrisy, and prejudices? Don't know if Nietzsche thought of his overman in these terms, but kinda sounds like it. And then there was the other guy who _imagined all the people living for today..._ 8) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okd3hLlvvLw

I searched for something relevant to that theory, but don't have time for much research. What I did find instead is this article, which finds social justification for the pressure put upon the living by the unborn: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/28/opinion/28brooks.html It ends with these words: _"we are blessed with the disciplining power of our posterity. We rely on this strong, invisible and unacknowledged force — these millions of unborn people we will never meet but who give us the gift of our way of life."_ (not very sure why he uses words like "blessed, "we rely," and "gift" though, sounds a bit fundamentalist to my ears... As for the proclaimed and imposed "disciplining power," I think that argument was used as justification for a few niceties like slavery, fascism, and communism... )


----------



## Narval (May 8, 2010)

I just realized that Nietzsche and Lennon are both dead. :| (well, yeah, but at least they were both thinking for themselves, and not imposing anything to anyone. They don't actually put on us any _pressure_, as do all the other nasty dead guys and their naughty unborn accomplices... :twisted: )

Here, Noam Chomsky: "Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like it's from Neptune."




C M Dess @ Sat May 08 said:


> That all sounds logical. Seems like you are saying there's a force from both ends, the future people and past people (and lessons of their time), which weigh heavily on our minds whether we know it or not. Sounds like the realm of the sub-conscious is at play in this case. Article was interesting. I guess it's really hard to predict "future value" in what the next generation will want and need, let alone getting the expected results based on a given strategy / intention.


Yeah, exactly, two-sides pressure, from the past and from the future. And yes, the subconscious is their ally, and not our own. And when you think of it, we are actually born free, with no debts to any "common past" before our birth, and with no obligation to any "common future" after our death. We have one life, each of us, we just live once, and at some unknown point we hit a wall and that was it. But till then, we have a few powerful tools for building up our own lives: the present, our freedom of choice, and we have each other. These are our true gifts, not some "disciplining power" imposed from the underground, from the above, from the genes, from brainwashing "education" etc. How we use those gifts in order to live for ourselves in dignity and mutual respect, that's what actually is severely impaired by the said pressures from both sides - from the dead: (low hoarse voices) "Pass on the tradition of your ancestors, fight the offspring of our dead enemies, bring to life other creatures like ourselves, work like a dog for them and then just perish you piece of shit, and become one of us!" and from the unborn: (tiny annoying voices) "We wanna live, we wanna live, you must ensure for us what the dead said, you have to sacrifice yourself for us, for we count more than you, 'kuz we're da Future, oh yeah, and you're gonna be dead soon anyways, who cares, so just drop your weirdo ideas and silly ambitions, stupid!..." (o)


----------



## chimuelo (May 8, 2010)

I am a conservative in the real sense of the word, not politically conservative as I don't believe they are representative of my form of conservatism.
Most Americans are conservative as they must plan on their childrens education, and live within their means. Being Conservative in Politics is an entirely different manner I wish to be disassociated from.
That being said I find myself confused, but coming from a household where the Jewish and Roman Catholic faiths were observed I have always kept the 10 Commandments close to my path.
I am fascinated by how Billions of people believe in life after death, and some of the worlds largest and most ancient monumnets were built around similar beliefs.
The offchute form of Hinduism called Jainism is the most fascinating of all beliefs.
These teachings have been handed down for thousands of years and these kind people will not even step on a bug as it is viewed as another of Gods creations. Due to such a high standard of living that Europe and the USA have, many folks feel no need for such beliefs and I can relate to that.
I can also relate and admire those who have faith in life after death. I wish I really knew what I believed as I drift back and forth and am rather confused.
One thing is certain though. I am always overcome by humbleness when I visit really old large churches and ancient ruins.
This confuses me even more.. :?


----------



## jsaras (May 8, 2010)

Hi CM,

I'm sure that you are quite sincere in asking your questions, but you are blind to your own prejudices and intolerance. Your line of questioning assumes that conservatives are inherently morally inferior and that they WANT people to be molested and beaten. That said, I'll attempt to answer your question simply and honestly. 

Conservatives believe that the "unit" that defines society is the family unit, which ideally is a father, a mother and children. They pass on their cultural and religious values recognizing that it is their most important, difficult and rewarding task. Regardless of what you may think of any religion, you cannot deny the mathematical fact that religious people reproduce at a rate that far exceeds that of secular Europe. 

Conservatives also generally believe they will be rewarded for their self-sacrificing good works toward their fellow human beings in the afterlife by the Creator. They also believe that evil exists and that there will be ultimate justice carried out on those who inflict pain and restitution for those who didn't get a fair shake in this life (which really is all of us). 

I personally do not subscribe to reincarnation, but you express concern for those who live in crappy circumstances. I share that concern and I believe that is it the Creator who takes responsiblity for where and when people are born. There is a text in the New Testament that addresses this specific point, Acts 17:26-27. "From one man (_or "one blood")_ He has made every nation of men to live all over the earth and has determined their appointed times and the boundaries of where they live, so that they might seek God, and perhaps they might reach out and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us." 

Finally, conservatives believe that our right to freedom and liberty are bestowed upon us by the Creator, not by human laws/goverments. If our rights come from the Creator, they cannot be taken away by mere human beings. If our rights are derived by human governments and laws, then freedom and liberty can be taken away at the whim of a dictator, etc.

J


----------



## José Herring (May 8, 2010)

Just to give some clarity the above quote is from a paper outline the use of psychiatry to spread communism. It's called Psychopolitics and is the conspiracy that underlies all conspiracies. It's what people feel is going on but can't quite put their finger on it.


----------



## Narval (May 8, 2010)

Yeah, us and "them," again. We're conditioned to think this way, aren't we? Them - the evil. _L'enfer c'est les autres,_ which makes us the righteous ones, right? Well, when we'll unlearn and remove our conditioned beliefs like the existence of the "them," then we'll plainly see that we're all brothers. That moment will be the dawn of humanity. Right now we're living in barbaric times, when everybody deceives and hurts everybody else in the name of silly ideas that no one takes the time to see how ridiculous and destructive they are.

We are conditioned to ignore and give away the only wealth we posses: our inborn capacity to think for ourselves, to act for ourselves, and to build a good living for our own. And we give away our only wealth, for the sake of what? Tradition. It's now called: "our way of life." Did I chose the yellow brick road? Did you? No, of course not, that was never my or your call. Does "our" necessarily includes me? Or you? No, of course not. But we are conditioned to think that we _ought to_ be part of that "our." To be sure, me and you don't actually count (pun intended). It's the herd that counts, the heard that wants to perpetuate itself at the expense of each of our lives.

Who invented tradition, "way of life"? who is maintaining it? and for the benefit of whom? 
The dead invented it, the dead are maintaining it (through the power we surrender to them), and for the benefit of the herd. The herd of the dead.
We are just the slaves, the ants doing the job for the herd's own purpose. And then we hit the wall and other mindless slaves take our place.

Make no mistake about it: there is no value above life. Not democracy, not god, nothing. Life is the supreme value. One's own life. Each person's own life. And there's only one _commandment_: live your own life well, for it is the only thing you have, and you only have one chance to make something for yourself out of it. Needless to say, respecting your own life means to respect everyone's own life - LIFE, and not death and the commands of the dead. It's an option we are making, knowingly or unknowingly, willingly or unwillingly: chose life, or chose the dead. Join life, or join death. It's up to each of us.


----------



## jsaras (May 8, 2010)

Narval @ Sat May 08 said:


> Make no mistake about it: there is no value above life. Not democracy, not god, nothing. Life is the supreme value. One's own life.



That value system can only be described as animalistic. For me, goodness is the supreme value, even over life.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 8, 2010)

It's easy to justify anything, no matter how wrong, and using religion makes it especially easy.


----------



## Narval (May 8, 2010)

jsaras @ Sat May 08 said:


> Narval @ Sat May 08 said:
> 
> 
> > Make no mistake about it: there is no value above life. Not democracy, not god, nothing. Life is the supreme value. One's own life.
> ...


Animalistic, as in pertaining to animals? Last time I checked, animals didn't have value systems, like humans do. Making life the supreme value is what humans, and not animals, do. It's something that sets us apart, in a positive way, from animals. Animals don't save the lives of their own kind, that's something only humans do. Why do you think we're doing it? Because human life, and not animal life, is the supreme value. Besides, when I said "life" I specified "one's own life," which clearly points to persons, individuals, human beings.

Time-wise and value-wise, human life comes first, and only then comes goodness. How can it be otherwise? It's humans who brought goodness into the Universe, and there can be no goodness outside human life. Or can it? Any examples you can point to?

Energy and inorganic matter are neutral, neither good nor bad. They become good or bad only as a result, and to the extent, of the way they preserve/promote or hurt/destroy human life. Goodness is a mental construct, an abstraction, a concept, a category, and a value - inferior, derived from, and subordinate to, human life. Goodness either serves human life or it's not goodness. When something, anything, goes against human life, that thing cannot be described as goodness. Or can it? Any examples you can point to?

Goodness, above human life?? Are you serious??? Then what kind of "goodness" are you talking about? Would you sacrifice a human life for the sake of "goodness?" Would you take (or delegate, or approve on taking) someone's life in the name, or for the sake of preserving something that you would then point to and call: "goodness"? If you really could do that, then would you also be kind enough to describe that "goodness" in a bit more detail please? I'd be much interested in its features and characteristics, especially those that would make it superior to human life and worth preserving even at the price of sacrificing a human life.


----------



## P.T. (May 8, 2010)

In addition to that article on psyco-politics you might wish to google Yuri Bezmenov and Gramsci.

Propaganda is only from the right, indeed. Ha!


----------



## P.T. (May 8, 2010)

It's odd that some of you think that reincarnation is somehow a right/left conservative/liberal issue.
Is it necessary to politicize everything?

In Asia most people believe in reincarnation and I think you will find few people that think like western liberals. Asians are generally conservative and Buddhism and Hinduism don't teach the kind of social gospel that liberals seem to think they do.

They believe that the people who are living terrible lives are living them due to their own bad choices and actions in past lives. That's what Karma is.
They see little point in interfering with other peoples Karma.
And Karma is far more complex of a web than people know so they are careful about interfering in the Karma of others. Even good intentions can lead to hell, and yes Buddhists and Hindus believe in hell, though it is s temporary situation to them.

In Buddhist countries most charity is given to the Sangha, the community of monks and nuns, not to needy laypeople.

Saving all people, the Bodhisattva vow, isn't about taking care of people physical earthly needs, it is about helping them to find and seek out enlightenment so that they can stop being reborn.
The social gospel of Buddhism is an american creation.

If you study Buddhist scripture you will find that their 'commandments', the things to do and to refrain from, are just as strict and even stricter than the judeao-christian ones.

I think you know less about this than you think you do.

As long as you view yourself as a liberal or a conservative, a democrat or a republican or conform to other people 'isms' and view everything as 'us' and 'them'
you are just a programmed robot.
You'll likely be insulted by that, but maybe I'm just trying to wake you up, like one of those Bodhisattva dudes trying to save all people.
Yeah, right. Like I'm so awake.


----------



## José Herring (May 8, 2010)

P.T. @ Sat May 08 said:


> In addition to that article on psyco-politics you might wish to google Yuri Bezmenov and Gramsci.
> 
> Propaganda is only from the right, indeed. Ha!



Fascinating. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN0By0xbst8

Even more to the point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHgYPDvQ ... re=related

If you can make it to the end of this one you won't be able to sleep tonight

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeMZGGQ0 ... re=related


----------



## Christian Marcussen (May 8, 2010)

> My love for God generates both conservatism (as a way of caring for my fellow man and upholding a vision of their self-determination) and an observance of reincarnation (as a mechanism for God’s grace to allow us to fulfill our Divine purposes, our dharma).



Which god is that?



> Yeah, us and "them," again. We're conditioned to think this way, aren't we?



Perhaps, but first of all we are predisposed, biologically, to think in us/them terms. It is part of our heritage, and it manifests itself in everything from ideologies, sports, politics and religion. The most successful of them prey upon this predisposition.


----------



## Narval (May 8, 2010)

That Bezmenov dude sounds a bit paranoid, doesn't he?

"There's a deep-seated paranoia that Americans have about not being Americans or something." - Billy Joel 

My main problem with paranoid people is that they're not Salvador Dali.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (May 9, 2010)

> Animals don't save the lives of their own kind, that's something only humans do



Not true - where did you hear that? If that were true, something like altuism in humans would never have evolved.


----------



## P.T. (May 9, 2010)

Except that I think Bezmenov is former KGB.

My mistake. From the beginning of the Wiki page on him;

"Yuri Alexandrovich Bezmenov, Юрий Безменов, now known as Tomas David Schuman (born 1939, Soviet Union - 1997), worked as a journalist for Novosti Press Agency. In this capacity, he secretly answered to the KGB. His true job was to further the aims of communist Russia. After being assigned to a station in India, Bezmenov eventually grew to love the people and culture of India, while, at the same time, he began to resent the KGB-sanctioned oppression of intellectuals who dissented from Moscow's policies. He decided to defect to the West. Bezmenov/Schuman is best remembered for his Pro-American Anti-communist lectures and books from the 1980s."
___________________

But a lot of people are in hard denial or wish to debunk him because they don't want people to hear or believe what he has to say.


----------



## Narval (May 9, 2010)

P.T. @ Sun May 09 said:


> Except that I think Bezmenov is former KGB.


And, of course, there is something that makes former KGB immune to paranoia. (edit - same for former soviet journalists...)

"I think paranoia can be instructive in the right doses. Paranoia is a skill." - John Shirley



Christian Marcussen @ Sun May 09 said:


> > Animals don't save the lives of their own kind, that's something only humans do
> 
> 
> Not true


Could be, but what exactly makes it untrue? Never seen a (say) dog saving the life of another dog. I would love to see that.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (May 9, 2010)

> I once read a theory saying something like: the dead are continuously putting pressure upon us, the living, by forcing us to carry and then to pass on their own heritage to the unborn. Sounds spooky, I know, but if you come to think of it, we are actually living in a world that is set up and led by the dead's rules: their laws, their ideas, their culture. What is our own input in all this? Apparently, almost nonexistent. It's like the dead and the unborn have made a pact over our heads that ensures their perpetuity/ immortality at the expense of our lives. What is for sure is that they, the dead and the unborn, to the greatest extent, determine the way we are living our short lives.



Are there people who believe this and find it reasonable? If so, on what basis? How do you substantiate a claim like that? With the fear of sounding like a psychopolitical, communist, propagandist, it does sound a bit like the ramblings of a madman :D. It’s only because it has a pseudoreligious nature that it might not be regarded as such.


----------



## Narval (May 9, 2010)

What exactly is that you find unreasonable, and about what?


----------



## Christian Marcussen (May 9, 2010)

Christian Marcussen @ Sun May 09 said:


> > Animals don't save the lives of their own kind, that's something only humans do
> 
> 
> Not true





> Could be, but what exactly makes it untrue?



What makes it untrue is that the central claim that animals don't save their own kind is false. 

First of all most animals would risk their own lives to save their children. But even if you disregard that, many animals will warn other animals of predators - often putting themselves at a greater risk. 

It’s actually very fascinating how and why they do this, and how it has evolutionary advantages in doing it.


----------



## Narval (May 9, 2010)

Are you saying that one animal has ever _intentionally_ saved the life of another animal? What makes you say that saving a life was its intention?

An animal doesn't care about life, not even about its own life. Animals don't care about anything actually. Instead of value systems they have instincts that take care of everything. Animals don't even see life as positive and death as negative. Why should they save a life then? 

At least that's what I find reasonable to believe. Do you think it would be reasonable to believe otherwise?


----------



## Christian Marcussen (May 9, 2010)

Narval @ Sun May 09 said:


> Are you saying that one animal has ever _intentionally_ saved the life of another animal? What makes you say that saving a life was its intention?



Well, if you accept that animals do _anything_ intentionally, then yes. If you on the other hand define intention as a form of contemplation and thought, then it starts to get more tricky, although I would still say yes - at least if you regard hesitation as a form of contemplation. But what do you mean by intention? Have you heard of dogs saving their owners? If so, would you call this intention? Would you call it intention if a dog barks at an intruder, but not a family friend? How about scratching on the door when it wants to go outside for a piss?


----------



## Narval (May 9, 2010)

I call all that: instincts, biological programming, and pressures. I see no reason to believe that animals do have intentions. Intention implies purpose. Do you believe an animal can have a purpose in life?


----------



## Christian Marcussen (May 9, 2010)

Ok. I see you defined it in your edit... That you see animal actions as pure instinct, unrelated to intention? So it seems that you regard human desire to protect a baby, or one’s own baby, fundamentally different from that of animals? That our desire to do that is an intellectual one (for lack of better words) rather than an instinctive one?

Would you agree that the distress you feel when you see another human being harmed, is an instinctive one, rather than an intellectual one?

What sets us apart from animals in my view is that we can expand upon our instincts, generalize upon them, and overcome those that conflict with out social instincts. This comes from our exceptionally well evolved social brains. But at its core it starts as instinct.


----------



## Narval (May 9, 2010)

Agree with that, social instincts, protecting the offspring, preserving the herd. Biological pressure. (That's actually part of what I was talking about when referring to the pressure that "the dead" put upon us.) True, we act out of instincts sometimes, like animals. Reacting, instead of acting. But the big difference is this: a human being can (and sometimes does), with intention, on purpose, on his own accord and in spite of the self-preservation animalic instinct, put in jeopardy (and sometimes actually lose) his own life, for the sake of saving a perfect stranger's life. That means (1) that a man can set up values of his own, and (2) that a man is capable to decide upon what he wants to do with his own life, without having to obey anything.

I think one of the essential features that sets us apart from animals is not better "instinct management," as you seem to imply, but our capacity to disobey and override instincts. We can escape conditioning and biological programming. We are not the herd's slaves. We are able to overcome fear of pain and to dismiss lust for pleasure (sexual, food oriented, etc.) as negative forces that work against us. We are capable of restraint, we can refuse to react, and then to act in unpredictable ways. It's called willpower and it ensures our freedom as individuals and our dignity as persons.

Not to mention we have imagination, and thoughts, and purpose, and future. And many other things that put us above your beloved animals.  

Back to saving lives, here is why I don't think animals can save lives: In the first place, they don't have the notions of "life" and "saving." Second, they're not very likely to have purposes and intentions. _Unintentional life-saving_ doesn't really count as life-saving, does it? If it does, then probably _unintentional murder_ does count as murder, yes? :shock: Besides, animals surely don't _value_ life over death. Animals don't have values. Precisely the _nitpicked_ point that started this "animals' hijacking." :wink:


----------



## chimuelo (May 9, 2010)

@ Jose.......
Where on Earth did you ever find such barbarisitic writings..?
I feel humbleness not paranoia when I am overcome by the feeling I described above.

I remember a comment Obama blurted out during his campaign about Pennsylvanians clinging to their Bibles and guns that really made many people nervous.
Why do people fear Christians so much...?
I would be more terrified by Jihadists who have nothing to live for than a gathering of old Gospel singers or Catholics...
Maybe the feeling I get is different than the paranoid excerpts from above.
When I was a teenager I was very fortunate to be asked to play Piano and B3 at large Gospel gatherings in various areas in St.Louis w/ Babs Robinette and Fontella Bass. I really miss that experience, and the same feeling I got playing back then is what I described from my first visits to Peru and St. Elizabeths Cathedral in NYC.
I believe it to be a feeling of humbleness and joy combined. I still have never been able to label it properly.
But if you never have listened to the singers from a tent revival or Gospel ceremony, you wouldn't know what to think. I can listen to that music and its not the same as actually being there.
I actually would have tears of Joy while performing and many old elderly Black women use to tell me I played the life before, and other really spiritual type of remarks.
I wish I could describe what I felt better, but I haven't felt like that in years.
I would actually walk right through some of the most dangerous neighborhoods in St.Louis with a big smile knowing I was going to go hear some of the finest vocalists in the world.
True story........
Fontella had a record deal years ago and executives tried to tell her to wear sexy clothing, etc. She refused and fought them tooth and nail. They were shocked when they offered her enormous sums of money to sing on Ed Sullivan and let her hair down, etc. She never gave in, and said the Lord gave her that talent and she would rather die than to betray his generous gift.
I have never been so impressed in my life. I would hear these stories as we rehersed prior to her joining in during the ceremony.I still remember how many times she gave me goose bumps. She could have easily have given sermons as she was idolized in the community. She often said the Lord chose her to deliver a message through singing.
If you ever could have heard her sing you might understand what I try to describe.
Oh well, since you wont be able to. Just try and recall Rescue Me. That was Miss B. singing and she was singing about the Lord actually and not some scumbag boyfriend when she recorded that.
I can't expect Europeans to understand this since Gospel is not common there. But if you ever travel to the States skip the guided tours and hit the hood.
FInd the biggest church and just listen to the singing. You can hear it from blocks away.
The same thing when I performed with JD Parran. I played in all black clubs and scared my parents to death when I was 16. But the Brotha's actually look out for you and protect you when they know you are playing in their area of town. I never had to ask for help loading my Rhoses, B3 and CS80 into my van after the gig.
Its a shame American media prefers to show white girls being raped and Chicanos being shot in gangland shootings instead of the more truthful experiences people have. But ratings drive the media, not the truth.
I played in Lutheran white churches too, and damn near fell asleep. What a huge difference.
Members there seem to be uptight and guilty. Black folks just have a blast and share food and celebrate life. Big difference.
But LoL.........those eveil Christians are being persecuted by the American media at every turn, and now these writings....??
This is more sick intolerance coming from a supposedly intolerant society.
It disgusts me beyond description.


----------



## José Herring (May 9, 2010)

I realized Chim. that I didn't answer your question in my post above.

The paper on psychopolitics is one that I ran across in my personal spiritual studies. My thinking is that if you want to know the truth you have to understand where all the lies are coming from. I found that professor Wundt's studies and this paper is what is used to suppress mankind on a spiritual level thus clouding his understanding of all things spiritual including man's innate ability to judge right from wrong. 

I'm actually quite impressed that you have the balls to see the paper for what it is. I've showed it to many others and they can't make heads of tails of it. It's tough to confront. By reading that paper you're looking directly at one of the most insidiously evil plots to rob mankind of all that makes him civil. It's a tough read. I even had a tough time reading it. It makes me cry that man could treat other men with such cruelty as is outlined in psychopolitics.

Like I said I could go on and on, but then I start getting enemies on the forums. So I won't.

best,

Jose


----------



## Narval (May 9, 2010)

josejherring @ Sun May 09 said:


> So you destroy the spirit in modern times and you destroy any idea of life after death of the body and then mankind thinks that he's only got one life to live and he becomes a scared, crazy worried and spiritual a sick person. Then you sell them pills to make it all better!


So it's a drugstore-dealers' conspiracy now! :mrgreen: Drugstore-dealers working hand in hand with psychopolitics practitioners - the former have invented the cure, so now they just need the latter to provide the disease. :twisted: 


_"So you destroy the spirit in modern times and you destroy any idea of life after death of the body and then mankind thinks that he's only got one life to live and he becomes a scared, crazy worried and spiritual a sick person."_

1. What is "the spirit of the modern times?"

2. Who wants to destroy it (TSOTMT), and on what purpose? To replace it with "the spirit of the medieval times," perhaps?

3. Is TSOTMT based on "life after death," on the belief that, after hitting the wall, one continues to live, or is given another chance to somehow come back? That would be an interesting discovery, wouldn't it? What makes you think that TSOTMT is based upon such an enormous delusion?

4. What is so bad about calling a baseless/unreasonable belief for what it is?

5. When a man sees that he has no reasons to believe in fairy tales about afterlife, when he finds sufficient reasons to believe that he only lives once - you think he loses something that he should keep? Actually, nothing is lost except for a few lies. Basing one's own life on some other (mostly dead) people's lies, is that more reasonable to you?

6. Seeing a lie for what it is, how can that be depressing for a sane person? On the contrary, avoiding delusion is uplifting. Becoming scared and "crazy worried" about what is reasonable to believe, well, that looks kind of indicative of some mental/emotional issues.

7. You think a person to be "spiritually sick" because he refuses to base his own life on lies, on other people's beliefs, on delusions, and on obvious hoaxes? I'd say, on the contrary - Trying to be reasonable and practical while keeping distance from pre-made _pret-a-porter_ ideas while preferring to think things out for yourself, I think these are signs of spiritual sanity. I think that actually THAT is the spirit that made the erect man get ahead into the sunlight and leave behind his four-limbed cavemen relatives watching shadows on the walls, scratching each others' backs, and licking each other's wounds that they themselves inflict upon each other.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (May 9, 2010)

josejherring @ Sat May 08 said:


> Just to give some clarity the above quote is from a paper outline the use of psychiatry to spread communism. It's called Psychopolitics and _is the conspiracy that underlies all conspiracies_. It's what people feel is going on but can't quite put their finger on it.



What is the basis for this claim?



> So it's a drugstore-dealers' conspiracy now! Drugstore-dealers working hand in hand with psychopolitics practitioners - the former have invented the cure, so now they just need the latter to provide the disease.



Someone call Tom Cruise.. He's missing out 



> I remember a comment Obama blurted out during his campaign about Pennsylvanians clinging to their Bibles and guns that really made many people nervous.
> Why do people fear Christians so much...?
> I would be more terrified by Jihadists who have nothing to live for than a gathering of old Gospel singers or Catholics...



Do they generally fear Christians? And aren't most people more concerned about said jihadists, than Christians?


----------



## Narval (May 9, 2010)

Christian Marcussen @ Sun May 09 said:


> josejherring @ Sat May 08 said:
> 
> 
> > Just to give some clarity the above quote is from a paper outline the use of psychiatry to spread communism. It's called Psychopolitics and _is the conspiracy that underlies all conspiracies_. It's what people feel is going on but can't quite put their finger on it.
> ...


Why of course the _people's feel_.



edit -


Christian Marcussen @ Sun May 09 said:


> > So it's a drugstore-dealers' conspiracy now! Drugstore-dealers working hand in hand with psychopolitics practitioners - the former have invented the cure, so now they just need the latter to provide the disease.
> 
> 
> Someone call Tom Cruise.. He's missing out


(oh and don't leave the emoticons out when you quote dude or you're missing out  )


----------



## Christian Marcussen (May 9, 2010)

> Why of course the people's feel.


 I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, or if you are serious. Anyway I was referring to the claim that this obscure communist brainwashing manifesto underlies all conspiracies.



> (oh and don't leave the emoticons out when you quote dude or you're missing out  )



Sorry. It was unintentional - a result of copy/paste. I saw your smilies


----------



## Narval (May 9, 2010)

What I was saying is that the basis for that claim is, of course, the people's feel. (see my underline - )



Christian Marcussen @ Sun May 09 said:


> josejherring @ Sat May 08 said:
> 
> 
> > Just to give some clarity the above quote is from a paper outline the use of psychiatry to spread communism. It's called Psychopolitics and _is the conspiracy that underlies all conspiracies_. It's what people feel is going on but can't quite put their finger on it.
> ...


----------



## Christian Marcussen (May 9, 2010)

Narval @ Sun May 09 said:


> What I was saying is that the basis for that claim is, of course, the people's feel. (emoticon insert useless)



Of course? How can that be a basis for a claim like that?


----------



## Narval (May 9, 2010)

Sorry, I edited it, I hope now is clearer.

man have you ever heard of something called sarcasm :mrgreen:


----------



## Christian Marcussen (May 9, 2010)

Narval @ Sun May 09 said:


> Sorry, I edited it, I hope now is clearer.
> 
> man have you ever heard of something called sarcasm :mrgreen:



hehe... well - I'm reading a lot of odd things in this thread that people seem to be very serious about (such a the dead and unborn control the world ). So it's hard to tell :mrgreen: 

Anyway... As I read Jose, he is not saying that people feel it's the conspiracy underlying all others. He claims it is, and then claims that people feel something stemming from that.


----------



## rJames (May 9, 2010)

josejherring @ Sat May 08 said:


> The magnificent tool welded for us by Wundt would be as nothing if it were not for official insistence in civilized countries that "scientific practices" be applied to the problem of the mind.



Heaven forbid that we rely on, "scientific practices," to understand and treat a problem of the mind. That would definitely lean towards communism. We can have none of that.

We òÀ_   Ð¼aÀ_   Ð¼bÀ_   Ð¼cÀ_   Ð¼dÀ_   Ð¼eÀ_   Ð¼fÀ_   Ð¼gÀ_   Ð¼hÀ_   Ð¼iÀ_   Ð¼jÀ_   Ð¼kÀ_   Ð¼lÀ_   Ð¼mÀ_   Ð¼nÀ_   Ð¼oÀ_   Ð¼pÀ_   Ð¼qÀ_   Ð¼rÀ_   Ð¼sÀ_   Ð¼tÀ_   Ð¼uÀ_   Ð¼vÀ_   Ð¼wÀ_   Ð¼xÀ_   Ð¼yÀ_   Ð¼zÀ_   Ð¼{À_   Ð¼|À_   Ð¼}À_   Ð¼~À_   Ð¼À_   Ð¼€À_   Ð¼À_   Ð¼‚À_   Ð¼ƒÀ_   Ð¼„À_   Ð¼…À_   Ð¼†À_   Ð¼‡À_   Ð¼ˆÀ_   Ð¼‰À_   Ð¼ŠÀ_   Ð¼‹À_   Ð¼ŒÀ_   Ð¼À_   Ð¼ŽÀ_   Ð¼À_   Ð¼À_   Ð¼‘À_   Ð¼’À_   Ð¼“À_   Ð¼”À_   Ð¼•À_   Ð¼–À_   Ð¼—À_   Ð¼˜À_   Ð¼™À_   Ð¼šÀ_   Ð¼›À`   Ð¼œÀ`   Ð¼À`   Ð¼žÀ`   Ð¼ŸÀ`   Ð¼ À`   Ð¼¡À`   Ð¼¢À`   Ð¼£À`   Ð¼¤À`   Ð¼¥À`   Ð¼¦À`   Ð¼§À`   Ð¼¨À`   Ð¼©À`   Ð¼ªÀ`   Ð¼«À`   Ð¼¬À`   Ð¼­À`   Ð¼®À`   Ð¼¯À`   Ð¼°À`   Ð¼±À`   Ð¼²À`   Ð¼³À`   Ð¼´À`   Ð¼µÀ`   Ð¼¶À`   Ð¼·À`   Ð¼¸À`   Ð¼¹À`   Ð¼ºÀ`   Ð¼»À`   Ð¼¼À`   Ð¼½Àa   Ð¼¾Àa   Ð¼¿Àa   Ð¼ÀÀa   Ð¼ÁÀa   Ð¼ÂÀa   Ð¼ÃÀa   Ð¼ÄÀa   Ð¼ÅÀa   Ð¼ÆÀa   Ð¼ÇÀa   Ð¼ÈÀa   Ð¼ÉÀa   Ð¼ÊÀa   Ð¼ËÀa   Ð¼ÌÀa   Ð¼ÍÀb   Ð¼ÎÀb   Ð¼ÏÀb   Ð¼Ð              òÀb   Ð¼ÒÀb   Ð¼ÓÀb   Ð¼ÔÀb   Ð¼ÕÀb   Ð¼ÖÀb   Ð¼×Àb   Ð¼ØÀb   Ð¼ÙÀb   Ð¼ÚÀb   Ð¼ÛÀb   Ð¼ÜÀb   Ð¼ÝÀb   Ð¼ÞÀb   Ð¼ßÀb   Ð¼àÀb   Ð¼áÀb   Ð¼âÀb   Ð¼ãÀb   Ð¼äÀb   Ð¼åÀb


----------



## rJames (May 9, 2010)

chimuelo @ Sun May 09 said:


> I remember a comment Obama blurted out during his campaign about Pennsylvanians clinging to their Bibles and guns that really made many people nervous.
> Why do people fear Christians so much...?
> I would be more terrified by Jihadists...



I am equally terrified by both. Organized religion is dogma. You must believe these "facts" as we have determined them. If you do not follow these ways and means, you will burn in hell for eternity.

Rather than my belief which is: the universe is amazing. Amazing beyond any possible comprehension by me. Is there a God? Could very well be. Does he help my team win a football game if I pray for it? Probably not. Cause we're playing a team from the religious school from across town. (otherwise, I'm sure he would)

Does organized religion help people? Yes. No doubt. Does it help everyone? Not necessarily. 

Is there ONE TRUE RELIGION? What should we do about those people who do not "see the light?"

Are the church fathers of any organized religions aware of what their ancestors actually meant by their writings? Or are the rules and tenets of all religions just a vague mirage of the true values of the one true God.

Who will define it for me?


----------



## José Herring (May 9, 2010)

rJames @ Sun May 09 said:


> josejherring @ Sat May 08 said:
> 
> 
> > The magnificent tool welded for us by Wundt would be as nothing if it were not for official insistence in civilized countries that "scientific practices" be applied to the problem of the mind.
> ...



Question the science involved. Always question, always.


----------



## Narval (May 9, 2010)

rJames @ Sun May 09 said:


> Who will define it for me?


But do you really need someone to tell you what to think? Can't you think for yourself? Well, if you think you can't, guess what, you're right! Welcome to the herd, you poor little lost sheep.



josejherring @ Sun May 09 said:


> Always question, always.


Hmm, I find that somewhat questionable... Ah forget it, too hard to find the right questions. I think I'll take that for granted instead.


----------



## rJames (May 9, 2010)

josejherring @ Sun May 09 said:


> [
> Question the science involved. Always question, always.



I PROMISE to question the science, if you PROMISE to question the religion. (always!!)

Will a virtual handshake do for you? o-[][]-o


----------



## rJames (May 9, 2010)

Narval @ Sun May 09 said:


> rJames @ Sun May 09 said:
> 
> 
> > Who will define it for me?
> ...



So sorry Narval. I assumed everyone would know that was a rhetorical question.

Your response is exactly my point. Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 9, 2010)

At least there's one thing we can all agree upon: God commanded us to be liberal.


----------



## José Herring (May 9, 2010)

rJames @ Sun May 09 said:


> josejherring @ Sun May 09 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



What makes you think I don't?


----------



## rJames (May 9, 2010)

josejherring @ Sun May 09 said:


> rJames @ Sun May 09 said:
> 
> 
> > josejherring @ Sun May 09 said:
> ...



Uh-uh. You first. What made you think I don't?

But more importantly, why answer a question with a question instead of just joining in on the proffered handshake? :? 

Furthermore, what makes you think that I think that you don't? At the same time OK? Ready? 1...2...3...


----------



## José Herring (May 9, 2010)

Why would we need to handshake?


----------



## rJames (May 9, 2010)

josejherring @ Sun May 09 said:


> Why would we need to handshake?



OK. To make a long story short.

You posted a quote from a communist manual about psychopolitics and claimed that it's totally in practice at every level of Government in both parties.

It seemed as though you were actually serious that you believed that governments (or just politicians) around the world were in league to destroy religion using science, particularly psychology. That psychology would not have any value or that people would not utilize its merits if not forced to do so by officialdom.

The way you stated, "But here's whats going on as it applies to spirituality in the west: ( be warned though. You're carefully program to disbelieve something that can be so evil as this)," I took to mean that you actually believed that this conspiracy was real.

So, when I stated that religion had not been a real answer for the psychological woes of society for time eternal but rather a way of controlling and gaining power for itself (OK I really didn't state that but only loosely implied it) you responded by telling me to, "Question the science involved. Always question, always."

Whereas I thought that we could make a deal [really meaning to ask everyone in the thread and around the world who thought that religion has been a viable solution to medical, psychological, political (add all areas of human woe) problems] that I would always question the science if they, in turn, would question the religion as well.

Hence the handshake.

Is it a deal? o-[][]-o


----------



## jsaras (May 9, 2010)

rJames @ Sun May 09 said:


> chimuelo @ Sun May 09 said:
> 
> 
> > I am equally terrified by both (Jihadists and Christians) If you do not follow these ways and means, you will burn in hell for eternity.



Mr. James, you need to get out a little more often . There's a world of difference between a Christian and a Jihadist. A Christian wouldn't treat you like you deserve going to hell. The would like to talk to you to convince you to follow their faith to keep from going to hell. They would be disappointed if you said "no", but their only revenge would be to pray for you. 

A Jihadist, on the other hand, would gladly blow himself up to get you to hell right now! 

So on the surface, pehaps they both think that you're going to hell, but it's their actions and behavior toward that count. 

The fact the the U.S. is the most tolerant country for all religions is a testament to our founding fathers who held Judeo-Christian values and placed them in the U.S. Constitutions and it's a testament to the tolerance of the Christian majority.

I know that it's "hipper" to disdain all religions equally, but that is intellectually lazy and dishonest. They are not all the same. They all address different problems and they offer different solutions and they are all exclusivist.


----------



## José Herring (May 9, 2010)

edit


----------



## rJames (May 9, 2010)

Funny, you are so right, I had no idea what your post meant.

FWIW I thought when I challenged you to, " question religion and science," you'd just say, "Agreed!"

I'm not offended in the least by your post. It seems quite obscure, but I'm not offended.

I am more offended that you challenge me to, "question the science, always," which I already do. After all of our conversations, I figured you knew that about me. I question everything.

And maybe a bit bewildered that we had such a long exchange about nothing. 

And then just plain sarcastic regarding your question about what we have to shake hands about since I clearly asked you to agree to question religion as I will question science and then asked if a virtual handshake will do. ...followed by a emoticon of a toast (which is sort of like a handshake between friends.

All meant in a light hearted manner.

@jsaras You are quite right about me needing to get out more often...but let's leave out my personal life.

I don't know anything about "hipper," (that is a softball thrown to anyone who feel they need to hit me out of the park) but I do know that our founding father's had a reason for their idea about separation of church and state.

BTW Jihadist is not a religion as far as I know. So, maybe we are not both talking about "oranges," or "apples."

I'll restate, or maybe clarify, that I am 100% in accord with the founding father's regarding the separation of church and state. That position stays on topic for my diatribe about religions not being the answer for many of mankinds' woes nor for his daily trials including those induced or mitigated by government.


----------



## José Herring (May 9, 2010)

I'm mostly on your side Ron. Mostly. o-[][]-o


----------



## chimuelo (May 9, 2010)

I don't see anything wrong with having faith in something like reincarnation. Nor do I have a problem with those who question its validity.
I am not knowledgeable enough to judge or make a decision, although its nice we can discuss the topic. Personally I lean towards the Ancient Aliens theories lately. And even then I find it fascinating but still I cannot decide which school of thought I believe.
And yes, it seems here in the USA the progressive minded folks find Christians an easy target since most are not aligned with violence. Doing the same to Muslims can be dangerous, so the softer targets are preffered.
I actually use to laugh my ass off at Sam Kinnison and find Bill Maher rather funny too. That's comedy, meant to increase ratings which media relies on here in the States. I think Bill Maher doesn't want to confront angry Muslims or be fired by his sponsor. 
Sure Jesus bashing is cool and causes waves of American believers to write in with dismay, but these are considered safe ratings proponents.
Its funny because I have this idea that the progressive minded folks think bashing the Christian religion will show the Muslim folks they agree on something, when actually a true Jihadist will actually hate them even more for having absolutely no faith.
Personally I try to cover all of my bases.
Here in Vegas when I gamble on the tables I pray to Jesus, Buddah, Allah, Jehovah, Zues, Isis, Thor and Oden.
Why take a chance. One of them is bound to answer.


----------



## rJames (May 9, 2010)

chimuelo @ Sun May 09 said:


> Here in Vegas when I gamble on the tables I pray to Jesus, Buddah, Allah, Jehovah, Zues, Isis, Thor and Oden.
> Why take a chance. One of them is bound to answer.



This is precisely where I disagree with you so vehemently. :D 

Do me a favor and pray to each one for one week while betting. Report the results back to us and we will finally have the answer to the question plaguing philosophers for millennia.

Geez, this is gonna be so much easier than a course in comparative religion.

Now we're getting somewhere.


----------



## Narval (May 9, 2010)

Christian Marcussen @ Sun May 09 said:


> I'm reading a lot of odd things in this thread that people seem to be very serious about (such a the dead and unborn control the world ).





Christian Marcussen @ Sun May 09 said:


> > I once read a theory saying something like: the dead are continuously putting pressure upon us, the living, by forcing us to carry and then to pass on their own heritage to the unborn. Sounds spooky, I know, but if you come to think of it, we are actually living in a world that is set up and led by the dead's rules: their laws, their ideas, their culture. What is our own input in all this? Apparently, almost nonexistent. It's like the dead and the unborn have made a pact over our heads that ensures their perpetuity/ immortality at the expense of our lives. What is for sure is that they, the dead and the unborn, to the greatest extent, determine the way we are living our short lives.
> 
> 
> 
> Are there people who believe this and find it reasonable? If so, on what basis? How do you substantiate a claim like that? With the fear of sounding like a psychopolitical, communist, propagandist, it does sound a bit like the ramblings of a madman :D. It’s only because it has a pseudoreligious nature that it might not be regarded as such.


Claim #1 - The dead control the living.
Facts:
Societies have various means to put pressure upon individuals to ensure they behave in certain, pre-established, ways. Who pre-established those ways? Some people that are now dead. In short, the dead. Whose rules are we obeying? The rules of the dead. Hence the claim, now qualified: The dead, indirectly, through the norms they established, control the behavior of the living people.

Claim #2 - The unborn control the living.
Facts:
The sex drive is very powerful, to the extent that it dis-empowers us as free individuals. We can hardly resist it. It is also called: the urge to procreate. Procreation, bringing other people into this world, dramatically influence one's own life. In this sense, the unborn indirectly _condition_ the living to behave in certain ways in order to bring them (the unborn) into this world. And then, they demand nurturing. I think it is pretty reasonable to call all that: controlling. Indirect, of course, but controlling nonetheless.

Claim #3 - There is hardly any contradiction between the set of norms and pressures that the dead put upon us and the set of pressures that the unborn put upon us. 
Facts:
The pressures from the dead, by the means of the institutions they impose upon us (such as marriage, child care, etc) clearly do favor the interests of the unborn at the expense of the living individual's own interests. To the extent that most people stop having any interests and ambitions for their own, while succumbing completely to the pressures surrounding them.

Claim #4 - The living are conditioned, through education and institutional enforcement, to accept the values of the cultures pre-established by the dead.
Facts:
We live in the countries pre-established by the dead.
We speak with the words of the dead.
We are mostly thinking using the concepts and ideas of the dead.
We are asked to fight each other and to die in the name of the values of the dead (country, democracy, religion, *our* way of living, etc.). And for the sake of the unborn.
Property, like country, are concepts and "realities" invented by the dead.
Culture: laws, social behavior, matrimony, school, the city, customs, class affiliation, and so on - all established and imposed upon us by the dead.

Claim #5 - The dead and the unborn, to the greatest extent, determine the way we are living our short lives.
Fact:
I think, by now, this has become pretty obvious. We, the living people, are conditioned to live our own lives according mostly to norms that are not of our own making. Very little, if at all, is left, unpunished, to our own imagination and decision, uninfluenced by the values of the dead.

Can you deny those facts? "Odd things" say you? "Pseudoreligious" say you? "The ramblings of a madman" say you? What is the basis for your claims, may I ask?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 9, 2010)

Two clarifications of other peoples' posts. I think this is all obvious, but maybe not.

1. I know very little about Scientology, but I do know that L. Freddie Hubbard had it in for psychology. He didn't like it at all.

2. When people talk about "Christians" being conservative, they're talking about American right-wing fundamentalist Christians - aka the religious right. That's certainly not all Christians!


----------



## Narval (May 9, 2010)

chimuelo @ Sun May 09 said:


> Fontella had a record deal years ago and executives tried to tell her to wear sexy clothing, etc. She refused and fought them tooth and nail. They were shocked when they offered her enormous sums of money to sing on Ed Sullivan and let her hair down, etc. She never gave in, and said the Lord gave her that talent and she would rather die than to betray his generous gift.
> I have never been so impressed in my life.


I am impressed too. She acted like a true lady. Only that it's not always all about one's doings, but also about the reasons behind one's doings. I mean, should she have said "I won't dress and make up like a whore because that would be under my dignity" - I personally would have been WAY more impressed.

Using God as the reason for one's noble behavior, is that more impressive and praiseworthy than noble behavior in the name of one's dignity in front of one's own eyes? Is this a sort of namedropping contagion? - "I don't misbehave because God forbids it" (or "because He gave me a talent") - did that bring some kind of a holy aura upon her? I'd say, hardly. It sounds to me very close to "I don't do drugs because my imaginary friend will be upset." (or "because my imaginary friend's been nice to me." - hello?)

Gandhi didn't kick the colonists out of India with a "get out of our Holy Land!" type of argument, but with a "please do leave, gentlemen, for we think it's time your _prolonged_ visit comes to an end" type of argument. Should he have used the religious argument (and Gandhi actually was a religious dude), I'm not sure how much that would have added to his moral stature. (in a religious debate, when accused of being anti-Christian or something, his rebuttal was "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.") 8) 

Innumerable wrongdoings have been made in the name of God. Why? - because God namedropping makes wrongdoings seem right. I don't know of any wrongdoings in the name of one's dignity in front of one's own eyes.


----------



## Ed (May 9, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun May 09 said:


> 1. I know very little about Scientology, but I do know that L. Freddie Hubbard had it in for psychology. He didn't like it at all.



I think you mean psychiatry, and yes they hate it, religiously... When you join you actually have to sign a sworn statement of faith saying basically you are fundamentally against it on religious grounds. Probably because Xenu used psychiatry or something


----------



## Christian Marcussen (May 9, 2010)

Narval @ Sun May 09 said:


> Christian Marcussen @ Sun May 09 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm reading a lot of odd things in this thread that people seem to be very serious about (such a the dead and unborn control the world ).
> ...



Thanks. I _think_ I understand you now. Correct me if I'm wrong. The "theory" simply uses a metaphor of the dead and unborn, to describe the left over institutions and norms we live by? The topic of this thread, lead me to believe that we were talking about something metaphysical - but that's not the case I take it? If so, then no, it's not pseudo-religious or ramblings of a mad-man - just an (unfortunate) metaphor.


----------



## chimuelo (May 10, 2010)

Well I am not sure which God answered last night.
I always take 20 bucks after getting our pay and pick a cold dealer or dead game which isn't hard at 2:00 am.
I pressed 2 x 10's 5 times and left with 3 extra days pay.
I usually leave when I lose or double my money. Last night I took a chance and the Gods favored me. Next week I shall try and lose on purpose so I can continue my risky every 3rd time winning strategy.
Praise The Lord and MGM.


----------



## Narval (May 10, 2010)

Christian Marcussen @ Mon May 10 said:


> Thanks. I _think_ I understand you now. Correct me if I'm wrong. The "theory" simply uses a metaphor of the dead and unborn, to describe the left over institutions and norms we live by? The topic of this thread, lead me to believe that we were talking about something metaphysical - but that's not the case I take it? If so, then no, it's not pseudo-religious or ramblings of a mad-man - just an (unfortunate) metaphor.


those who have died - the dead
those not yet born - the unborn
I think these two metaphors to be pretty suggestive, straightforward, even explicit. Actually, they're little more than shorthands. Anyways, they seem quite appropriate to me. What would make those metaphors "unfortunate" in your eyes? What more _fortunate_ metaphors would you have used?

Yes, nothing metaphysical/transcendental about it - the dead and the unborn literally exert upon us (albeit indirectly) the strong influences I have described. Those strong influences are facts, not speculations or theories. And the "left over institutions" (not really a _leftover_ imo) are only a part of those strong influences. As following:

- The sex drive is not an institution, it is a real power. The institutions (marriage, matrimony, child nurturing in pre-established ways, etc) are only the means to exerting/reinforcing those powers and punish those who refuse to conform to them. 
- The old herd-preserving/promoting norms imposed upon living individuals are real powers. The institutions (brainwashing/school, police, court, etc) are only the means to exerting/reinforcing those powers and punish those who refuse to conform to them. 
- Various other social pressures (shaped ages ago by some dead dudes) are real powers. The institutions (family, nation, governments, media, etc) are only means to exerting/reinforcing those powers and punish those who refuse to conform to them.

Yes, you got the main idea, but you are trying to minimize it. It is as big as can be. Could hardly be bigger imo. It's almost everything in our lives - it occupies them, it inhabits them, it covers them almost completely. Very little is left at our own decision. I find this nothing short of outrageous. 

Just think of it: We, the living, have very little say, if at all, in the way we are leading our own (!) short lives. Also, the relationships among us are hammered and shaped by the norms of some people who are no longer here, and to whom we owe nothing. And, to add insult to injury, those old norms condition our behavior NOT for our own sake, but for the sake of preserving the old ways and old values of those long dead guys. At the most, those old norms are meant to preserve the herd, not the individual. The individual is always the first to be sacrificed in the name of something "beyond" himself - in the name God, of Democracy, of Our Way Of Living.:roll: Who is God, who is Democracy, and who is that "Our" referring to anyways? Us, the living? Then do we have a say in accepting/rejecting those norms? No you don't. Gee, thanks.

Isn't it tragically ironic that we, the living, unquestioningly and mindlessly do obey norms made up by some dead dudes? And made by them on what purpose? - to serve us? Nope. Those norms are made to ensure the survival of their old misconceptions and ways of life. LIFE, eh? I mean, hello?!? They are dead, right? Then, may them rest in peace and trouble us no more. Can we now forget about them and just go on with our own lives as we find appropriate according to our own ideas? Why should we, as living entities endowed with both power of decision and power of action, why should we submit to some dead people's ways, norms, laws, culture, concepts, ideas, and everything?

I know, that's what we do, day in day out, till we hit the wall. What then? Then nothing. Full stop. This is the bare reality and naked truth: like butlers, like slaves, all of our life we just do what we're told to. Mindlessly, unquestioningly. But, me thinks, at least we can start questioning it, and think about it: ok, we're doing all these now, because we've been brainwashed into it - but should we go on doing them? Then why do we have brains? Why are we born with power to decide? Why are we born with power to act on our own accord?

Why?


----------



## Christian Marcussen (May 10, 2010)

> Anyways, they seem quite appropriate to me. What would make those metaphors "unfortunate" in your eyes?


Unfortunate because talking about how the dead and the unborn force us to do things, personalizes it in a way to make it seem as something metaphysical… It is not the dead that force us, but the left over, hard to change, previously established institutions and norms.


----------



## rJames (May 10, 2010)

Yeah, talking about the dead and unborn is a bit hyperbolic.

We can use the terms which are common in this discussion to the same conclusion.

As a gross generalization, history is the word we use for "the dead," and instinct is the word we use for "the unborn." Using dead and unborn seems like it is just to add drama. Makes it sound like we are talking about a horror movie... especially when the topic statement includes reincarnation.


----------



## Narval (May 10, 2010)

Oh please, don't trivialize it, of course I'm not talking about zombies from the graves and aliens from the future. I'm talking about real powers that hammer our lives and dis-empower us as individuals. Dead and unborn are just terms meant to simplify and not to complicate the discussion.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (May 10, 2010)

> Those are just terms meant to simplify and not to complicate the discussion.



Which is why they are unfortunate 

But again, when you say "real powers" you are still only referering to our insticts to breed and various institutions right? No unseen metaphysical force in play?

In the end the real force at play is our genetic makeup, and how evolution has formed us with a desire to reproduce, and be part of social systems.


----------



## Narval (May 10, 2010)

Shortly, no, that's not it, it's far more than that, but to explain it in detail, that would mean to repeat parts that I thought I already made clear.

Well, time to bow out now. Nice talking to you. See ya!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 10, 2010)

> 1. I know very little about Scientology, but I do know that L. Freddie Hubbard had it in for psychology. He didn't like it at all.
> 
> 
> I think you mean psychiatry, and yes they hate it, religiously...




I didn't mean psychiatry, I got it wrong.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (May 10, 2010)

Narval @ Mon May 10 said:


> Shortly, no, that's not it, it's far more than that, but to explain it in detail, that would mean to repeat parts that I thought I already made clear.
> 
> Well, time to bow out now. Nice talking to you. See ya!



You keep saying that it's much more than that, but you've still failed to explain what that 'that' actually is. I understand that we are subjects to our instincts and institutions and norms, and that we have very little say over these on a fundemental level, and I can agree with that to a degree. But beyond that you've lost me... It seems you want it to be much more than this?

Can we get one thing out of the way - just to help me understand it better - yes or no will do if you don't wish to delve more into it: Are there any metaphysical, "magical" aspects to this theory? By that I mean, are there any unseen forces _willfully_ exerting influence over us - a kind of invisible hand guiding things? I gather the answer is no, but you never adressed it directly.


----------



## rJames (May 10, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon May 10 said:


> > 1. I know very little about Scientology, but I do know that L. Freddie Hubbard had it in for psychology. He didn't like it at all.
> >
> >
> > I think you mean psychiatry, and yes they hate it, religiously...
> ...



Nick, are you waiting for someone to notice that you substituted Freddie for Ron? I haven't noticed that yet.

Have you heard L. Ron Hubbard's old vinyl records that he made before he went on the the next plane to manage his own planet? Am I mixing up religions now?


----------



## Jack Weaver (May 10, 2010)

I used to work in a jazz club and L. Freddie Hubbard came in for 5 nights in a row - the whole time I was waiting for and expecting a lecture on Scientology. Went home disappointed... 

Dude had lips of iron though.

.


----------



## midphase (May 10, 2010)

Some very good videos to watch for all involved in this discussion regardless of religious leaning:

Religulous 
http://www.lionsgate.com/religulous/

and the following TED free videos:

http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html (http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_sci ... right.html)

http://www.ted.com/talks/noah_feldman_says_politics_and_religion_are_technologies.html (http://www.ted.com/talks/noah_feldman_s ... ogies.html)

http://www.ted.com/talks/a_j_jacobs_year_of_living_biblically.html (http://www.ted.com/talks/a_j_jacobs_yea ... cally.html)

http://www.ted.com/talks/julia_sweeney_on_letting_go_of_god.html (http://www.ted.com/talks/julia_sweeney_ ... f_god.html)

http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_specter_the_danger_of_science_denial.html (http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_specte ... enial.html)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 10, 2010)

I have several of L. Freddie's records from the CTI era (mid to late '70s). Most of the CTI records are great, down to the gorgeous covers.


----------



## Narval (May 10, 2010)

Christian Marcussen @ Mon May 10 said:


> Narval @ Mon May 10 said:
> 
> 
> > Shortly, no, that's not it, it's far more than that, but to explain it in detail, that would mean to repeat parts that I thought I already made clear.
> ...


No, of course I don't believe there's something magical about it, I'm sorry that I failed to make that bit clear. I don't believe in ghosts. What I believe instead is that we empower to much the products, not of our own imagination, but of _our ancestors' imagination._ (!) I believe we don't really need the norms of the past in order to live our life together in dignity and respect for each other. I believe we'll be better off re-considering those old norms and doing away with most of them.

Yes, basically you got it, we've been brainwashed into behaving according to norms that have been established by some long dead dudes. Do you find it comforting to be brainwashed and conditioned? And by who? - by dudes that no longer exist?! I personally find that sad and humiliating for a living human being.

What I meant by there's more to it, is: we see the world through their (the dead dudes') "eyes" (=cognitive filters), and take for granted what they have established as "true." Countries and borders are "true." Marry, procreate, work, pay taxes, these are "true" - they're expected and enforced. And, even more humiliating, we think in their terms, using their concepts, their ideas, and their language. We have no worldview of our own. It's their worldview all throughout. We are part of their culture. The culture of the dead, administrated and perpetuated by the living. Nice. We don't even have a "world" of our own. We are guests of their "world," the world of the dead. We live in a "world" that has been established by the long dead dudes. Don't you find this thought at least a little spooky?

I see you accept all that not only with great ease, as if normal, necessary, and as if there's nothing to do about it, but even as if it won't be advisable to try to change this status quo. Well, I don't judge you for that, or anyone for that matter. I was just pointing out some facts, while making some value judgments only with regard to the questionable nature of this status quo. And of its immorality re the burden it puts upon the individual endowed with wonderful capacities to think, to doubt, to question, to find his own answers, to make up his own mind, to take his own decisions and then act and build up a life for himself according to his own values, and not according to the values he's been brainwashed into by some long dead dudes. (I keep repeating that expression, just love the way it sounds :mrgreen: )

There. I'm done with it.

End of rant.

(for now :shock: )


----------



## midphase (May 10, 2010)

There's no doubt in my mind...none whatsoever that if Jesus came back, he would be crucified all over (whether physically or socially). I also have no doubt that those who call themselves "born again" would be on the frontline of said crucifixion. 

If one were to study the parts of the bible that strictly relate to Jesus (not the other bullshit written by politicians of the era), then one would realize that Jesus is way more aligned to an Obama-like agenda than a George W. Bush one (an alleged born-again).

Conservatives and tea-partiers alike would hate Jesus...no doubt.


----------



## Ed (May 10, 2010)

Narval @ Mon May 10 said:


> Yes, I agree with that bit, miracles and fairy tales apart,.



And the needless human sacrifice bit I would say.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 10, 2010)

Good definition. Stepping back even farther, I believe that conservatives are more interested in individualism above all while liberals believe that we're all in this together. That's at the root of why I can't stand them (conservatives). 

But that doesn't mean we're entirely socialist. While I think most of us would agree with 1&2 in general - although social democrats like Nixon with his wage and price controls wouldn't  - the difference is that we believe it's society's responsibility to deal with the exceptions...in fact the "opolies" (monopoly, etc.) are the rule rather than the exception.

More later. There are intellectual arguments to support JFK's case as well.


----------



## stonzthro (May 10, 2010)

John, I applaud your level-headed-ness


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 11, 2010)

That concept (freedom and equality being on opposite sides of a scale) is nothing new, of course. We learned that in a political science class I took in college 30 years ago.

I now know that it's actually a conservative concept that we've been under the spell of for too long. There's a little overlap, but political and economic freedom are totally different from one another.


----------

