Religion and Ethics 2.0

[emilynghiem]

Bc the Christians instigated it.

Which ones RWS
Just the ones who wanted to abuse religion for political power?

You don't think there were as many Christian believers killed
for opposing the political abusers?

Look at the Islamists and Jihadist Terrorists taking over govt
regimes in Iraq and other countries, even in Africa and in Asia.

How many Muslims are killed for not going along with the Political Hijackers
abusing religion to do so?

So RWS if you are only using "religion" to mean the
political abusers taking control,
what term do you use for the followers who get killed off
for not following the "false religion for profit of the leaders"

 

[RWS]

You never had a choice.

 

[emilynghiem]

You believe in what you believe, because you were forced to.

^ ??? Where are you getting this RWS

I am not forced to stick to any particular system
but naturally shift to use the system of the person I am addressing.

It's like not being forced to learn Spanish or Chinese,
I can either choose to learn this language myself if I want
to speak directly to someone who only speaks that language.
Or I can choose to go through an Interpreter.

I don't HAVE to speak those languages, it's just MORE CONVENIENT
when that's the language that somebody else understands naturally.

The three languages I find the most effective to use are
* Buddhism to speak with family and community members who
identify Buddhism as their native language and belief system
* Constitutionalism to speak with people in terms of natural
laws, democratic principles and due process
* Christianity to communicate and work with Christians
and translate these same principles and process
into SECULAR terms of peace and justice for all people

What compelling force are you talking about RWS?

The only force I know that compels us is that we
seek TRUTH and JUSTICE that reconciles our
understanding so we resolve conflicts LOGICALLY.

Isn't getting to consistent TRUTH what compels you?
Aren't you also trying to establish truth and eliminate
falsehood, error, abuses and problems/contradictions in the way?

 

[emilynghiem]

You never had a choice.

^ the choice of what religious or secular language/terms I use
depends on the person I am addressing RWS

Can you give me an example?

I can give you one:
If I am talking with you, and you do not use the word "religion" the same way
others do, then as long as I am trying to communicate with YOU
then I use YOUR TERMS YOUR WAY. That's why I keep asking
what do you call these other things.

I switch to YOUR terms when I'm talking with YOU.
So we can make sense to each other.

Do you call that being forced to because I go with YOUR terms?
Or do you call that a choice, because with each person
I choose a different language that works for THAT person.

 

[RWS]

Emily, be real, you never had a choice. You were always going to follow your religion, because it's all you know. Based on birth.

You didn't have an alternative.

I'm going to suggest some. If you let me.

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily, be real, you never had a choice. You were always going to follow your religion, because it's all you know. Based on birth.

You didn't have an alternative.

I'm going to suggest some. If you let me.

???

Which "religion" are you talking about RWS

My parents were Vietnamese Buddhist.
I was brought up secular and following
natural laws and ethics, and still identify as that.

From this path, I learned that forgiving first
helps to reach understanding afterwards
so problem can be resolved together more effectively.

That's something I learned by reasoning, trial and error,
comparing cause and effect.

I came to the understanding that this process of
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE is universal to all people
including atheists/nontheists and Christians/theists.

NOTE: I do NOT believe in the religion you are talking
about that justifies or compels killing and war.

I was never brought up with that.

Are you talking about YOUR upbringing as a Catholic?

If you renounced any false religion to kill or compel wars,
then you and I should be more on the same page.

We both overcame conditioning from our past
and now we believe in a positive approach to prevent abuses
by not teaching the same ways historically in the past.

I think you and I agree on ethics
but you and I use different terms different ways.

Whatever you mean by religion and Christianity
that's not what I mean or believe in either.

So we should be in agreement on ethics,
(it's just that I don't mind using that language
when talking with other Christians.)

If you don't believe in using Christianity or religion at all,
it makes no sense to use that since you don't speak or need it!

I do not require that language or religion.
Are you okay not using it, since you don't believe in using that either?

 

[RWS]

Cool Emily! We're on the same side! At least on the side of hating others over differences in religion!

I'm sorry if I got you wrong before. But we're on the same page now!

I highly hate religious fanatics that kill other people over their religion.

And something needs to be done about them. My way is science...

That may take disproving "god", or finding other logical ways to disprove the hate.

I'm on the side of truth and being good.

 

[emilynghiem]

Cool Emily! We're on the same side! At least on the side of hating others over differences in religion!

I'm sorry if I got you wrong before. But we're on the same page now!

I highly hate religious fanatics that kill other people over their religion.

And something needs to be done about them. My way is science...

That may take disproving "god", or finding other logical ways to disprove the hate.

I'm on the side of truth and being good.

Okay I'm glad we have that understanding.
I know it's weird trying to establish that over the internet.
I'm sure if we were talking in person, some of that would be easier.

Let's explore ways of using science to prove the positive ethics are better
and to prove which ways are destructive and harmful.

To make this as generic and universally applicable to all cases as possible,
I have suggested proving sociological Statistics follow the patterns of
* forgiveness (and degrees of forgiving and including others equally)
CORRELATING with rates/degrees of success in
healing mental and physical conditions and also reconciling RELATIONSHIPS
while
* UNFORGIVENESS and rejection (instead of inclusion)
CORRELATING with
FAILURE to heal or recover from mental or physical ill conditions
or reconcile conflicts in relationships

These patterns can be shown in replicated studies
across different religious, secular or political affiliations and groups.

The BEAUTY and benefits of such a scientific based study RWS are
* it applies to ALL groups, not just religious abusive ones, but
political or corporate groups that oppress and abuse people.
so it will solve the same conflicts you cite with religions
but with other groups that oppress, abuse, kill and harm
* the process of demonstrating the healing effects of Forgiveness
will benefit people suffering from all levels of social, physical and mental ills
(the studies can be replicated to help patients suffering from PTSD suicidal
disorders, drug addiction or abuse, sex addictions or abuse, eating or cutting disorders,
schizophrenia, cancer, diabetes, and any other conditions of mental or physical ills

So it isn't just "belief in God" that would be the factor to study
but believe in a RETRIBUTIVE UNFORGIVING God that punishes and judges
vs. believing in a FORGIVING God that loves and INCLUDES all people without judging by conditions

A double-sided study can demonstrate both patterns.

But fine RWS if you want to study the consequences and health levels
of people "who believe in God" and try to prove scientifically that is harmful,
we can compare the study I propose to the one you propose.

My premise is the common factor that determines if
people get abusive and kill/rape/wage war on others
is UNFORGIVENESS

So we can measure the DEGREES of
either Unforgiveness and Forgiveness
to demonstrate which factor correlates
with Negative or Positive outcomes using Statistics.

Does this clarification sound good to you?
What would you suggest?

 

[RWS]

That's way too complicated. I suggest the truth.

 

[RWS]

And see who can and cannot deal with it.

 

[ding]

That's way too complicated. I suggest the truth.

You mean like all religions are evil?

 

[Taz]

That's way too complicated. I suggest the truth.

You mean like all religions are evil?

No, just wrong.

 

[ding]

That's way too complicated. I suggest the truth.

You mean like all religions are evil?

No, just wrong.

Let’s see what RWS says.

 

[emilynghiem]

That's way too complicated. I suggest the truth.

You mean like all religions are evil?

No, just wrong.

That's cool, Taz and RWS
We can set up a study and show by measurable
Statistics what the CORRELATED patterns are.

I am guessing RWS wants to show this:
A. measure people's degree of belief in God and/or Christianity
B. show how this correlates with their harmful actions toward others

For Taz there seems to be a marked concern
for Islamic believers who "lie" and "really want to impose
political religious laws on others over Civil and Constitutional laws"

ding this could also be proven by psychological screening
such as the Ft. Hood Shooter should have received. He's a prime
example of someone in denial who was sympathetic with ISIS
and wanted to go fight and win that war. Also the mindset of
the surviving bomber in Boston. There are also other people
we could study who have the cult mindset of Jihadist sympathizers.

So it is possible to show this scientifically, WHICH people
have the dangerous criminal disorders CORRELATED with
religious beliefs they espouse.

NOTE: ding and RWS when Scott Peck first scoped out
if it could be proven that spiritual influences were causing
Schizophrenic voices in people's heads, he started out with
the OPPOSITE premise which he intended to prove, which
was that his Catholic priest friend was WRONG. Peck believed
going into his preliminary observations, using the Scientific
method, that he would prove this "nonsense" was explainable
by science, and it was all delusions from chemical misfirings
in the brain that could be remedied with proper medications.

Instead, after Peck observed the stages and changes that
the two patients went through, while applying the steps of
deliverance and exorcism as a form of therapy to remove
the "demonic" personalities dominating their will and minds,
he came to the OPPOSITE conclusion of what he intended to prove.

Actually by the second interview he was already convinced that
the Schizophrenic voices were not coming from the patients but
from some outside source that could tap into his unconscious
and tell him things nobody else had any knowledge of including
his patients he never told those personal things. And by the time
he finished working the stages, he saw the same patterns that the
priest had told them this process of spiritual healing would follow.

Peck understood that although the spiritual factors and forced
were still faith based and couldn't be proven, the PATTERNS of
the stages and changes from sickness to healing and cure
DID follow MEASURABLE observable conditions that were
quantifiable by science. It took him 8-10 more years to put
this in words and publish a book explaining as best he could
what he saw and experienced, given his mindset of a scientist
that thinks more in secular terms and scientifically measurable
proof. So he made the distinction between the faith based part
that only him and his team saw going on which THEY saw proof
of that other people didn't see. And the EFFECTS and changes/stages
that could be observed and measured by quantifiable degrees, which
he compared to current methods already used in psychotherapy that
is based on observing patient's healthy and unhealthy behaviors.

Also ding and Taz with the advances in technology we have
today, we are close to being able to scan and measure ABNORMALITIES
in the brain. So RWS could well be right that SCIENCE might show
which people of which beliefs show behavior, attitudes, or BRAIN
SCANS of oppressive abusive people who want to impose and
force others to their way of thinking or beliefs.

We could set up studies that show CORRELATION of
certain beliefs with certain behaviors or even brain scans
that aren't healthy or normal.

And in the process ding such studies could also end up
showing to RWS that it isn't the belief in God that is
causing the sick mindsets, but whether the Subjects
express certain degrees of Forgiveness and Unforgiveness.

His study as he suggests could end up showing
equal amounts of bullying abusive people among
either Theists or Nontheists.

With Taz group, measuring Muslims and Nonmuslims,
also, the same degree and percentage of oppressive/aggressive
personalities, "pathological liars with criminal intent to deceive,"
and "politically wanting to impose their beliefs on others" could
show up in BOTH groups and not just Muslims who could
prove to be normal 90-98% with just 2-10% having abnormal
levels of sociopathic or other criminal abusive disorders
as the going rate of the regular population.

We COULD invest research funds into developing brain
scans and methods of SCREENING people for such disorders
so we could run studies on
* liberal vs. conservative identities to see any correlation
* Muslim vs. Nonmuslim
* Atheist vs. Theist
* Buddhist vs. Christian
etc. etc.
And see what that stats show.

My premise is that across ANY groups, whether liberal
or conservative, Theist or Nontheist (or as RWS and Taz
question as Christian or Muslim causing the worst threats)
the factors that show the positive and negative CORRELATIONS
would be degrees of FORGIVENESS and UNFORGIVENESS,
regardless of the person's identity or tradition of beliefs.

 

[RWS]

I forgive everybody, As long as they realize what they did wrong. And say they won't do it again.

That's what I'm about. I never want to see a repeat of the horrible things that religion will cause. Because next thing, is nuclear.

 

[RWS]

The next religious war will involve nukes or other wmds. How do we stop the next religious war from causing that much destruction.

Education? Eradication? Or defense?

 

[RWS]

On the side of education for now. Though I'm not educating those that need to be made educated. We can't do shit, except holler at each other.

 

[emilynghiem]

The next religious war will involve nukes or other wmds. How do we stop the next religious war from causing that much destruction.

Education? Eradication? Or defense?

Dear RWS I believe that people who have figured it out
will connect using the academic institutions to address
prison, health care, and trafficking/immigrations issues.

That way, by taking a more neutral inclusive approach,
groups that are either religious or political can be involved equally.

There are a number of ways we could focus and organize outreach:
1. connecting through media to set up solutions along the Border
for prison, health care, and immigration reforms
2. addressing medical demands, R&D with a focus on studying the
impact of spiritual healing therapy on curing cancer, drug addictions,
sexual abuse, and mental and criminal illness so this also solved
problems with criminal justice by taking a medical approach to prevention
3. uniting women's outreach (across political and/or religious lines)
to organize resources to end poverty, abuse, rape and trafficking

If you look at which political and religious leaders are inciting media
attention, we can use that as a catalyst to organize around solutions.

(Even the diversity of political candidates, and their various media
followings, can help organize teams to SOLVE each issue instead of
fighting over control of the media narrative, parties, or govt. I'd like to
use a combination of internet media, public radio, and party outreach
to organize people in teams to address solutions to each focus issue.
SEE www.10million.net for proposed campaign around 5 Pacifica stations)

A. Trump and Kim Jong Un getting stuck in negotiations over nuclear
weapons could expand on their approach to economic plans by adding
considerations for national development in production facilities including
sustainable health care for workers built into the system. Instead of just
disagreeing on terms for disarming one country or another, what are the
plans to REINVEST those resources into teaching hospitals to create more
jobs in providing longterm medical care as part of a viable national economy.

B. Instead of fighting over law enforcement on the Border, and whether to invest
in Walls and military security or in more social service support for immigrants,
why not organize tracks for taxpayers to invest in BOTH as they prefer. Let the
churches and charities manage cost effective LEGAL means of accommodating
and caring for the migrant workers and families by setting up campus cooperative
programs providing social services through educational internships and supervised
training as part of university partnerships; and let military and govt secure prisons
and guard checkpoint procedures around these sites. So develop both at the same time.

C. Identify areas where environmental cleanup, development, restoration and reforms
are needed, and create jobs and education around these areas; where the COST of the
projected work over time is assessed, and the VALUE of the land, wildlife and wilderness
is SET to be worth that much. Then create a system of issuing credit and currency against
the value of the land and conservation program to maintain it. So this funds jobs and
education based on holding that land as collateral to back the financing; and investors
who lend, donate or pay money to back the financing can own shares in the programs
and property until the money is paid back over time. California could refinance its economy
based on evaluating the true cost of restoring and maintaining its natural resources.

 

[ding]

The next religious war will involve nukes or other wmds. How do we stop the next religious war from causing that much destruction.

Education? Eradication? Or defense?

Seems to me that you are the only one trying to start a religious war, bro.

 

[emilynghiem]

The next religious war will involve nukes or other wmds. How do we stop the next religious war from causing that much destruction.

Education? Eradication? Or defense?

Seems to me that you are the only one trying to start a religious war, bro.

Dear ding
RWS is trying to apply Scientific Methods
to discern and PROVE what is the negative
influence of "religions" or "beliefs in God" that
predict oppressive, abusive violent behavior.

That is a worthwhile study, to identify WHAT
factor(s) in "religious beliefs about God"
DETERMINE the cause of religious abuse and violence.

I also want to show SCIENTIFICALLY the
correlated effects of Spiritual Healing on
mental, physical and CRIMINAL disorders and abusive addictions.

If we can show SCIENTIFICALLY that
people's behavior changes from sick to normal,
wouldn't that be a BENEFIT of such studies ding?