Armageddon: The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

michaelsherlock
michaelsherlock's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2012-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Armageddon: The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

I decided to write this article to point out the danger of the Armageddon, not as a prophecy which will come to fruition as a result of divine forces, but rather, one which has the potential to unfold due to certain psychological factors associated with the belief in an impeding apocalypse, or Armageddon.
The origins and reality of the Christian Armageddon enunciated in the book of Revelation (Rev. 16:16) are dubious. The Armageddon describes the final battle here on earth between the forces of good and evil, a battle that will herald the apocalypse (Anc. Greek: apokalypsis; meaning to “uncover, reveal or disclose&rdquoEye-wink The anonymous author, who is called “John,” (Rev. 1:1), used the term Armageddon, claiming it to be of Hebrew origin, yet nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures from which this author and the various other NT authors drew, had this term been used. The term has been translated in various manuscripts of the NT in a number of ways. Some manuscripts translate this “Greek transliteration,” of the alleged Hebrew term to mean; “Mount Megiddo,” “City of Megiddo,” “land of Megiddo,” “Mount of Assembly,” “City of Desire,” and “His Fruitful Mountain.” Yet, as mentioned, nowhere throughout the entire corpus of Hebrew Scripture, does this term make an appearance. It seems to have been a word which was unique to “John” and only “John,” for in no other book of the New Testament can it be found either.
Here we must make a brief distinction between two semi-related terms, which have oft times been confused. Armageddon, the possibly fictitious Greek transliteration of the alleged Hebrew term “Mount Megiddo, or anyone of its other possible renderings, and the term, apocalypse, which as stated, means “revealing” and pertains to the final revelation of “God’s word/Logos/presence on earth”! Apocalypses can be found in the Hebrew Scriptures, in particular in the books of Daniel, Ezekiel, Zechariah and Isaiah, and outside of the official Hebrew Canon, in books like 2 Baruch, 3 Baruch, Ezra, Enoch, The Apocalypse of Abraham and the book of the Jubilees. Further, we find the concept of the apocalypse within the official Gospels (see Mark 13, Matthew 24 and Luke 21) and expanded within the epistles of Paul (see 2 Corinthians and 1 Thessalonians). There are also apocryphal Christian texts which speak of the apocalypse, such as the Apocalypse of Paul, the Apocalypse of Peter and other non-canonized Christian works.
Christianity took the Hebrew apocalyptic tradition, which the Hebrews had themselves adopted from more ancient Persian and Egyptian traditions, and applied it to the second coming of Christ, which, according to Christian mythology, would be preceded by the Armageddon, or final battle, asserted to act as the brutal and bloody gateway for the earthly return of the all-loving God!

The town of Megiddo is a real place located in the north of Israel and was recorded in the OT as the location of many ancient battles (see Judges 5:19, 2 Kings 9:27, 2 Kings 23:29), of which, the archaeological evidence seems to support. So it may be that the 1st or 2nd century author of the book of Revelation was symbolically locating his final mythological battle between the forces of good and evil at Megiddo, due to the fact that various battles were recorded as taking place there centuries ago.

Whether the author of Revelation located his final battle in Megiddo for symbolic reasons or not, one thing is certain, the final battle as described by the author of Revelation, has not taken place yet! This does not mean that countless people throughout history haven’t claimed that the end was imminent, for barely a year has passed without some heralder of doom, screaming at the top of his lungs, “the end is nigh,” causing believers to fall to their knees in prayer and non-believers to fall on their faces with laughter!
Just to give you an idea of how many times Christians have predicted the end of the world and been wrong, I will provide the following list which is neither comprehensive nor exhaustive.


• 70-100 CE – Gospels and Pauls Epistles (New Testament) redicted
that the end of days and Jesus’ second coming would occur in the
lifetime of the first century Christians.

• 90 CE: Saint Clement 1 predicted that the world would end during
his lifetime.

• 2nd Century CE: Members of the Montanist movement predicted
that Jesus would return during their lifetime and establish the
New Jerusalem in the city of Pepuza in Asia Minor.

• 365 CE: Hilary of Poitiers, announced that the end would come
about in 365 CE.

• 375 to 400 CE: Saint Martin of Tours predicted that the end would
happen sometime before 400 CE.

• 500 CE: Hippolytus and the Christian academic Sextus Julius
Africanus predicted the end of the world in 500 CE.

• 968 CE: An eclipse was interpreted as a prelude to the end of the
world by the army of the German emperor Otto III.

• 1000-JAN-1: Many Christians in Europe predicted the end of the
world in 1000 CE.

• 1000-MAY: The body of Charlemagne was disinterred on
Pentecost. A legend had arisen that an emperor would rise from
his sleep to fight the Antichrist.

• 1005-1006: A famine throughout Europe was seen as a sign of the
end of the world and Jesus’ second coming.

• 1147: Gerard of Poehlde believed that the millennium had actually
started in 306 CE during Constantine's reign. Thus, the world end
was expected in 1306 CE.

• 1179: John of Toledo predicted the end of the world during 1186.

• 1205: Joachim of Fiore predicted in 1190 that the Antichrist was
already in the world, and that King Richard of England would
defeat him.

• 1346 and later: The black plague spread across Europe, killing one
third of the population. This was seen as the prelude to an
immediate end of the world.

• 1496: This was approximately 1500 years after the birth of Jesus.
Some mystics in the 15th century predicted that the millennium
would begin during this year.

• 1524: Many astrologers predicted the imminent end of the world
due to a world-wide flood.

• 1533: Melchior Hoffman predicted that Jesus' return would happen
a millennium and a half after the nominal date of his execution, in
1533.

• 1669: The Old Believers in Russia believed that the end of the
world would occur in this year. 20 thousand burned themselves to
death between 1669 and 1690 to protect themselves from the
Antichrist.

• 1689: Benjamin Keach, a 17th century Baptist, predicted the end
of the world for this year.

• 1736: British theologian and mathematician William Whitson
predicted a great flood similar to Noah's for OCT-13 of this year.

• 1783: On JUN-08, a volcanic eruption in southern Iceland started.
It pumped massive amounts of toxic dust, sulphur dioxide and
fluorine into the atmosphere. Cattle died, crops failed, and about
one quarter of the island's population died of starvation. Many
predicted that the end of the world was imminent.

• 1794: Charles Wesley, one of the founders of Methodism, thought
that Doomsday would occur in this year.

• 1830: Margaret McDonald, a Christian prophetess, predicted that
Robert Owen would be the Antichrist. Owen helped found New
Harmony, IN.

• 1832: Joseph Smith (1805-1844) was the founder of the Mormon
Church and predicted the end of the world in this year.


In Dave Hunt’s, ‘An Urgent Call to a Serious Faith,’ he asserts:

"Current events seem to be heading in that direction and leading to Armageddon. That horrible war will bring the intervention of Jesus Christ from heaven to rescue Israel and to destroy Antichrist and his world government. All indications today are that we are indeed heading toward a world government.
The Bible declares that Antichrist will control all banking and commerce in the entire world with a number, a remarkable prophecy anticipating modern computer technology."

If one carefully reads the excerpt above, it becomes clear that Hunt, and those like him, are searching for meaning in words and events that are altogether barren. He says; “current events seem to be heading in that direction and leading to Armageddon!” Weren’t they also heading in that direction during the collapse of the Roman Empire with the brutal strife between the Goths and the Vanguards, couldn’t those living during the great plagues of Europe during the first few Christian centuries have also seen that the world was heading toward Armageddon. Take for example, the Antonine Plague which wiped out over 10 million people across Europe and the Near East, surely with the wars that were occurring simultaneously, these times would have seemed like the world was heading for Armageddon. Or what about at the outbreak of World War 1, Ahh! The world is heading for Armageddon, or even World War 2, Ahh! The world is on the brink of Armageddon! How about the outbreak of the Sars Virus, or any of the thousands of times throughout our history where times have seemed to fit the description of the “End of Days?”

Curiously, every apocalyptic religion claims to possess the exclusive antidote to the horrors which will ensue during this terrifying time and each of these apocalyptic religions have promoted the end of the world in order to scare people into submission.

There is a danger that such an Armageddon can be brought about, not by god but rather, by man himself. This could happen as a result of what psychologists call a ‘self-fulfilling Prophecy.’

In The Concise Corsini Encyclopaedia of Psychology, it describes a Self-fulfilling Prophecy in the following words:

"The “self-fulfilling prophecy” is another interesting phenomenon in which an expectation about what will happen influences one’s behavior. Archibald has reviewed possible interpretations of such effects. An expectation of failure may arouse anxiety so that a person tries to alleviate such feelings, or the aroused state may produce inappropriate effort (trying too hard or paying attention to the wrong cues). Alternatively, an expectation of a favorable outcome may simply increase effort and thereby facilitate performance. A person highly involved in a task may be oriented primarily to preserve self-esteem or some important value. Therefore, the task or goal may be redefined to avoid disconfirmation of the expectation."

If Christianity or any of the other apocalyptic religions spread to the point that all major governments are infected with such beliefs, along with their citizens, then it is possible that we as a collective might bring about a self-fulfilled Armageddon.

And what if the apocalyptic passages in the various Scriptures were written with this knowledge of psychology in mind? Or, perhaps it was seen as being a very successful scare tactic, one which could gain vast numbers of followers quickly!

Your thoughts!   

You can always trust a person in search of the truth, but never the one who has found it. MANLY P. HALL


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
I may be wrong

michaelsherlock wrote:


And what if the apocalyptic passages in the various Scriptures were written with this knowledge of psychology in mind? Or, perhaps it was seen as being a very successful scare tactic, one which could gain vast numbers of followers quickly!

Your thoughts!   

We've seen Waco and Jim Jones etc., so it does happen, but not often. It seems that the believers generally aren't quite that crazy.

I've read that a high percentage of US Christians believe in the Rapture, but do they really, or are they just trying to get attention?


michaelsherlock
michaelsherlock's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2012-05-04
User is offlineOffline
x wrote:michaelsherlock

x wrote:

michaelsherlock wrote:


 

And what if the apocalyptic passages in the various Scriptures were written with this knowledge of psychology in mind? Or, perhaps it was seen as being a very successful scare tactic, one which could gain vast numbers of followers quickly!

Your thoughts!   

We've seen Waco and Jim Jones etc., so it does happen, but not often. It seems that the believers generally aren't quite that crazy.

I've read that a high percentage of US Christians believe in the Rapture, but do they really, or are they just trying to get attention?

 

Good question.  But having studied belief from a social-psychological and psychological point of view, I tend to think that once the believer has made a commitment to a given belief, for whatever motivation in the beginning, they tend to honor that commitment internally, leading to real belief.

You can always trust a person in search of the truth, but never the one who has found it. MANLY P. HALL


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
I think I agree

michaelsherlock wrote:

x wrote:

michaelsherlock wrote:


 

And what if the apocalyptic passages in the various Scriptures were written with this knowledge of psychology in mind? Or, perhaps it was seen as being a very successful scare tactic, one which could gain vast numbers of followers quickly!

Your thoughts!   

We've seen Waco and Jim Jones etc., so it does happen, but not often. It seems that the believers generally aren't quite that crazy.

I've read that a high percentage of US Christians believe in the Rapture, but do they really, or are they just trying to get attention?

Good question.  But having studied belief from a social-psychological and psychological point of view, I tend to think that once the believer has made a commitment to a given belief, for whatever motivation in the beginning, they tend to honor that commitment internally, leading to real belief.

 It can be difficult for an atheist to understand, but true believers must have decided to abrogate critical thinking in matters of faith, even if they are capable of being quite rational in other areas.

The missus, who was raised as an atheist finds my mother to be incomprehensible in this matter. She says: 'she's an intelligent woman, how can she believe in this Christian nonsense?'

Presumably, the same psychological 'rules' apply to atheists, but the belief that is committed to is critical thinking rather than dogma.

 

So, yes, the writers of religious rhetoric almost certainly chose to write the sort of thing that persuaded people.

Or another way of looking at it is that these memes survived. There will have been many different religious teachings, but the scare tactics got results and propagated.

 


michaelsherlock
michaelsherlock's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2012-05-04
User is offlineOffline
x wrote:michaelsherlock

x wrote:

michaelsherlock wrote:

x wrote:

michaelsherlock wrote:


 

And what if the apocalyptic passages in the various Scriptures were written with this knowledge of psychology in mind? Or, perhaps it was seen as being a very successful scare tactic, one which could gain vast numbers of followers quickly!

Your thoughts!   

We've seen Waco and Jim Jones etc., so it does happen, but not often. It seems that the believers generally aren't quite that crazy.

I've read that a high percentage of US Christians believe in the Rapture, but do they really, or are they just trying to get attention?

Good question.  But having studied belief from a social-psychological and psychological point of view, I tend to think that once the believer has made a commitment to a given belief, for whatever motivation in the beginning, they tend to honor that commitment internally, leading to real belief.

 It can be difficult for an atheist to understand, but true believers must have decided to abrogate critical thinking in matters of faith, even if they are capable of being quite rational in other areas.

The missus, who was raised as an atheist finds my mother to be incomprehensible in this matter. She says: 'she's an intelligent woman, how can she believe in this Christian nonsense?'

Presumably, the same psychological 'rules' apply to atheists, but the belief that is committed to is critical thinking rather than dogma.

 

So, yes, the writers of religious rhetoric almost certainly chose to write the sort of thing that persuaded people.

Or another way of looking at it is that these memes survived. There will have been many different religious teachings, but the scare tactics got results and propagated.

 

 

Yes and those scare tactics have become part of the political tool belt as well.

You can always trust a person in search of the truth, but never the one who has found it. MANLY P. HALL


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
The hard part

michaelsherlock wrote:

Yes and those scare tactics have become part of the political tool belt as well.

They have a lot in common. Both politics and religion are forms of persuasion.

Now to work out the best ways to combat this...

Rational response and education must help, as does setting an example (ie atheists aren't that evil after all).

Rhetoric and scare tactics may also have a place.

 

Looking at the gradual reduction of religious belief in Europe should give clues.

 Armageddon a bit tired though, so will have to think about this tomorrow.


michaelsherlock
michaelsherlock's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2012-05-04
User is offlineOffline
x wrote:michaelsherlock

x wrote:

michaelsherlock wrote:

Yes and those scare tactics have become part of the political tool belt as well.

They have a lot in common. Both politics and religion are forms of persuasion.

Now to work out the best ways to combat this...

Rational response and education must help, as does setting an example (ie atheists aren't that evil after all).

Rhetoric and scare tactics may also have a place.

 

Looking at the gradual reduction of religious belief in Europe should give clues.

 Armageddon a bit tired though, so will have to think about this tomorrow.

 

Yes, it seems that religion and politics have always been bedfellows.  I am reminded of a saying of Aristotle's:

Also he (the tyrant) should appear to be particularly earnest in the service of the Gods; for if men think that a ruler is religious and has a reverence for the Gods, they are less afraid of suffering injustice at his hands, and they are less disposed to conspire against him, because they believe him to have the very Gods fighting on his side.

 

Aristotle. Politics. (trans. Benjamin Jowett.) Oxford, at Clarendon Press. (1920). Pg. 230

You can always trust a person in search of the truth, but never the one who has found it. MANLY P. HALL


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Mike

Hi Mike,

The psychological theory is a presupposition on your part that the Bible is false, thus Armageddon is false, but will happen via the power of psychological "belief." Though you have yet to justify in reference towards your epstemology, nor have you refuted anything. You are recycling very old arguments again that have been answered. The notion of a psychological reasoning for the apostles means to die for the sake of Jesus Christ though is an ad hominem of your position since they witnessed and were constantly around him.

So address your presupposition and the means of justificiation and correlate this to your epistemology, otherwise you're just writing crap and don't even have an argument.

Due to the dating of the work, and since John was the only one alive who was an apostle at that time, one can infer his authorship. On top of that, we have internal style similarities that one cannot dismiss. So to simply put John in quotes as the author is an act of ignorance and lack of scholarship. As a formal textual critic, I can speak on this in specific ways vai the science of textual criticism.

Your armageddon point I don't get, you're gonna need to clarify.

Yes, it is currently Mt. Tabor as the "original place," but whether this place is going to be the area where the anti-christ is dealt with one cannot be dogmatic.

Via the means of progressive revelation, Paul THOUGHT that Christ was gonna come back in his life time in his early letters (Galatians, I, II Thessalonians) but no longer has this view in his later epistles. This was not a dogmatic doctrine.

Justin Martyr also thought that Christ would come back at 1000 AD. But Paul at least understood when Jesus said that nobody knows the day or hour except the Father who is in heaven.

Those other people are not relavant. What's relavant is what Jesus said in reference to the Father.

Weak presuppositions, the lack of understanding regarding basic theology, textual criticism and simple understanding of the work as a whole. This article so far has been among the top in the category of sloppy and recycled junk already dealt with.

Think of something original why don't you that has yet to be refuted.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

 

 

 

 

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 740
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Armageddon

x wrote:

michaelsherlock wrote:

 

And what if the apocalyptic passages in the various Scriptures were written with this knowledge of psychology in mind? Or, perhaps it was seen as being a very successful scare tactic, one which could gain vast numbers of followers quickly!

Your thoughts!   

We've seen Waco and Jim Jones etc., so it does happen, but not often. It seems that the believers generally aren't quite that crazy.

I've read that a high percentage of US Christians believe in the Rapture, but do they really, or are they just trying to get attention?

Comes about after the collapse of civilization. According to the book, and in our interpretation- it's the evil people destroying the evil people. It's a shoot out, everyone against everyone. The good go into hiding during the process. --JC, the hand of every man will be against his brother, and by the hand of man will man's blood be shed. Our understanding is---Christianity,s mission is to remove civilization, if/when successful that means there are no police forces or military. The people are on their own. For a while the masses are good, but over time they return to evil doing. OT- vengeance is mine says the lord. This is the time of that revenge. God is a working of the mind there-fore its a mental situation. No one is propelling them into it other then themselves.  JC- it will be as in the days of Noah, they eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage then flood took them all away. It was an Armageddon of it's time. The flood at the time of Noah was not H2-O. They became so evil they flooded over with hate and anger. They could no longer sustain any human relations---they killed each other. This was at a time when those floks weren't under civil law. The Ark was a place of safety and to keep records, it was not a boat. The killing covered the greatest (highest mountains, one's of stature) of them to the least. Sodom and Gomorrah undertook the same fate.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
Wreckers of civilisation

Old Seer wrote:
Our understanding is---Christianity,s mission is to remove civilization, if/when successful that means there are no police forces or military. The people are on their own. 

That may take some time, so I'm not too worried in my lifetime.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10371
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Lol. If christianity

Lol. If christianity succeeds, it dies.

When can the rest of us gtfo of here? Before the christians suicide us all?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 740
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Nope

Vastet wrote:
Lol. If christianity succeeds, it dies. When can the rest of us gtfo of here? Before the christians suicide us all?

 

Not so, If civilization succeeds at making peace it dissolves itself, It exists on contention and superiority from which wars are caused. Civilization has never solved a single problem except materialism-which keeps the process in turmoil. The animal cannot solve itself. Armageddon destroys the evil doers, not the good doers. Civilization can only be instituted by liars and maintained by such. That's why politicians have to lie. Try it yourself----how would you install civilization without lies. How would you get "me" to be subject to you?  Smiling

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 740
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
It should come about

x wrote:

Old Seer wrote:
Our understanding is---Christianity,s mission is to remove civilization, if/when successful that means there are no police forces or military. The people are on their own. 

That may take some time, so I'm not too worried in my lifetime.

 

in about 20 years or less. All that needs to be done is show conclusively that what is present;y seen as Christianity "is not". This is what the "Alpha Smurf" is up to. That's why I am here. The info I post here is also being given in other places. What will you do when that happens. The world of civilization collapses. We are here to cause that to happen---not by force nor military power, but by the spirit of the masses alone. If you are 50 years old and in good health you will see it. Which side will you ultimately choose, those who love evil or those who love good. We do not forward European Christianity--as that isn't Christianity. We are between all sides.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:Vastet

Old Seer wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Lol. If christianity succeeds, it dies. When can the rest of us gtfo of here? Before the christians suicide us all?

Not so, If civilization succeeds at making peace it dissolves itself, It exists on contention and superiority from which wars are caused. Civilization has never solved a single problem except materialism-which keeps the process in turmoil. The animal cannot solve itself. Armageddon destroys the evil doers, not the good doers. Civilization can only be instituted by liars and maintained by such. That's why politicians have to lie. Try it yourself----how would you install civilization without lies. How would you get "me" to be subject to you?  Smiling

 

Civilization is the infrastructure we all rely on to survive.  Without it, there would be no irrigation, no large farms, no herds of livestock, no freezers, no electricity, no grocery stores, no weapons and ammunition, no mines, no smelting, no metal, no drilling, no plastics, nothing.  Nada.  Don't knock civilization.  You can not convince me that you would be able to support yourself without it.  I once tried it for a couple of years and it is not possible to live anything like a comfortable life without assistance from your local feed store and grocery store.  Having a job with real money helps as well.  And money and jobs only happen when there is a civilization to support the population.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 740
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Look up the

cj wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Lol. If christianity succeeds, it dies. When can the rest of us gtfo of here? Before the christians suicide us all?

Not so, If civilization succeeds at making peace it dissolves itself, It exists on contention and superiority from which wars are caused. Civilization has never solved a single problem except materialism-which keeps the process in turmoil. The animal cannot solve itself. Armageddon destroys the evil doers, not the good doers. Civilization can only be instituted by liars and maintained by such. That's why politicians have to lie. Try it yourself----how would you install civilization without lies. How would you get "me" to be subject to you?  Smiling

 

Civilization is the infrastructure we all rely on to survive.  Without it, there would be no irrigation, no large farms, no herds of livestock, no freezers, no electricity, no grocery stores, no weapons and ammunition, no mines, no smelting, no metal, no drilling, no plastics, nothing.  Nada.  Don't knock civilization.  You can not convince me that you would be able to support yourself without it.  I once tried it for a couple of years and it is not possible to live anything like a comfortable life without assistance from your local feed store and grocery store.  Having a job with real money helps as well.  And money and jobs only happen when there is a civilization to support the population.

 

definitions of Civilization. You'll find the one that fits my post. Notice the one "ruling class", there's your problem, ask any wall streeter.  People can work together for mutual benefit without civilization.  Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
The dawning of the age of aquarius?

Old Seer wrote:

x wrote:

Old Seer wrote:
Our understanding is---Christianity,s mission is to remove civilization, if/when successful that means there are no police forces or military. The people are on their own. 

That may take some time, so I'm not too worried in my lifetime.

 

in about 20 years or less. All that needs to be done is show conclusively that what is present;y seen as Christianity "is not". This is what the "Alpha Smurf" is up to. That's why I am here. The info I post here is also being given in other places. What will you do when that happens. The world of civilization collapses. We are here to cause that to happen---not by force nor military power, but by the spirit of the masses alone. If you are 50 years old and in good health you will see it. Which side will you ultimately choose, those who love evil or those who love good. We do not forward European Christianity--as that isn't Christianity. We are between all sides.

 

Sounds like hippie gnosticism.

As cj alluded, one would have to be in very good health to survive the hardships of the fall of civilisation.

The Goths in the Western European Dark Ages had military.

The Bronze Age Collapse may also be to your liking, with the decline of literacy and trade. The military still survived though.

So, you're hoping for something that hasn't happened for at least the last 3,000 years. In that time there have been many, many predictions of and yearnings for imminent apocalypse.

I won't hold my breath, it's bad for me.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10371
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:Vastet

Old Seer wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Lol. If christianity succeeds, it dies. When can the rest of us gtfo of here? Before the christians suicide us all?

 

Not so, If civilization succeeds at making peace it dissolves itself, It exists on contention and superiority from which wars are caused. Civilization has never solved a single problem except materialism-which keeps the process in turmoil. The animal cannot solve itself. Armageddon destroys the evil doers, not the good doers. Civilization can only be instituted by liars and maintained by such. That's why politicians have to lie. Try it yourself----how would you install civilization without lies. How would you get "me" to be subject to you?  Smiling

 

You have a deep misunderstanding of the nature of the universe. If society dissolves, anarchy replaces it. Until someone or some group of someones has assembled sufficient power to end the anarchy and install their own idea of civilisation.

continues...

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10371
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Wars are primarily caused by

Wars are primarily caused by a lack of resources by some, and a surplus or perceived surplus of resources by others. The dissolution of society could ONLY increase the disparity of resources, and bring MORE wars and conflict than we've had for the last 1000 odd years.

"How would you get "me" to be subject to you?"

I point a gun at your head. If that doesn't work, I point it at your family. If that doesn't work, I kill all of you as an example.

You asked...

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 740
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
That's what Armageddon is

Vastet wrote:
Old Seer wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Lol. If christianity succeeds, it dies. When can the rest of us gtfo of here? Before the christians suicide us all?

 

Not so, If civilization succeeds at making peace it dissolves itself, It exists on contention and superiority from which wars are caused. Civilization has never solved a single problem except materialism-which keeps the process in turmoil. The animal cannot solve itself. Armageddon destroys the evil doers, not the good doers. Civilization can only be instituted by liars and maintained by such. That's why politicians have to lie. Try it yourself----how would you install civilization without lies. How would you get "me" to be subject to you?  Smiling

 

You have a deep misunderstanding of the nature of the universe. If society dissolves, anarchy replaces it. Until someone or some group of someones has assembled sufficient power to end the anarchy and install their own idea of civilisation. continues...

Anarchy. -----------Anarchy is "self rule". There's a + and a - . You're refering to or only understanding the minus. Christianity is self rule from the plus side. When one understands the universe one couldn't possibly be an Atheist. The universe contains you, me, and everyone else. Self rule on the plus side is the understanding of "us". That's what Christianity is---the understanding of "us". not the material universe. You're not seeing beyond the Euro concept of Christianity ---which isn't Christianity and never was.

Civilization exists on a skewed idea of "human".  Civilization can never solve itself, as it operates on animal mentality. The problem on planet earth (now- that's from our learnings and point of view) is this skewed concept of "Human animal"---there is no such thing. You can only be one of these at any given instant. The proof of it is how this site is operating. I see negative (animal mind) when it comes to those disagreed with, and then "human mind" toward those that agree. If one can direct these to dimentions of mind then the two are separate and not combined. You and I and everyone else can be only one of these at any given time. It is absolutely impossible to be both at the same time. The only other is being neutral. One undertakes things at times that aren't for the sake of the animal or the human. Try it yourself.

If you want to beat the Christians (as they call themselves) it can only be done "our" way. The reason a Psycho Smurf joined the group last winter--he found us to be correct.

Under civilization you are being controlled by those being more animal then you are yourself. It's nothing more then animal on animal with everyone having a false impression of being human. We are all human at times ( a dog is also human at times) but the systems depends on "the dog" to exist. It cannot be any other way because it cannot be explained any other way. Your social structure is no different then a pride of lions. Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:definitions

Old Seer wrote:

definitions of Civilization. You'll find the one that fits my post. Notice the one "ruling class", there's your problem, ask any wall streeter.  People can work together for mutual benefit without civilization.  Smiling

So you wouldn't define a commune as a civilization? I think you are confusing government and civilization. Civilization is the antonym to barbarian, the word separates tribal societies from societies that develop cities. If you have a city, then you have a civilization. The word simply notes the natural change from small tribal (family) groups to the larger societies where many families form interdependent relationships. 

 Governments come and go and frequently change, civilizations persist until all who live within it die or leave. Humans interacting with each other to provide basic needs is by definition a civilization, regardless of what type of government or lack of government they live under. I don't mean to be pedantic, but I think the disagreement here is mostly over the definition of civilization. If you simply mean the eradication of government police/military power you probably shouldn't use the term civilization since many people understand the existence of interdependence between many people as civilization, while your use of the word seems to be completely focused on the existence of government. 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:Under

Old Seer wrote:

Under civilization you are being controlled by those being more animal then you are yourself. It's nothing more then animal on animal with everyone having a false impression of being human. We are all human at times ( a dog is also human at times) but the systems depends on "the dog" to exist. It cannot be any other way because it cannot be explained any other way. Your social structure is no different then a pride of lions. Smiling

 Are you seriously saying you can't see the difference between the social structure of lions and the various social structures between humans? Is the social structure in a dictatorship the same as the social structure in a democracy or republic? 

 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
x wrote:I've read that a

x wrote:

I've read that a high percentage of US Christians believe in the Rapture, but do they really, or are they just trying to get attention?

No, they really do believe.  Growing up I firmly believed in the Rapture and that it was imminent.   My mother still believes that way.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 740
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Eggzackly

Beyond Saving wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

Under civilization you are being controlled by those being more animal then you are yourself. It's nothing more then animal on animal with everyone having a false impression of being human. We are all human at times ( a dog is also human at times) but the systems depends on "the dog" to exist. It cannot be any other way because it cannot be explained any other way. Your social structure is no different then a pride of lions. Smiling

 Are you seriously saying you can't see the difference between the social structure of lions and the various social structures between humans? Is the social structure in a dictatorship the same as the social structure in a democracy or republic? 

 

You relate to others through the same mentality as lions. Superiority, greaters and lessors, status above others, predatorism, self importance, seeking the advantage, competition. Civilized societies are assembled on the same mentality as any buffalo herd. Take away civil law and all become worse then the lions. Civil law keeps it members in an animal state but regulate how much animal is allowed. Case in point. The wall street predators were let out of the cage (laws removed)) and look what happened. Business mainly operates on a human front to hide the animal behind the curtain. The 2008 financial episode proves we are correct. We were expecting it. We also expected and predicted among ourselves something like 9-11. It's simple. When one knows how government thinks an outcome is predictable. Google -Operation North Woods.  Even at that ---why are you all following a slew of liars. The biggest secret held by any government is the government itself.  The US Constitution is a fine document along with the Dec of Independence. But, as you can see, and by history, civilizations always returns to the purposes of the original design---a few over, and profiting from the many. No civilization has ever worked and none ever can. That's why history repeats itself. There is no getting around it, civilized people become as those that run it.  Smiling

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10371
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Anarchy. -----------Anarchy

Anarchy. -----------Anarchy is "self rule".

The problem with self rule is that everyone has it, and can choose how to apply it. Inevitably someone will have sufficient power to impose their rule, ending self ruling.

"Christianity is self rule from the plus side."

No it isn't. Christianity has proven itself to be one of the most brutal and domineering religions when it has power. There is no anarchy under a christian style of society. It much more closely relates to a dictatorship and/or theocracy.

"The problem on planet earth (now- that's from our learnings and point of view) is this skewed concept of "Human animal"---there is no such thing. You can only be one of these at any given instant."

That is ridiculous. ALL humans are animals. Homo Sapiens are a species of animal. More specifically a species of mammal.

"If you want to beat the Christians (as they call themselves) it can only be done "our" way. The reason a Psycho Smurf joined the group last winter--he found us to be correct."

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10371
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I'm not trying to "beat"

I'm not trying to "beat" anyone or anything. I'll be quite satisfied when believers are denied power and authority over non-believers, and quit proselytizing to everyone against their will.
Believe whatever you want. But keep your bs to yourself. That's one of my little sayings. Ironically, many leaders in religion agree. Unfortunately not all do.

"Under civilization you are being controlled by those being more animal then you are yourself."

Noone controls me. I do what I want, when I want to. Others do influence me in this regard, but never control.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Well they sure control me. 

Well they sure control me.  My boss tells me when to be at work and when I can leave, what to wear, how to do my job, etc.  My wife controls me because it's easier to do what she wants me to than to deal with the stress of her being ticked at me. Social approval/disapproval dictates how I act in the presence of others.  Police patrol my town making sure I don't speed, steal stuff, etc.

I'm very controlled by others.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 740
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
That's the God/Way

Watcher wrote:

Well they sure control me.  My boss tells me when to be at work and when I can leave, what to wear, how to do my job, etc.  My wife controls me because it's easier to do what she wants me to than to deal with the stress of her being ticked at me. Social approval/disapproval dictates how I act in the presence of others.  Police patrol my town making sure I don't speed, steal stuff, etc.

I'm very controlled by others.

the book deals with. The forces one is under, that controls one. One,s self  is also a force in the mix. When one understands and sees those forces one can pick and choose what forces can be avoided, in the understanding that one is surrounded by forces he cannot do anything about. When you were formed you were neutral, knowing nothing. The State confiscates you-forces you to school to serve the purposes aligned with the ideals of the State.  The schooling is OK, but the reason one is schooled is faulty. You can now understand why the mess in Washington DC is referred to as "the food chain".

You live in any civil society that has ever existed, they are all the same. What was immoral becomes moral. You give people in government the right to decide what is good and what is evil---according to their idea of either. What is good today can be turned into evil tomorrow at the stroke of a pen. What's evil and won't make money can be made good to make a lot of money. Government can skew the meaning of words to control others or hide from others. The Gov wants you to make a lot of money so you can be taxed where-by you are no longer even seen as a citizen, but instead a "tax payer" Money is all. Business see you as a means of profit. You are goaded into seeing each other as a means of gain for any who can gain from you, and from that social problems occur.  It's inhuman. You suffer the same consequences as the smallest lion in the pride. Consider the question-- it's not whether we came from monkeys, but rather, do we still think like monkeys.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 740
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
You are stuck on

Vastet wrote:
Anarchy. -----------Anarchy is "self rule". The problem with self rule is that everyone has it, and can choose how to apply it. Inevitably someone will have sufficient power to impose their rule, ending self ruling. "Christianity is self rule from the plus side." No it isn't. Christianity has proven itself to be one of the most brutal and domineering religions when it has power. There is no anarchy under a christian style of society. It much more closely relates to a dictatorship and/or theocracy. "The problem on planet earth (now- that's from our learnings and point of view) is this skewed concept of "Human animal"---there is no such thing. You can only be one of these at any given instant." That is ridiculous. ALL humans are animals. Homo Sapiens are a species of animal. More specifically a species of mammal. "If you want to beat the Christians (as they call themselves) it can only be done "our" way. The reason a Psycho Smurf joined the group last winter--he found us to be correct."

the Euros who never were Christians. It was the Euro governments that did the atrocities. Civilization and Christianity don't mix. Consider---that the Apostles and followers didn't go around killing nor did they promote such. It "was" government that killed them.

Species is physical, Christianity is about the mind and it's makeup, same as Psychology. It's not about the body. Animal and human are states of mind, not body. Dogs have the same states of mind as we, the bodies are different. When one say s "dog" he is emphasizing a type of body. Intelligence is neither human or animal, it's a neutral that can be applied to anything. There's no such thing as human material. The minerals that help construct a body don.t turn human because they become part of the body. Human is a mentality opposite animal mentality. You can self elect to be humane or inhumane can you not. That;'s what Christianity is about---becoming humane, not a European or any other nationality.  Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
I was afraid someone was going to say that

Watcher wrote:

x wrote:

I've read that a high percentage of US Christians believe in the Rapture, but do they really, or are they just trying to get attention?

No, they really do believe.  Growing up I firmly believed in the Rapture and that it was imminent.   My mother still believes that way.

Not having lived in such an environment, it is very difficult to comprehend.

It's a very corrosive belief.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:You relate to

Old Seer wrote:

You relate to others through the same mentality as lions. Superiority, greaters and lessors, status above others, predatorism, self importance, seeking the advantage, competition. Civilized societies are assembled on the same mentality as any buffalo herd. Take away civil law and all become worse then the lions. Civil law keeps it members in an animal state but regulate how much animal is allowed. Case in point. The wall street predators were let out of the cage (laws removed)) and look what happened. Business mainly operates on a human front to hide the animal behind the curtain. The 2008 financial episode proves we are correct. We were expecting it. We also expected and predicted among ourselves something like 9-11. It's simple. When one knows how government thinks an outcome is predictable. Google -Operation North Woods.  Even at that ---why are you all following a slew of liars. The biggest secret held by any government is the government itself.  The US Constitution is a fine document along with the Dec of Independence. But, as you can see, and by history, civilizations always returns to the purposes of the original design---a few over, and profiting from the many. No civilization has ever worked and none ever can. That's why history repeats itself. There is no getting around it, civilized people become as those that run it.  Smiling

 

Obviously your group does not include an ethologist smurf, anthropologist smurf or even a smurf with significant animal experience. All animals do not adopt the same social structures. For example, the social structures that lions have are very different from those of buffalo. How animals relate to each other can vary significantly, sometimes even within the same species. While there are always similarities and you can certainly say this human behavior is like this animal behavior it is about as significant as noting this human has hair and so do lions. 

As humans we have the ability to adopt a wide range of social structures and determine which ones we prefer at a level that is not observed among any animals. And of course no civilization survives, no human survives so any civilization changes as people die and new people are born, precisely because humans have the ability to consciously change their social structure. 

How do you define a civilization that "works"? If civilizations goal is to improve the standard of living of humans living in it I would say many different civilizations have worked fantastically.

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 740
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Civilization has

Beyond Saving wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

You relate to others through the same mentality as lions. Superiority, greaters and lessors, status above others, predatorism, self importance, seeking the advantage, competition. Civilized societies are assembled on the same mentality as any buffalo herd. Take away civil law and all become worse then the lions. Civil law keeps it members in an animal state but regulate how much animal is allowed. Case in point. The wall street predators were let out of the cage (laws removed)) and look what happened. Business mainly operates on a human front to hide the animal behind the curtain. The 2008 financial episode proves we are correct. We were expecting it. We also expected and predicted among ourselves something like 9-11. It's simple. When one knows how government thinks an outcome is predictable. Google -Operation North Woods.  Even at that ---why are you all following a slew of liars. The biggest secret held by any government is the government itself.  The US Constitution is a fine document along with the Dec of Independence. But, as you can see, and by history, civilizations always returns to the purposes of the original design---a few over, and profiting from the many. No civilization has ever worked and none ever can. That's why history repeats itself. There is no getting around it, civilized people become as those that run it.  Smiling

 

Obviously your group does not include an ethologist smurf, anthropologist smurf or even a smurf with significant animal experience. All animals do not adopt the same social structures. For example, the social structures that lions have are very different from those of buffalo. How animals relate to each other can vary significantly, sometimes even within the same species. While there are always similarities and you can certainly say this human behavior is like this animal behavior it is about as significant as noting this human has hair and so do lions. 

As humans we have the ability to adopt a wide range of social structures and determine which ones we prefer at a level that is not observed among any animals. And of course no civilization survives, no human survives so any civilization changes as people die and new people are born, precisely because humans have the ability to consciously change their social structure. 

How do you define a civilization that "works"? If civilizations goal is to improve the standard of living of humans living in it I would say many different civilizations have worked fantastically.

proven not to work. They all have dissolved only for another to form on someone,s "better idea". But the basic idea remains the same---a few over the many. We are not about anthropology, we are about the mind. In the Buffalo herd there is the "big" Buffalo, in the lion pride there is the "Big" Lion. The social structure is the same. Our Psycho Smurfs confirm we are right. In today,s society the big buffalo is in Washington and the big lions are on wall street. No matter who,s idea it still forms into a power structure. The social structure of Greek society is no different then the Roman society, which in turn is no different then the American society, and in turn no different then any other society on the planet. civilization is an "if". If we this-if we that- if we the other. All if's have failed because the animal mind is mistaken for human. Alpha Smurf has a different application of "Human". Human must extract from humane. Civilization doesn't operate on the humane, but rather force and counter force. I'm a farm boy---I know animal when I see it. Chickens don't relate to chickens any different then cattle relate to cattle, as cats relate to cats. In civil society the hogs run the farm.  Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10371
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:Well they sure

Watcher wrote:
Well they sure control me.

You allow them to. I do not.

Old Seer wrote:
The Euros who never were Christians.

No true scotsman fallacy. Worse, if Europeans were never christians, then the christian religions actual numbers are miniscule, because it was through Europe that christianity took off and spread as a religion.

"Civilization and Christianity don't mix. Consider---that the Apostles and followers didn't go around killing nor did they promote such. It "was" government that killed them."

At the behest and approval of the church, which was more powerful than the government at the time.

"Species is physical, Christianity is about the mind and it's makeup, same as Psychology."

The mind is physical. And part of the body. They are inseparable.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 740
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
The mind is not

Vastet wrote:
Watcher wrote:
Well they sure control me.
You allow them to. I do not.
Old Seer wrote:
The Euros who never were Christians.
No true scotsman fallacy. Worse, if Europeans were never christians, then the christian religions actual numbers are miniscule, because it was through Europe that christianity took off and spread as a religion. "Civilization and Christianity don't mix. Consider---that the Apostles and followers didn't go around killing nor did they promote such. It "was" government that killed them." At the behest and approval of the church, which was more powerful than the government at the time. "Species is physical, Christianity is about the mind and it's makeup, same as Psychology." The mind is physical. And part of the body. They are inseparable.

physical. The mind is a product of the physical. The study of the physical and the study of the mind are two different items of study and sciences. The two interact but are not the same.  Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10371
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Prove it.

Prove it. Eye-wink

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:proven not to

Old Seer wrote:

proven not to work. They all have dissolved only for another to form on someone,s "better idea". But the basic idea remains the same---a few over the many. We are not about anthropology, we are about the mind. In the Buffalo herd there is the "big" Buffalo, in the lion pride there is the "Big" Lion. The social structure is the same. Our Psycho Smurfs confirm we are right. In today,s society the big buffalo is in Washington and the big lions are on wall street. No matter who,s idea it still forms into a power structure. The social structure of Greek society is no different then the Roman society, which in turn is no different then the American society, and in turn no different then any other society on the planet. civilization is an "if". If we this-if we that- if we the other. All if's have failed because the animal mind is mistaken for human. Alpha Smurf has a different application of "Human". Human must extract from humane. Civilization doesn't operate on the humane, but rather force and counter force. I'm a farm boy---I know animal when I see it. Chickens don't relate to chickens any different then cattle relate to cattle, as cats relate to cats. In civil society the hogs run the farm.  Smiling

I'm sorry, I was taking you seriously for a moment. My bad. Its a good thing you aren't a farmboy anymore. I imagine it doesn't work so well when you try to keep cows in the chicken coop, try to milk the hogs, use the cats to herd the sheep, ride the dog and expect the horse to kill the mice.

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:The mind is

Old Seer wrote:

The mind is not physical. The mind is a product of the physical. The study of the physical and the study of the mind are two different items of study and sciences. The two interact but are not the same.  Smiling

 

Actually, no.  Mind and body are inseparable.  I'm taking psychology classes now and the consensus is that mind influences body influences mind influences body...... and around and around.  We can not separate body and mind.  We can not treat one if the other is ill.  The interaction is inseparable.

Yes, you can specialize in treating one - either body or mind -  over the other.  But the best practitioners realize that the two can not be treated as separate and adjust their recommendations for therapy as best suits treating the entire patient.  Not just body.  Not just mind.

And if you believe that mind can exist without body - prove it.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 740
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I'd like to inform you

Beyond Saving wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

proven not to work. They all have dissolved only for another to form on someone,s "better idea". But the basic idea remains the same---a few over the many. We are not about anthropology, we are about the mind. In the Buffalo herd there is the "big" Buffalo, in the lion pride there is the "Big" Lion. The social structure is the same. Our Psycho Smurfs confirm we are right. In today,s society the big buffalo is in Washington and the big lions are on wall street. No matter who,s idea it still forms into a power structure. The social structure of Greek society is no different then the Roman society, which in turn is no different then the American society, and in turn no different then any other society on the planet. civilization is an "if". If we this-if we that- if we the other. All if's have failed because the animal mind is mistaken for human. Alpha Smurf has a different application of "Human". Human must extract from humane. Civilization doesn't operate on the humane, but rather force and counter force. I'm a farm boy---I know animal when I see it. Chickens don't relate to chickens any different then cattle relate to cattle, as cats relate to cats. In civil society the hogs run the farm.  Smiling

I'm sorry, I was taking you seriously for a moment. My bad. Its a good thing you aren't a farmboy anymore. I imagine it doesn't work so well when you try to keep cows in the chicken coop, try to milk the hogs, use the cats to herd the sheep, ride the dog and expect the horse to kill the mice.

I'm not a Christian. Moreover I'm not going to respond to any more childish aniamlistic competitive nonsense. Competition is an animal trait. Good day.  Another classic example of what's wrong in your world.   Smiling

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 740
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
You missed my piont "again" CJ

cj wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

The mind is not physical. The mind is a product of the physical. The study of the physical and the study of the mind are two different items of study and sciences. The two interact but are not the same.  Smiling

 

Actually, no.  Mind and body are inseparable.  I'm taking psychology classes now and the consensus is that mind influences body influences mind influences body...... and around and around.  We can not separate body and mind.  We can not treat one if the other is ill.  The interaction is inseparable.

Yes, you can specialize in treating one - either body or mind -  over the other.  But the best practitioners realize that the two can not be treated as separate and adjust their recommendations for therapy as best suits treating the entire patient.  Not just body.  Not just mind.

And if you believe that mind can exist without body - prove it.

 

If you want to be purposely contentious I won't oblige. I'm sure you can produce some smart-alek reply to this post. Take your best shot and have done with it.  Read my post again before you do.   Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:cj wrote:Old

Old Seer wrote:

cj wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

The mind is not physical. The mind is a product of the physical. The study of the physical and the study of the mind are two different items of study and sciences. The two interact but are not the same.  Smiling

 

Actually, no.  Mind and body are inseparable.  I'm taking psychology classes now and the consensus is that mind influences body influences mind influences body...... and around and around.  We can not separate body and mind.  We can not treat one if the other is ill.  The interaction is inseparable.

Yes, you can specialize in treating one - either body or mind -  over the other.  But the best practitioners realize that the two can not be treated as separate and adjust their recommendations for therapy as best suits treating the entire patient.  Not just body.  Not just mind.

And if you believe that mind can exist without body - prove it.

 

If you want to be purposely contentious I won't oblige. I'm sure you can produce some smart-alek reply to this post. Take your best shot and have done with it.  Read my post again before you do.   Smiling

 

It was not my intent to be smart-alecky.  Nor am I being purposefully contentious. 

My post was intended to be informational -

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.