This article discusses the relationship between God and Money with America as an example of how Money and God influences our daily lives.
From Australia to Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Switzerland, there is an increasing number of people who identify themselves as “non-affiliated” with religion. However this is not the case for America. Richard Wiener[1] from the Research Corporation for Science Advancement, and the University of Arizona, explains that it is a result of a simply psychological condition that propels individuals to follow the group and the majority.
According to Weiner, religion, both as a belief and a practice is soon to go extinct in basically all countries of the world – except for in America. He has with a team of scientists, conducted a research study based on a mathematical model of the complex social motives behind joining religious groups.
People Follow the Flock
The study is based on the theory that the more people that are in a group, the more likely others will be to follow. The study has shown that on a mathematical level, each person is simply equally influenced by every other person. The study thus concludes that mere social utility is the driving reason behind people’s religious affiliations.[2]
“… social groups that have more members are going to be more attractive to join, and it posits that social groups have a social status or utility. For example in languages, there can be greater utility or status in speaking Spanish instead of [the dying language] Quechuan in Peru, and similarly there’s some kind of status or utility in being a member of a religion or not.”
Programmed Identities
According to the theory of Social Construction of Reality by Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, the development of national identity is specifically developed dependent on emotional connections with what they call ”significant others” (usually parents) – this is what they call the process of “internalization” wherein the child will accept and identify themselves as specifically belonging to and being a part of a certain group and thus internalize the behaviors and patterns of the significant others as its own:
“…the child becomes capable of identifying himself, or acquiring a subjectively coherent and plausible identity. In other words, the self is a reflected entity, reflecting the attitudes first taken by significant others towards it, the individual becomes what he is addressed as by his significant others”. [3]
This self-identification is developed within the emotional connections and is developed specifically through the passing on of cultural values and language. It makes sense that the passing on of cultural values, with rituals such as pledging allegiance to the flag, is something that is highly developed in America due to the historic background of the country as conglomerate of languages and cultures, that can suggest why religious rituals build into the culture has emerged within the need for a strong national identity.
Why religion as the basis of national identity?
Within an entirely different theory, one of the founding fathers of sociology, Emile Durkheim, in the 1880’s proclaimed that if France were to survive untying its ties to the church, religious symbols and rituals had to be applied transferred into the class room and the work place by a strong state, placed as representatives for the civic society.
According to Durkheim, a new social moral had to take the place from the role religion had up until then had played, to ensure a social cohesion within society – because he saw within the developing complexity of the industrialized and urbanized world, an danger people disassociating with and being divided within society. The blooming scientific and rationalist dogmas, did simply not have the same unifying effect on people, as religion did.
He admitted that even though he did not support the metaphysical rationale of religion, its rituals and emotional associations had a specificaunifying effect on people. [4] For Durkheim, religious rituals thus became a matter of practicality – as a force that bound people together and ensured a form of cohesion.
Religion is thus, together within and as emotional association through culture, used to keep a society “coherent” within preventing people from rebelling or disassociating themselves with national identity. The same takes place in the family, as show by Berger and Luckmann, wherein the parents represent the culture and through the emotional connections to the child, make sure that the child integrates and accepts the dominant culture as its own, which again ensures that the dominant culture prevails and maintains it dominance.
The question is now if this is still the issue – that religion is so overly dominating the American culture and Society because of the effect religious practices have on people – or if other aspects are playing in on why people remain religious and why religion is so closely tied to the maintenance of a nation’s social coherence and prosperity?
Are Americans closer to God?
According to Elizabeth Lemons, a Professor of religion Religion, there is in America a sort of “marketing” of religion going on, that has close ties to moral values. However she also says that: “Some people say they go to church but they don’t, or they say they believe in God, but what does that mean in their lives?”
In another study[5], the scientists rather than asking people how often they attend church, investigated through observation and through neutral questionnaires – and what they found, was that there was a clear discordance between what people say and what they actually do, which led the scientists to conclude that Americans are not more religious than others, but that they are simply more like to claim that they are.
The study also found, that for Americans, religion is closely related to a general assumption that being religious is the same as being a good person and a good patriot and that is in itself a specific cultural and moral value that is being shared between a majority of the American people.
Religious to Survive?
The previous mentioned theories and empiric studies suggest thus that the base motive for participating in religious activities is caused by other factors than faith – as it is closely related to the individual’s inclusion into and acceptance within – and thus survival in – the society.
According to Associate Professor of Sociology Paula Aymer, there is a definite link between religious beliefs in America and the development of capitalism:
“At the very beginning, capitalism and religion managed to form very strong bonds,… Socioeconomic success is often treated as a mark of specialness — that your religious faith, your prayer life and your God marked you for that success.”[6]
As a common belief, this suggests that people with money and financial success are considered favored by God, and that they are thus better and more Superior people. The question is if it was God that gave them the success – or if they became successful because of their affiliation with religion?
Participating in religious activities can affect whether or not you get a job, become president or are able to establish a network of support that can ensure that you get food on the table. Thus whether or not a person is practicing religion from a starting-point of following the flock or within presenting oneself with a religious personality – it is about surviving and thus about being able to support oneself financially in this world. God follows the Money.
More-Money with Mormonism?
One of the most successful religious groups in America is the Mormon church and the official LDS church is one of the wealthiest in America.
The popular TV-Show “Big Love” portrays a modern polygamist-Mormon family of a man with three wives. The show is interesting because it brings up issues that are common in all relationships, but here magnified and intensified because of the polyamorous design of the relationships. However the show also reveals and magnifies the foundation of religious beliefs and their connection to survival.
Life with God
The Mormons believe that if a man and wife are “sealed” in a special Mormon ceremony, that there marriage is sealed in eternity as well – and so marrying is not only for life, but for the rest of eternity. This is why they in the TV-Series are so obsessed with getting as many wives and children as possible: to have a big family of “superior souls” to spend the rest of eternity with.
The belief is furthermore that the time spent on Earth is like an interim Hell that is not really relevant in the big scheme of things. What is relevant is the pre- and after-life as “the real life” only begins after death, when the family is “reunited” with god in heaven – as they’ve voluntarily accepted to come to Earth, be tested, measured and judged by god, for to, if they’re found worthy: reserve a seat next to god in the after-party of Heaven. [7] So basically as a Mormon, you do not have to take Responsibility for what is Here, because what is Here is “not real”. This is so not only for the Mormon church but a basic Deceptive strategy of all religious and spiritual practices.
An Ex-Mormon gives a morbid overview over the role of money within Mormonism:
“It’s the World’s Perfect Business Scheme and you can do it too. Just start your own “Afterlife Insurance Company” then make the greatest promise humanly imaginable — promise your clients that if they totally obey you and pay their premiums, after death they’ll become Gods! In fact, polygamous Gods who’ll have eternal sex with innumerable partners! Until then, they’ll enjoy moral supremacy over all humanity. You do need to claim that you’re a prophet of God however, but this is the easiest claim on earth to make and no one can prove you’re lying.”[8]
One of the reasons for religion being so important in America, can be that the country has created its economic system based on the deception within religion as shown clearly within this example above. As each person is born, they are forced into accepting the dominant culture in order to survive. Religious beliefs and practices allow people to compromise actually Living, in the name of “god” and the “eternal afterlife”.
Common Sense Perspectives
So – At a mathematical level, it is more practical for a person to follow the majority. Identities are formed within the cultures as emotional attachments, to those that nurture us in those critical first years, where we’re unable to support ourselves to survive. Religious practices and rituals are being used in societies to maintain social cohesion, thus survival as the group. Religious identities are being deliberately used in groups as a moral statement of superiority in order to reach success and make money. We learned that religious beliefs allow people to make justifications for not Care for or take Self-Responsibility for what is Here.
Everyone is Participating
America is just an example – religion is in a way also just an example. Because this shows that our entire behavior, identity, morals and faith are based on survival as the main motivator for everything we do and participate within and as. Our identities are shaped and formed so that we will survive. We form our identities to fit the dominant culture (represented to us by our parents) to survive. Our cultures survive, through the continuous indoctrination into us as children. Everything and all we do – even that which we cherish and experience as personal and emotional values are created from and within survival.
Thus – all of this can equally be said about other countries and other practices that we participate within and as in our world and reality, from sex, drinking and doing drugs, to spirituality and political activism. We are slaves of our own programmed “nature” to survive.
The Programmed Nature of Life is Survival
In poor countries were people actually starve from birth to death, it is about physical survival, about making it through the day without dying. In rich countries it is no different, except we have shifted our level of survival from biological to social and spiritual – and that is what we call “human evolution”.
If we want to stop existing within this programmed existence – both within our societal and cultural systems, but equally within ourselves as our personalities and identities are shaped and created according to the exact same purpose.
we must come up with Solutions that is based on taken the point of Survival out of the equation. In Common Sense, it does not matter to the universe or even the planet, the plants or the animals if we as Humans survive – in fact, they would probably stand a better chance of Living a satisfying and Dignified Life, if Humans do Not survive.
Are YOU satisfied with Living to Survive?
There is not a single Being in this World that is satisfied with merely surviving – surviving means avoiding death at all costs – literally at ALL COSTS – as we pay with everything we’ve got to survive.
As the World currently is functioning, survival is dependent on the Money System – a Money-System, that we all participate within and accepts as a fully functioning system of Governance and maintenance – that is based on humans having to fight each other and compete in order to exist. It is based on the base acceptance that some win and some lose – even though it is always the same people that win and always the same people that lose. Thus the game has been fixed from the beginning and religion is one of the ways that we’ve justified our acceptance of this system, in abdication of Self-Responsibility.
The Solution is Here
It is Common Sense to follow the majority as it is the most Practical for our own Survival. But when the majority Supports a System that is Destructive and Abusive in its very foundation, it is time to change course.
It is time to stop fighting for our survival – and to come up with Solutions that Considers and Cares for Life. Life is for the Living – We are the Living, but we are not Living Life. We are Living programs of fear of not surviving that will do anything, fight anyone, become anyone – to survive.
An Equal Money System – where everyone is given, and give each other, Equal Money from Birth to Death is a Solution that is based on the Mathematical Equal of What is Best for All. When we say Best for All, we mean All Life – so not only the Humans, but also the Plants, the Animals and the Planet itself. It is Common Sense – each can do the math for themselves. When All Life is Supported and Supporting All Life Equally, no one is required to fight for their own Survival. We are collectively Responsible for Creating and Accepting the World to Continue Existing as it does – and we are Equally Responsible for Changing it into a World that we would Actually want our children to be born into.
How can I Participate:
We have seen within this article, how all we are programmed to survive. This means that none of us exists as “original” Beings – in fact we are entirely conditioned into and as supporting the current Money-System’s dominating direction. Therefore a re-education of each of us is required – where we re-program the programs we’ve become – to systems that honor Life. And within doing so, we remove all programmed, conditioned and automated behavior and identity, as we Stand up to Live according to the Basic Principle of What is Best for All.
We do so within the Realization that what is Best for All, is Best for each of us – and that when we Stand up for – and become the Living Principle of what is Best for All, we can Actually Create a World that is not conditioned in any way.
What will Change with The Equal Money System?
- Children are not forced or indoctrinated to replicate the culture of their parents or society or to rebel against it in desperation of the enslavement that we have submitted ourselves to.
- No one has to compromise themselves and create fake personalities and persona’s in order to be accepted by the society they’re conditioned into.
- We support the plants, the animals and the planet as they are Equally and Unconditionally Supporting us to Live.
- We can Allow ourselves to – for the first time – Live without Fear.
- From the Equal Money System a Self-Honest, Self-Dignified Self-Expression may Emerge as the Living Word of Equality and mutual Support.
To Participate – is to Take Self-Responsibility for Who and What we have Accepted and Allowed Ourselves to become – in the Realization that we’re Equally Responsible for All that is Here. And so we Walk – step by step, to correct and purify that which we have become, in Self-Support and Self-Honesty.
The Desteni I Process
At Desteni we Support each other and ourselves through a re-education to Self-Honesty, Self-Forgiveness and Self-Responsibility. We provide a platform of Support where each Stands Transparent and Equally Accountable in Self-Responsibility – so that each of us may Stand up and Support Life, as what is Best for All. This is called the Desteni I Process and consists of a course that is available through Desteni. The Participants with Desteni also write blogs – wherein we write ourselves to Freedom and Self-Honesty, within Standing up as Self-Responsible for and as the Systems of programming that we each have Allowed ourselves to become.
The Equal Money Movement
We are in the Process of Creating a Global Equal Money System, that will be both political as well as financial – and as such, we Stand Equal with the Governing Systems that we have Accepted as the Directive Principle in this World to correct them to become Systems of Life-Support instead of Systems that Support Inequality, Deception and Abuse. In this each is an Equal Participant. There are No Masters, No Slaves, No ideology – Because the System is based on Practical Equations of Equality – as What is Best for All. Thus the only requirement for Participating is to Participate as an Equal – Equally Responsible for what is Here and for Ourselves within and as this World.
[1] “A mathematical model of social group competition with application to the growth of religious non-affiliation.” Authors: Daniel M. Abrams, Haley A. Yaple, Richard J. Wiener.
[2] http://jetlib.com/news/tag/richard-wiener/
[3] Berger and Luckmann 1966 p. 152
[4] Durkheim 1975 in Wexler 2009 s. 46 -48
[5] Read about the studies here: http://www.slate.com/id/2278923/
[6] http://www.tuftsdaily.com/secular-europe-and-religious-america-1.2470736?pagereq=1
[7] http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_do_Mormons_believe#ixzz1HTCyD5Ze
[8] http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon392.htm
I don’t get this article… It starts out as an interesting and serious sociological essay about the connection between Christianity and money (religious marketing) in America. Half through, it then evolves into a semi-religious advertisement for an ideology called Equal Money, where every other word is written with Capital Letters. Is it a joke?
If it is religous, it means we believe in the existence of a divine creator – which is stated no where in this article. So no – it is neither religious or semi-religious. “Semi-religious” – quite a fascinating term. Either it is religious or it is not.
The capital letters is a method of writing that emphasizes on specific words that is brought in the forefront of the attention of the reader…
There is no ideology either – however I do write specifically with the purpose of bringing forth the issues of the world to a concreate and practical solutions of an Equal Money System – It is based on simple mathematical equations of what is in fact – at a physical practical level – best for all life in fact – such as clean water, housing, education and food – which is best for the individual as well.
I am not interested in writing or reading sociology for the sake of sociology – following a tradition of regurgitating knowledge and information, while practical application is left for someone else (perceived as inferior).
Knowledge without application or practical consideration – is deceptive and useless.
Anna
It sounds very idealistic. Not that there is anything wrong with being idealistic. It just seems as a strange break in style after the article starts out as a scientific essay (rationalist, analytical, speaking to the intellect)… then suddenly changes into emotional, idealistic, in a writing style typical for religious campaign materials. Almost as if written by different persons in completely different contexts.
Semi-religious: it doesn’t refer to the existence of a divine creator, that’s true… but it does use concepts and a style that is typical for sects and e.g. Christian campaign writing and, I think, that of some New Age sects. Spiritual writing is probably a better description. In any case, it seems a very abrupt shift from the start of the article, that is why I got confused. I thought it could be some sort of experimentation with the effect on the reader, or simply a joke.
Hi Anna.
Thanks for your feedback – I will definitely take it into consideration.
I am still working out my writing-style and specifically how to combine the “theoretic essay” with the practical solutions of an equal money System. When I write these articles it is from the starting-point of investigating and exposing the deception and abuse of the systems that we’ve created to manage our lives – but also to share the solution of an equal money system – through a re-education of all of us to start taking self-responsibility for what is Here, in and as this world.
Interestingly enough – a difference I see in the first part of the article and the last, is that I name-drop a few theories and theorists in the beginning – and after reading your previous comment, it got me thinking that apparently namedropping theories is considered “serious” and “scientific” – instead of considering the practical usage of what is being shared. How does it in fact change anything for you to “see” what is going on in the world – through an article or a scientific essay? You’ll more likely read one after another saying to yourself and others: “wow this really opened my eyes – I feel changed” or something similar – and then continue living your life in the same way as always. (this is not addressed to you personally, but as a general point)
When I write – it is to get all of us to Stand up – to realize that there is nothing admirable about knowledge in itself and that knowledge that supports practical solutions that are best for all, need not be admired – but simply implemented.
The regurgitation of knowledge and the self-glorification within the academic field is deceptive and abusive in its elitist “safe house” where it in save distance from the suffering, can observe and theorize without end… while the world suffers on.
So – I am not speaking to the intellect. Because the intellect is a bullshit-machine that is only interested in reflecting it’s own image.
To say we wanna change the world, and then we wont change ourselves – is deceptive. I am speaking to myself and others who have had enough of this and who are ready to change themselves, to actually – and literally – change the world.
I think you should skip writing with capital letters. Basically, it should be up to the reader which words to emphasise in the text and not dictated by the writer. It is uncomfortable and distracting to read . It resembles ALL CAPITALS – which is also uncomfortable to read, because it equals ‘shouting’ , just in writing: the reader doesn’t leave it up to yourself what to emphasise, but throws selected words into your face. It is better to direct attention to specific concepts through the overall design of the text (because it is concepts you want attention directed to, not words) and not by using capitals, colours or other ‘highlighters’ in the text.
Re. name-dropping: the difference between scientific writing and campaign writing is that scientific writing is supposedly informative and neutral, leaving it up to you to draw a conclusion while campaign writing will tell you what to think. Obviously the writer will most likely try to manipulate you to take the same conclusion as him/herself also in supposedly neutral text, but that is just human nature … and something to be alert of. Name-dropping is just a part of scientific papers (but essential… to know the source). It serve to quickly brief about different ‘expert’ opinions about the same topics, different perspectives… not just the writers. At least that is how it is supposed to work.
Hi Anna
Obviously as a writer I can decide every which way I want to write – that is certainly not up to the readers to dictate – they can simply stop reading.
Imagine if all writers had to satisfy readers – they would never get anything out because everyone has some form of opinion about what is good, bad or comfortable to read.
Re: “scientific writing is supposedly informative and neutral, leaving it up to you to draw a conclusion while campaign writing will tell you what to think.” – This is exactly the deception created within and as scientific and academic writing. Not even nature-science can claim to be “neutral” or “objective” – and it is self-deceptive of us as humans, to actually support such a belief – because it places some forms and methods of knowledge as more accurate and valid – even though it is in fact not. Everyone writes with a specif starting-point and purpose – biologists, mathematicians and sociologists alike. In fact the “scientific” and “objective” sciences are much more manipulating from the perspective that they claim to have a form of truth. Human nature is no excuse for anything.
“There is no Truth – Only Denial of What is Here” – Bernard Poolman
I respectfully ask that you check some of your facts concerning LDS doctrine. For example official Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints’ doctrine concerning the time we spend here on earth and its purpose. We believe that we are very accountable for what goes on “Here”. Here is very real.
Why should I care if I portrayed the beliefs or your religion accurately you may ask. This is why, if you have so ignorantly and falsely portrayed the view point of your opponent, how can I respect the rest of your argument? In fact I stopped reading after the comments concerning the LDS church. If your opinion is so narrow-minded as to not find out what “Mormons” really believe and is solely based off a show whose purposes are to entertainment and to generate profit. Why should I listen to what you say? Odds are the rest of your opinion will be just as narrow-minded. If you want to know what we do believe lds.org would be a good source to start with.
If you don’t believe in God, or a divine being, or just don’t like organized religion that is fine. Just keep your facts straight. You can criticize my belief all you want, just make sure what you are criticizing is what I really believe.
Hi Dustin.
The information I share about the LDS church is primarily based on me having had a close personal relationship to several Mormons for a period of ten years. I have attended Mormon ceremonies and sermons. For this article I also researched additional information – amongst other parts, actual scripture from Mormon’s book. I am not claiming to know everything there is to know about Mormons, but based on your comment that is clearly not the point either.
So consider for a moment the starting-point within which you wrote this comment. The moment you sat down and wrote this comment, was it because you took something that was said personally? Because this is what is reflected in your words – not a supportive critique. So what you’re doing here, is that you are defending your religious beliefs and use the point of taking it personally to justify your defense. The idea that “people should respect each other’s beliefs” is an example of how we agree to live on a lie where: “If you support my lie, I will support yours – but if you don’t, I will attack you.”
Mormons are no different from any other human beings on this planet. They’re just as self-interested, just as delusional, just as abusive as anyone else. To refuse to realize and admit that is to defend living on a lie. And I will not respect that and I would be grateful if you would not accept that from me either or from anyone else. If we stopped respecting each other’s beliefs, just so that we can protect our own – we could actually start making the world a place that is worth living in.
Equal money?
I don’t know about equal money. I think the main issue we have to start with is a basic misunderstanding of what money is. So let me ask you the question, Anna, what is money?
Money is simply a tool – it reflects who we are, within and as the systems we’ve accepted to govern our lives. This is why the solution is not to simply “stop using money” because it is not money in itself that is the problem or the root of our evil – it is ourselves. With Equal Money as a basic principle where we together decide to give all children an equal foundation in life, we can make money equal with support, care and life – instead of as it exists now where it is equal with greed, fear, competition and deception. So instead of us having to buy life in order to consume life, the value of life will be life.
Money is simply a tool – it reflects who we are, within and as the systems we’ve accepted to govern our lives.
This is still not defining money. What’s money? What is it. What is its essence? If you don’t understand the essence of money, then how can you build a “system” with money at its core. “Equal money system.” You cant’ even define that properly if you don’t know what money is.
So what’s money. What is it? What is its core. What is its essence.
Money is certainly not at the core of the new system of Equality, that the Equal Money System is based on. Money is simply the means with which resources are spread to all equally through a digital credit system that makes distribution more practical. Money is not some magical mysterious manifestation. It’s simply a way to centralize the distribution of resources. In the current system that is based on greed, abuse, exploitation and inequality, where each is born into the world conditioned and either indebted or enriched from the moment they are born. In an Equal Noney System, we all take equal responsibility for ensuring that all has equal access to the resources on earth.
What is your definition of money Mike?
What is your definition of money Mike?
My definition of money is in Rocket Scientists’ Guide to Money and the Economy but in a word, money = labour. Money isn’t “the means with which resources are spread.” Money is the means by which labour is exchanged. It is very important to understand this because without understanding this basic TRUTH, all attempts to build alternatives economic systems are either confused at core, or build on insubstantial vapor.
Money = Labour.
Equal Money System = Equal Labour System.
That works, but only so long as everybody works. What happens when you can’t get people to contribute to things? Do they get an equal share of labour to?
Here’s a reply from the Equal Money Wiki on what to do about getting people to work:
“Currently, the perception and belief exists that one requires to motivate employees to perform well through a monetary reward system. This can to a large extent be explained due to the fact that many work for, for instance, factories who produce goods that are irrelevant, of bad quality, or even goods that have no bearing on one’s life since one might simply not be able to afford the goods one is producing. There is no connection between the labor one is putting in and the reward received from the goods produced themselves. One is part of a Money-Making business, while in an Equal Money System, one is part of a Life-Supporting business. In a money-making business as in our current Capitalistic System, the money that is made is not even distributed equally – while in a Life-Supporting business, the results as the goods and services are equally available to all. One will therefore take pride in one’s job, as that which one is contributing to: is actually important, is actually making a difference, is actually improving people’s lives.
A monetary reward-system is only necessary when the activities and the outcome of these activities in themselves are not sufficient motivators. That is what we are currently experiencing in the Capitalistic System. In an Equal Money System, however – one will be rewarded for the effort one puts in, through that which one receives in the form of the best quality goods and services.” http://equalmoney.org/wiki/Labour#How_will_people_be_motivated_to_perform_well_if_there_is_no_threat_of_losing_their_job_or_losing_income?
A monetary reward-system is only necessary when the activities and the outcome of these activities in themselves are not sufficient motivators.
See I think this is wrong. Money isn’t a motivator, it is a means of exchange. The problem is, in capitalism, it has become the motivating force. Well actually that’s wrong. The problem is money is easy to accumulate and that makes inequality easy to generate. If we want to fix the problem we have to put caps on how much money people can accumulate. That would be the first step. After that we can worry about making sure people’s labour power is equally valued. but I think it all starts with a proper definition of money which is labour. solutions follow pretty quickly after that. And once again, Rocket Scientists’ Guide to Money and the Economy has that definition. The book also talks about the inevitable consequences of our current path, which is poverty, inequality, debt, and war, but that’s at the end. I don’t believe the book talks too much about solutions, but solutions are easy to concieve. What’s lacking is the political power to implement them.
Anyway, to reiterate, if you want to come up with a reasonable and workable alternative, you first have to start with a clear definition of money
12
Nice
very nice.
I don’t know how I missed this one and I am happy that Dustin commented so that I would have the gift of reading your information.
Yah that thing about citing dead people or those other academics who have lived a luxury of silver-spooned existence affording the opportunity of labels and degrees…I say lets here it for empirical knowledge! or not when it’s about experiencing poverty and oppression and having no way out of it but knowing what the author is writing about is absolutely true. Sometimes I wonder if the Ivy leaguer’s feel less guilty about thier life existance of abundance by creating recipes that explain society, a sociological cookbook if you will but arrive at no solutions.
“As the World currently is functioning, survival is dependent on the Money System – a Money-System, that we all participate within and accepts as a fully functioning system of Governance and maintenance – that is based on humans having to fight each other and compete in order to exist. It is based on the base acceptance that some win and some lose – even though it is always the same people that win and always the same people that lose. Thus the game has been fixed from the beginning and religion is one of the ways that we’ve justified our acceptance of this system, in abdication of Self-Responsibility.”
Like I said, “12”
Thanks for your comment Lucy.
“Sometimes I wonder if the Ivy leaguer’s feel less guilty about thier life existance of abundance by creating recipes that explain society, a sociological cookbook if you will but arrive at no solutions.” – YES exactly. Since I began my education I have been wondering the same, seeing that many scholars have seen common sense solutions, but never taken the step to actually implement any of them. As such the knowledge becomes useless and even deceptive, because it is not practically applied. And then, what’s the point?
What is cool about the principle of what is best for all, is that it does not rely on a doctrine/ideology or belief-system. It is simply the basic common sense that when all inhabitants on earth is supported and supports each other to live optimally, life on earth is best for all and as such best for each individual. It does not take centuries of academic discussions to realize that making all water on earth clean for oil and actively preventing water-pollution is best for everyone, including humans. One would only disagree if one is either delusional or if one is exploiting the lack of clean water and somehow profiting from it. Because who would say that the would not like to have clean drinking water? And then why not give it to all?
Such a solution merely requires that those who are experts on for example water, physics and engineering come together and see what is required to make all water clean. Then it can be implemented… but obviously only in a system that prioritizes what is best for all.
This way, politics would be about developing practical solutions and not about discussing ideologies – because we’d all agree that we want what is best for all, because we see it would be best for us too.
Such a solution merely requires that those who are experts on for example water, physics and engineering come together and see what is required to make all water clean. Then it can be implemented… but obviously only in a system that prioritizes what is best for all.
You blame the “ivy leaguers” here and while I wouldn’t want to suggest we don’t bare some responsibility, I think you are underestimating the power of The System to indoctrinate and control, seed fear, and create impotence. Personally I don’t find this kind of finger pointing very useful. In fact, it is actually part of the problem since by doing it you distract from the main concern which should be an analysis of The System. We won’t make any changes, anywhere, until we stop participating in this system induced balkanization, and start seeing ourselves, one and all, high and low, black or white, male or female, as members on the same team.
There is absolutely no blame towards “Ivy leaguers” in my comment, so I am not sure how you came to that conclusion Mike. We’re all equally in this mess on earth, some born into one set of conditions, others born into another. The very fact that we here even have a university degree and the ability to use it and the fact that we can communicate and discuss these points, already places us in a position of being the elite. Obviously there’s a super elite too – however I agree that there is no point in pointing fingers. We’ve all accepted and allowed the current system to be that with which we ‘manage’ our lives – often in the hope and the belief that ‘maybe some day we too could get the winning ticket’ – while in fact it never happens, but for an exclusive small group that are usually born into the wealth they have. There is not even any point in blaming the system because the system does not exist by itself – we’ve created it, so it is our responsibility to change it. Blaming the system or the elite or the politicians is basically an abdication of self-responsibility where we place ourselves in a position of inferiority and powerlessness, through which we conveniently justify not standing up within ourselves and in our own participation. Furthermore, we’ll not be able to see how the system is functioning and operating – in fact, if we do not stand one and equal to the system, in getting to know it as ourselves and understanding each detail and how we each contribute to support the system to continue.
already places us in a position of being the elite.
i know what you are saying, but I’m not a member of the elite.
the belief that ‘maybe some day we too could get the winning ticket’
exactly right.
we’ve created it
We certainly did. We created The System and it is up to us to re-create it.
But how the heck do you do that? We’ve been trying for 10,000 years to break out of this shitty, self destructive, cycle, but nobody has been able to do it. It is like at the end of the Matrix movies. The System adapts and goes on no matter what you throw at it. HOw the heck are we going to end The System?
heck, an even more fundamental question, what even is the system anyway?
m
Half the world’s population is either living in grim poverty or in starvation – from the moment they are born until the day they die. You are a member of the elite of the world because you have food on your table and access to internet, hot water, electricity and a warm bed. You are a member of the elite of the world because you have a higher education.
This is an important thing for us to realize, because many of us (including myself) could never fathom that WE are the elite, because we see the elite as these bad rich guys without scruples. But we can ask ourselves: do we dedicate every moment of every day to changing the conditions for the other half? Or do we spend most of our time worrying about our own lives? This is what has got to change – and before it can, we got to get off the high horse in our minds where were ‘oh so benevolent’ when in fact we’ve not done anything to change the conditions on earth.
nd before it can, we got to get off the high horse in our minds where were ‘oh so benevolent’ when in fact we’ve not done anything to change the conditions on earth.
Well I don’t know about you but I’ve done lots of things to change the world. And i’m only getting started. I think a lot of others are working on this as well. I don’t think you’re being fair.
And just because I have food on my table doesn’t make me a member of the elite. The elite have secret temples, and private clubs, and real economic and political power. I have none of those. I may be more fortunate than your average slave, but I’m a slave nonetheless. I am not a member of the elite, and frankly I don’t want to be. I’m sure a lot of other people out there share this sentiment to and don’t appreciate being lumped in with the elites.
I think what it is important to realize is that we are all victims of The System, even the elites. If we could just all get it into our heads that we all suffer as a result of this beast we’ve created, then maybe we’d gather the collective motivation to change things.
A redefinition of what an ‘elitist’ is – is definitely required. Because at the moment on earth, over half the population are existing in grim poverty, with little to no access to education or resources. This obviously makes the rest of us elitist by the very fact that we have access to education and resources. From that perspective it is important to not make ‘elite’ a ‘bad word’ – but to realize the factual situation on earth. Because what I have seen happening, also within my own culture and social circles, is this idea that ‘we are the little man’ – where in fact we don’t realize that we in fact are among the few who have the resources and education required to change the world. We are not only victims of the system but in fact equal creators of it – and nothing will change until we admit and realize that and accordingly take self-responsibility. We do that by placing ourselves in positions of influence, educating ourselves and utilizing means of democracy to change the systems of the world.
Hi Anna,
Yes, you not knowing everything there is to know about Mormon’s was not the point. The point was getting your facts straight. Seeing that you had reliable sources the problem then was your interpretation of those sources.
Yes you are right, Mormon’s are just as human as anyone else, just as liable to the common vices of the world, but I don’t think that was the point of your comments regarding organized religion in a whole either. However I would like to carry on that train of thought. The world you described that would result from adoption of the equal money system (yes I went back and continued reading) is a utopia where everyone, including you and us Mormons and other religious folk will have to give up “They’re just as self-interested, just as delusional, just as abusive as anyone else.” – Anna Brix Thomsen. Therefore if we all are just self-interested, delusional, and abusive, what is going to change that? I certainly hope that you are not thinking that every single person in the world will decide to play nice, because that is what needs to happen for your utopia. I am also imagining there will be no place for my profession (military) in your world, which for the record I would welcome world peace. If one small group of people decided they didn’t want to play by the rules, what happens? They come and they take. Not saying that everyone is evil and incapable of caring, but there are people who are, plenty of them. Maybe that is just my conditioning talking, or maybe it is the time I spent helping the poor and watching what happened to a person when they started to get a little more than the next guy.
I wish I could say it was easy for people just to care for each other, but it is not. It doesn’t happen, not in the Mormon Church, not in any church. Not in any society. People just don’t care for each other, it doesn’t happen. Why? “They’re just as self-interested, just as delusional, just as abusive as anyone else.” – Anna Brix Thomsen.
Also don’t think I don’t know what it is like to be poor and hungry and unable to do anything besides just survive. I lived in a shack in a Township called Phuzana, just next to Duncan Village in East London, Eastern Cape, ZA. I know what it feels like to wake up and wonder if you are going to live to see tomorrow.
Sorry to say your equal money system will not work, maybe if we could go back in time and implement it from the beginning of human existence. For it to work we would need a total “reset” in the world, and this is coming from a Mormon who believes the perfect society has “everything in common”. Let me clarify, the equal money system will not work on the large scale, maybe in a tiny isolated community, but not across the whole globe. Why? “They’re just as self-interested, just as delusional, just as abusive as anyone else.” – Anna Brix Thomsen
Sala Kahle
I wish I could say it was easy for people just to care for each other, but it is not. It doesn’t happen, not in the Mormon Church, not in any church. Not in any society. People just don’t care for each other, it doesn’t happen. Why?
IMHO, the question isn’t “why,” the question is “what happened.” What happened to take an innocent, simple, and loving infant newborn (a being that is happy simply when full, warm, and in the loving arms of mommy or daddy) and turn them into a mean, selfish, vindictive, lying sack of toxicity?
For it to work we would need a total “reset” in the world,
I have no idea about Mormonism at all, but I do know most major world religions talk about this sort of “reset” as part of their prophetic offerings. Do you mind if I ask you, Sala Kahle, does the Mormon religion talk about this kind of reset?
Yes definitely Mike – well put. Because when we dare to ask: “What happened?”, “How did we get here?”, “Why have we created the world, the way we have?” – we begin starting to take self-responsibility and dare looking in self-honesty at what is actually going on on earth.
The child being born full of life, ready to join the world and express itself as an equal is indoctrinated through it’s parents to modify itself to the parents and societies culture and norms. The problem is that it is a rotten system we are bringing children into – where most, if not all parents, are living on a lie that they must tell themselves day in and day out to keep up the appearances. And so obviously the same rotten system is what the child is educated to integrate into and as itself – why? Because there is no alternative.
I remember clearly as a child how I could not understand why adults did not care about the children that starved in other countries. How shocked I was to learn that there were children starving. I could not understand why adults to speak one thing with their mouth while their inner expression showed something completely different. And so I too accepted that the lie must be true, when everyone live according to it and I too have to survive. And so I became that same adult living on a lie… and so it continues. Until we stop.
The ‘reset’ of the world – can only happen if we each reset ourselves and our own starting-point in how we live in and as this world. This requires brutal self-honesty to admit to oneself that one has been living a lie – but the more people we are who are standing up within this, we can support each other and show that there in fact is a way to reset oneself and bring back self-responsibility.
Hi Dustin
An Equal Money System obviously sounds utopian if one were to implement it on top of the system that is already here. And what that shows is that we’ve accepted the system that exists now as permanent. But it is in fact through that acceptance that we keep supporting the system, whether that is directly or through apathy.
The only way to change ourselves from living in self-interest is through changing our inner systems as well as the systems with which we manage our lives – the world-system is a reflection of who each of us accept and allow ourselves to be. So a re-education process is required where we get to understand ourselves and how we’ve accepted and allowed ourselves to exist in self-interest.
Consider for example that self-interest is based on each one of us, believe that we must compete with and fight each other to survive. In an Equal Money System we remove that equation and give everyone an equal base line of basic resources. This way the fear of not surviving will dissipate and people will be able to start changing themselves because they no longer have to focus all their attention on fear, greed and self-interest.
We are currently a group of people all over the world growing exponentially who have dedicated our lives to changing life on earth from self-interest to what is best for all. We begin with changing ourselves – by realizing in self-honesty how we too have contributed to create and maintain the system of self-interest. We walk, point by point in taking self-responsibility changing ourselves into human beings that can be trusted and who support all life equally. We work relentless towards placing ourselves in the system so that we can stand equal as the system and direct it in self-responsibility through education and democratic means of governance. It is a 1 + 1 process that will only go as fast as each is able to change themselves – so obviously change will not happen overnight. But the point is that it is an equal and one change inside ourselves as well as in the systems of the world that is required.
For every person ‘deciding to play nice’ would indicate that their basic human nature is still greed and deception and fear – that will obviously not have any impact. Thus we got to align who we are within ourselves with the actions we take in and as the world.
The Equal Money System is based on the principle of what is best for all – not as an ideology, a belief system or a philosophy, but as a practical, physical equation.
For example:
It is best for everyone that all water on earth is clean and not polluted. No one can disagree with that because if they did, they would stand against their own requirement for clean water, in which they would be diluted and self-destructive and would require support to understand what they are accepting and allowing. Now – we all agree that it is best for everyone that all water on earth is clean and not polluted. In an Equal Money System it would then be a priority to research what is required to clean all water on earth through rigorous scientific research and accordingly implement the required solutions to make that happen. So it is a practical equation that can be mathematically proven. No one decides what Best for all is, because it is simply a physical fact – either it is or it isn’t. The people who would then disagree would not have their own best interest at heart and should be supported to realign themselves.
If you don’t even give something a chance, how can you be in a position to say it won’t work?
Is that not exactly the same as tacitly accepting the current system of abuse to continue?
My perspective is – we don’t have a choice. It is not about ‘if’ it is possible – it is simply a matter of HOW it is possible to create a world – and a human being – that in fact is best for all.
It all starts with ourselves…
Yes you are right, Mormon’s are just as human as anyone else, just as liable to the common vices of the world, but I don’t think that was the point of your comments regarding organized religion in a whole either. However I would like to carry on that train of thought. The world you described that would result from adoption of the equal money system (yes I went back and continued reading) is a utopia where everyone, including you and us Mormons and other religious folk will have to give up “They’re just as self-interested, just as delusional, just as abusive as anyone else.” – Anna Brix Thomsen. Therefore if we all are just self-interested, delusional, and abusive, what is going to change that?
The Truth. The Truth is what is going to change that.
How about this instead: realizing that there is no truth – only denial of what is already here.
How about this instead: realizing that there is no truth – only denial of what is already here
No. there is truth, and there is lie, and there is denial of what is. These are different things. Why would you want to define away the truth?
What is here as life on earth as it is manifested, is simply here as what it is as all the parts and as the sum of those parts. It is not true or a lie – it is simply here. (Obviously in the world, we’ve created the concept of truth and lie). However truth can thus only exist if Lies exist and is as such a polarity that only exist as a mirror of it’s opposition. If everyone lived in self-honesty and knew everything about life on earth and ourselves and nothing was hidden, truth would not be necessary. So within the idea(l) of truth is a point of self-deception: the denial of what is here. Make sense?
No. it doesn’t make any sense at all. if I tell you that 2+2=4, that’s the truth. however if I tell you that 2+2=5, that’s not true. The earth is here, that’s true. The earth is not here, that’s false. If I say that women are weaker then men, that’s not true. If say say that we all have our strengths and our weaknesses, that’s true. Truth is a thing in and of itself. Truth is a sign, a symbol, a meaning that points to something that is real, verifiable, has consequences, is a fact, etc. As a sociologist, I am interested in the truth about society, the truth about money, the truth about The System, and so on.
Truth is self deception? you’re conflating the meaning of truth, the idea of truth, with self awareness perhaps. Truth is independent of your perception of it, that’s true. But to solipsistically conclude that our awareness of truth is the defining criteria for that truth, as you seem to be doing, makes no sense at all and if anything is a distraction from the business at hand, which is finding out the truth of things so we can change the world. you can’t change anything if you don’t know the truth of things.
I thought we’d put postmodernism to bed?
The earth is here. 2 + 2 = 4. So just because these are facts does not have to make it true or not, which is what I was referring to in my comment that the notion of truth is only relevant in opposition to a lie. If you’d like to define truth as real and false as not real, then truth is fine with me. But the way I understood it based on your earlier comment about finding out the truth of things, it was more of a ‘higher truth’ sort of notion as though there is a higher meaning of it all. And to that question I am saying: No, all there is is denial of what is already here.
The ‘truth of things’ is thus what is already here. Maybe we’ll realize that 2 + 2 really was five but that we’d miscalculated the first time around or that our rules of math were inadequate.
To be clear: I am looking at this discussion based on the common sense of what I see – so I am not applying a specific doctrine or philosophy or looking at conceptualizing what I share into a belief-system.
which is what I was referring to in my comment that the notion of truth is only relevant in opposition to a lie.
No. Truth can be defined simply in opposition to not-truth, or un-truth. Truth doesn’t have to be defined in opposition to a lie. untruth is simply the absence of truth just like darkness is simply the absence of light.
To be clear: I am looking at this discussion based on the common sense of what I see – so I am not applying a specific doctrine or philosophy or looking at conceptualizing what I share into a belief-system.
Well say that then because that’s the truth. Its almost like you’re trying to hide your basic philosophical position here. why? It just makes discussion harder.
Based on the common sense of what I see though, we need to define truth. I think we can start with the notion that untruth is simply the absence of truth. In this context you don’t have to have lies to have untruth. of course, this doesn’t preclude people lying. But it doesn’t make it essential, as your definition does.
To be clear: I am looking at this discussion based on the common sense of what I see – so I am not applying a specific doctrine or philosophy or looking at conceptualizing what I share into a belief-system.
Well say that then because that’s the truth. Its almost like you’re trying to hide your basic philosophical position here. why? It just makes discussion harder.
I’ve been brought up in a socialist, left wing household with feminist women and have argued against that throughout my adolescents. I’ve participated in anarchistic revolutionary circles and in hardcore spirituality and have within myself seen the redundancy of such movements. So obviously I am ‘coming from somewhere’ in terms of having been programmed into a specific culture. However I work every day on deconstructing all such concepts to get to the point of simply seeing what is here for what it is without placing religious or philosophical dogmas on top of it that obscures one’s ability to simply see the facts.
“Yah that thing about citing dead people or those other academics who have lived a luxury of silver-spooned existence affording the opportunity of labels and degrees…I say lets here it for empirical knowledge! or not when it’s about experiencing poverty and oppression and having no way out of it but knowing what the author is writing about is absolutely true. Sometimes I wonder if the Ivy leaguer’s feel less guilty about thier life existance of abundance by creating recipes that explain society, a sociological cookbook if you will but arrive at no solutions.”
I should probably clarify that as there are many great writers of the sciences especially sociology. I think my point was more towards what gives more validity to someone who has studied the field over someone who has lived the experience.
And hats off to Dustin for affording all those wives and childdren while living in South Africa, jinkies those are many mouthes to feed!
What I enjoy most about your writing Anna is that you look into the solution. Throwing your hands in the air and saying “well it’s always been this way and people will never change is not the solution.” It takes 1 vote from you, one step in the other direction to trying something new.
Hathaway says take a sociology course and get some knowledge. I think if the majority of the people did and actually saw the truth we wouldn’t be operating under the same rules and we would be working towards ( at t amore rapid pace) equal money.
Lucy,
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints discontinued the practice of polygamy in 1891. Therefore when I was in South Africa it was just me. Also I am still single, so no children.
Also I didn’t say there isn’t a need for change or a way to do it. But the equal money system as described by Anna is not the solution, at least in its entirety.
Another thing to note, I have taken multiple sociology courses. I have a different view of what the truth is than you do. That doesn’t mean I am ignorant.
The solution to the world’s problems will not originate from one person, or a small group of people. For a solution that works it will take a collaborative effort. By that I mean, I come to the table, you come to the table, and the other guy comes to the table. Our plan of action is as follows: We identify the problem. We develop possible solutions. We decide on best solution. We implement solution and track its progress. If the solution works, good job we solved the world’s problems. If it doesn’t we come back to the table and start over, repeating the process till it does.
Therefore the Equal Money System is not that solution. It is very one sided in its development and implementation. Not saying that there aren’t elements in the System that would be useful to further progress humanity. With that said, the same lack of collaboration is a big problem for progress in the world. Look at us in the United States for example. Everything is divided into Liberal or Conservative, Democrat or Republican, Blue or Red, God forbid you are in the middle or independent, because then you just don’t matter. This division then creates a climate of you are right or wrong, which in context is purely dependent upon ones perspective. The Democrats come up with a solution and the Republicans oppose it because they see it as wrong and vice versa.
I wish people would take some communication and conflict resolution classes. Or at least talk to someone of a different view point without attacking it.
An Equal Money System is a global sustainable solution that will not come over night – but only through changing our democratic, financial and educational systems. To say it wont work without having done any form of research – is ignorant.
Dr. Michael Sosteric,
Yes The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does have doctrines similar to other Christian Churches concerning a “reset”. In short, the world will continually divide into two separate factions, good and evil, or more specifically those who want to live the principles of Christianity (I would like to note that does not mean they are necessarily Christian or believe specifically in Christ, more of living the golden rule, do unto others what you would like done unto you) and those who hate and want to destroy the others. Now when the good guys are about to get over ran and destroyed, Christ comes and saves them destroying the wicked (those who do not want to live the golden rule). Now some take this and say well that means you don’t have to do anything, Christ will save you and the world, you just have to sit back and wait. That is not what is supposed to happen. If you sit back and do nothing it is as good as saying that you don’t want to help those in need. Therefore when your need is great who will help you? To truly follow the Golden Rule (which is found in most belief systems, religious or not) you must help those in need. Therefore if those you have, help those who do not and if the cycle continues uninterrupted there will be no inequality. Now I am not talking about an even-steven, everyone gets the same percentage equality. More of everyone has their needs met and hopefully a little more. That is what is supposed to be happening. Therefore when the Savior comes, it is those who look after each other and those who don’t.
Also Sala Kahle is an isiZulu expression meaning stay well. It can also be used in isiXhosa, the dominant language of the region I lived in South Africa.
Also I read your article concerning your thoughts on what happens between innocent childhood and corrupt adulthood. I do agree that capitalism is a big part of the world’s problems. I do however think another variable in the cause is the media; more specifically how the media socializes children. I don’t have cable or satellite T.V. now and I don’t want it when I have a family. It is hard enough to overcome the corrupting influence of our present society without giving it a foothold in my front room. What are your thoughts on the media and its part in the problem? Or lack of participation?
Now when the good guys are about to get over ran and destroyed, Christ comes and saves them destroying the wicked….
Kinda like Neo in The Matrix, right?
More of everyone has their needs met and hopefully a little more.
Right!. Kinda like what Karl Marx said, “From each according to [his] ability, to each according to [his] need.”
I do however think another variable in the cause is the media
My thoughts on the media? Let me ask you this. Isn’t the media owned by big capitalists? Who owns Fox? Who owns MSNBC? The media is a problem for sure, but in our world the media is just an arm of capital. There is an excellent book on the subject called “A century of spin” which I recommend.
I think the media is part of the problem, but it could also be a part of the cure. Our modern media is incredibly powerful. The problem now, it is under tight, tight control. Even now it is changing though and I can see a time in the not-to-distant future where we, as a society, use modern media not only to entertain, but to educate and transform!
I have another question, in Mormon teachings, is there a timeline for when Christ is supposed to return? Are there “signs” that are meant to indicate his return? What is that going to look like? How will you know? And don’t worry, I’m not trying to set you up here. My main scientific interest is in religion and spirituality, and I myself am deeply spiritual. I am really just curious and interested in having a conversation.
m
“The solution to the world’s problems will not originate from one person, or a small group of people.”
Exactly but low and beehold, guess who’s running the show here on planet earth? (Hint: it’s not the people in the lower income brackets). And your right, Dustin, it doesn’t work!
“For a solution that works it will take a collaborative effort. By that I mean, I come to the table, you come to the table, and the other guy comes to the table. Our plan of action is as follows: We identify the problem. We develop possible solutions. We decide on best solution. We implement solution and track its progress. If the solution works, good job we solved the world’s problems. If it doesn’t we come back to the table and start over, repeating the process till it does.”
I think this is the very Idea Anna was talking about when she references What Is Best for All. When I said that I will make a choice and move forward I was speaking of the many individuals making that same choice in action towards What is Best for All. Have you looked at the Equal Money website and the forum designated for it?
Exactly Lucy. Well said.
…and yes polygany still goes on in the Mormon Church. I have citings if you would like me to devulge my informants.
“There is absolutely no blame towards “Ivy leaguers” in my comment, so I am not sure how you came to that conclusion Mike. ”
Anna, I think he was referring to an earlier comment htat I had made in regard to the validity that is held for the voice of those who studied social sciences and the lack thereof (respect) for those who live the circumstances and only have thier own accounts to cite. But I even backed out of that comment with a clarification…apparently I must have hit someones Achilles heel. : )
The big stink (finger pointing)that I make about this is that although i am a part of the problem, I wish to make the necessary changes. There are many out there who would rather see things stay the way they are and they are not the ones you see in the food lines at the homeless shelter but more like the season ticket holders. (finger pointing again!)
I didn’t mean to derail the conversation.
Back to the Mormon questions, “is there a timeline for when Christ is supposed to return? Are there “signs” that are meant to indicate his return? What is that going to look like? How will you know? And don’t worry, I’m not trying to set you up here. My main scientific interest is in religion and spirituality, and I myself am deeply spiritual. I am really just curious and interested in having a conversation.”
But I even backed out of that comment with a clarification…apparently I must have hit someones Achilles heel. : )
you think? Sometimes its just about making sure the wrong idea isn’t left in these threads. We wouldn’t want to leave the wrong ideas floating around here, would we?
m
LOL – yes, it is very easy to point fingers, because that’s what we’ve done for eons of time. Learning how to take equal self-responsibility is not something that happens over night. What we can do, is be self-honest about the fact that we blame others and place ourselves in a position in our head of being ‘oh so good’. From there we can begin taking responsibility for stopping, every time we see that we’re projecting blame onto someone else – and then simply ask ourselves: if I bring this back to myself, how am I participating within this? What can I do in my participation to live differently? And then apply ourselves accordingly in our practical living. But it starts with even being willing to admit that we’re not as benevolent and good-natured as we’d like to picture ourselves in our minds – because it is only from there, that we can begin to change. I’ve been working with this in myself and in my relationships with others for five years and the more I apply myself in bringing all points of blame back to myself, the more I realize how I’ve only just started and are virtually taking baby steps towards actual self-responsibility. But the proof is definitely in the pudding – in seeing the thoughts that come up in our relationship to others, both people we interact with and undefined ‘others’ and ‘them’. It can actually be quite fun and empowering to bring all points back to oneself, because that also means that one has the power and the opportunity to change – and are not at the mercy of other people.
. But it starts with even being willing to admit that we’re not as benevolent and good-natured as we’d like to picture ourselves in our minds
I totally agree with you Anna, but it’s not all our fault though. At root we are benevolent and good natured. What happens is we are violated and abused and this turns us into fearful little dots of hatred, anger, and repression. In my counseling practice I say “trace responsibility and take responsibility.” We need to know what made us into the fearful little dots of hatred, anger, and repression to begin with before we can even begin to change the world.
Yes – a newborn child has no scruples or malevolence in it. Though it’s not about assigning ‘fault’ or blame either as though if we’re not responsible, it must be something/someone else. Because obviously we are responsible for the world we create and how we raise our children to live on the same lies that we have lived.What makes us malevolent is the fact that we each exist in alternative realities in our minds where all we’re brought up to care about, is our own survival and self-interest, our own desires and fears. We accept ourselves as being separate and separated from each other, the world and even from our own bodies – and from there we accept that we must fight, compete with and deceive each other and ourselves to survive. This is clearly seen within how we act on the planet that is meant to be an ecosystem of equality, exactly as a human body where all parts work in unison and where no part feels threatened by another part’s function or ability. So we’re as humans literally existing as parasites or cancer cells on earth, both individually and collectively. So what I am for example working on in my own life, in my relationship with my partner and within my own body is to equalize myself to the physical. To stop existing in a bubble in my mind of only caring about my own fears and desires. Because my partner and I are in an Agreement on the principle, we both participate equally in creating a living environment that is best for all. If one of us then sees that we are acting within self-interest or based on memories about ‘what relationships are supposed to be like’ we stop and bring that back to ourselves, go and write about it and take self-responsibility for changing ourselves. From here we can start expanding from a self-agreement to live principled to agreements with others and eventually with all as a whole.
One more point, there are several places in the Bible where it is stated that there will always be the poor among us, such as Deuteronomy 15:11. In regard to religion supporting capitialism,why do some people hear this verse to mean a justification for poverty while others understand it as a statement telling them that there will always be someone who has less than they do so they should be charitable?
I really would also like to hear the answers to the Mormon questions.
“That works, but only so long as everybody works. What happens when you can’t get people to contribute to things? Do they get an equal share of labour to? ”
I’m gonna butt in- they get food, shelter, clothing and dignity. These are listed as human rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which get ignored all the time.
It’s a huge question there are so many problems that play a part in why our money system doesn’t work. Media, marketing, envy, and the distraction that it is as in playing a large part in FORGETTING WHO WE ARE are just the tip of the iceberg of global monetary dysfunction. It may have began as fair labor exchange but became corrupt as technology advanced and the need for spreading resources grew as the world became smaller and more familiar through those technological advances.
Sorry for the delay. I have been quite busy as of late.
First, Lucy, as I said before The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints no longer practices polygamy.
“Today, the practice of polygamy is strictly prohibited in the Church, as it has been for over 120 years. Polygamy — or more correctly polygyny, the marriage of more than one woman to the same man — was a part of the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for a half-century. The practice began during the lifetime of Joseph Smith but became publicly and widely known during the time of Brigham Young.
In 1831, Church founder Joseph Smith made a prayerful inquiry about the ancient Old Testament practice of plural marriage. This resulted in the divine instruction to reinstitute the practice as a religious principle.
Latter-day Saint converts in the 19th century had been raised in traditional, monogamous homes and struggled with the idea of a man having more than one wife. It was as foreign to them as it would be to most families today in the western world, and even Brigham Young, who was later to have many wives and children, confessed to his initial dread of the principle of plural marriage.
Subsequently, in 1890, President Wilford Woodruff, fourth president of the Church, received what Latter-day Saints believe to be a revelation in which God withdrew the command to practice plural marriage. He issued what has come to be known as the “Manifesto,” a written declaration to Church members and the public at large that stopped the practice of plural marriage.
Today Church members honor and respect the sacrifices made by those who practiced polygamy in the early days of the Church. However, the practice is banned in the Church, and no person can practice plural marriage and remain a member.
The standard doctrine of the Church is monogamy, as it always has been, as indicated in the Book of Mormon (Jacob, chapter 2): “Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none. … For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.”
In other words, the standard of the Lord’s people is monogamy unless the Lord reveals otherwise. Latter-day Saints believe the season the Church practiced polygamy was one of these exceptions.
Polygamous groups and individuals in and around Utah often cause confusion for casual observers and for visiting news media. The polygamists and polygamist organizations in parts of the western United States and Canada have no affiliation whatsoever with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, despite the fact that the term “Mormon” — widely understood to be a nickname for Latter-day Saints — is sometimes incorrectly applied to them.” – http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/topic/polygamy. Sorry your informants were missed informed. I am a member of the Church, I grew up in Wyoming, lived a little while in Utah after I graduated high school, I served my mission in South Africa, I returned to South Africa to live there as a normal civilian. I lived in Oklahoma, Georgia and now Alaska. Not one single place was there a polygamist family that belonged to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I would also like to note that in South Africa, if you are African, polygamy is both legal and culturally acceptable, yet if you are a member or want to be a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints you most discontinue the practice of polygamy or you will no longer be a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
Mike, yes we do believe in certain signs to come before the second coming of Jesus Christ.
Dustin, I’m moving this thread over here https://sociology.org/elenchus/classroom-controversy/a-discussion-on-religion/#p2 and we can discuss better in the forums. I would definitely be interested in an article outlining your belief system. No more than 1200 words to start. Give me a day to format the post over in the forums and respond there. Alternatively, you can take the post I’ve already put there and repost it in your name. and then we can continue from there
Actually I originally thought the Lightning Path was an actual place 5 years ago when micheal sharp called me on board on Youtube. i thought it was an actual institution where you could connect physically in addition to the virtual contact. (I was really excited that someday I would meet all those people face to face.) I think about this from time to time that there actually needs to be a model community that kick starts this kind of idea. I have studied a culture already of a close knit communtiy that promotes non-violence and supportive but firm guidance. I have watched them direct their children in a gentle manner allowing the children to be children. Honestly I think this value is at the core; raising children in a healthy non violent community that allows children to be children and feel safe while they are exploring and learning in their own way. This group has a set of virtues that are applied and observed and are a model to follow.
What I have discovered about my own social environment is that no matter how hard you try to build a healthy self esteem in yourself and family, the minute you step out your front door into what we consider ‘normal’ society you are automatically assimulated into the system. That would be the System that we are trying to dismantle.
What I have discovered about my own social environment is that no matter how hard you try to build a healthy self esteem in yourself and family, the minute you step out your front door into what we consider ‘normal’ society you are automatically assimulated into the system. That would be the System that we are trying to dismantle.
Yes – I’ve experienced this as well. What I’ve found is that the point is first and foremost to change one’s own living agreement with oneself to live principled. Then it’s not about convincing others as we can’t do that – what we can do is sharing our own realizations and methods with which we’ve changed but otherwise I simply first and foremost focus on myself until I stand stable in myself and can effectively direct myself in common sense in my participation with others.
I disagree Anna. I am not part of the elite. When I think of the elite I think of the few priviledged millions who focus on keeping their status while the rest of us deal with the dysfunction caused in their obsession with power and greed.
Please do not confuse my anger with bitterness. I am an angry little elf who was once a happy elf. How did that happen?
I will agree with you that much change begins within. It is tricky to maintain what you refer to as Common Sense while being forced to attend the 3-Ringed-Circus of a Red-Headed-Freak-Show of family caused dysfunction multiplied 1000 by 1000 by 1000.
Tough stuff to handle on a daily basis.
“Elite” as defined by Concise Oxford English Dictionary:
“elite (also élite)
n noun
1 a group of people considered to be superior in a society or organization. ”
In correlation with this definition, the elite of the world are those in a superior or privileged position. Obviously there’s a ‘super elite’ consisting of 1 % who’s sitting on most of them money and power in the world.
However, when over 3 billion people are living in conditions without access to jobs, education, food, housing or any form of healthcare – the rest of us are most certainly to be considered as the elite.
What I have seen from how most people respond when being referred to as “the elite” is a very strong reaction of recoiling. That is in itself quite indicative of the level of self-deception that we – in the middle class – have engulfed ourselves in. Because we’d prefer to think of ourselves as “the 99 %”, “the little man” – but the fact of the matter at a global level is that: we’re not.
For us to realize our responsibility for changing this world, this is a vital point to realize. For me it was certainly not easy or something I realized over night. My self-deception was extensive. I’d always seen myself as a ‘open minded’, ‘tolerant’, ‘compassionate’ human being who were on the side of ‘the little man’ and suddenly I had to face myself as everything I’d always despised; the capitalists, the abusers, the psychopaths that don’t care about anyone but themselves. I had to realize that in spite of my own definition of my life as being ‘poor’ I had in fact lived a life by the fortune of money, education and welfare. And that makes me “The Elite”.
Regarding the point of facing what comes up at work, with family, in relationships and in general ‘public life’ I find that writing myself out every day assists tremendously as a ‘breathing space’ where I am simply together with myself and can ‘write it all out’ thus obviously not within simply ‘venting’ but also looking specifically at how to correct and change myself in my participation with others. It has stabilized my relationships to other human beings and I am no longer as ‘attached’ to relationships because I have seen that most of them are based on a co-dependent abuse. So now I spend most time alone, sharing with those who are willing to hear and otherwise enjoy the simple things in life such as nature, playing music, hanging out with my cats and writing long replies on the internet
““Elite” as defined by Concise Oxford English Dictionary:
“elite (also élite)
n noun
1 a group of people considered to be superior in a society or organization. ”
Well yah, the Concise Oxford Engish would know this.
However it doesn’t mean that just becasue you have more than the next guy you are an elite. The Bible is peppered with several versions of “There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land.” Dueteronomy 15:11. This is not a verse qualifying poverty but merely stating that there will always be those who have less than you do so share what you have (to a degree, the Bible also says that you should have common sense in not giving a thief the key to your home). Just because I have something more than someone else doesn’t make me elite.