We are one

[Islander]

Yeah, capitalism is the worse form of government......of course, except for ALL the other ones!!

To this day, capitalism is flawed, imperfect and far short of addressing all social needs. But there none other better.

[Aesa]

Well, that's where a resource-based economy comes in. :)

Capitalism is as equally flawed as all of the other social systems, which in reality are all just variants of monetary economics. Money is, in this time, completely counterproductive to our survival and will only continue to be moreso. All it takes for change is for people to change their minds, a structure is only as relevant and powerful as people think it is.

There is no reason why everyone cannot be involved in this direction.

Edited April 13, 2009 by Aesa

[Moksha]

This program is based upon the humanist/Star Trek concept that if everyone has sufficient food and other stuff (their own replicator, for instance), then avarice, pride and greed will go away.

Guess what? Even in the Star Trek movies, there are still bad people doing bad things for the purpose of pride and greed.

This made me reflect on the Ferengi School of Business at BYU.

[Islander]

This made me reflect on the Ferengi School of Business at BYU.

LOL...now, you are mean!!!:lol::lol:

I make a motion for a triple laughter botton...:lol:

[Maxel]

No, but as demand for a religious center existed it would be constructed.

All right, that wording makes more sense. My reservation on this issue would be if the community planners didn't set aside some sort of area or building specifically for worshipers of various religions. I assumed from your first explanation that no plans would be made for a general area for worship centers. However, I don't think your answer reflects the reality of what would happen. More on that below.

Yep, and the majority (like it or not) are enslaved to the monetary structure. This is because they have faith in money (which is really the most important thing in this system -- "consumer confidence"). The only reason money works is because people are confident that it will be sufficient for gaining access to whatever it is they desire.

Then the real way to cure people of their love of money is to give them something else to love- the best thing is God. People who have faith in worldly things- who trust in the arm of the flesh- will always walk in crooked paths. Changing the direction of those paths doesn't make them less crooked, nor lead in the right direction. The only kind of society that can survive and foster peace is one that intentionally provides two things: the freedom of worship, and the safety of a fair government, and those two things need to be the basis for the society (hence America's success). Focusing on building a society revolving around some other means takes one's eye off the ball.

Certainly not. But if you can't see that religion CAN easily divide people then you need to do some thinking about this.

I've done my thinking on this subject. I believe Christ said it best:

Luke 12:51-53:

51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.

53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Religion does divide people in two ways. The first is through superficial social differences. The second is through legitimate moral differences. That is, there are those who will allow themselves to be divided from their brother based on religious differences (I'm Christian and you're Buddhist so we can't get along; etc.). Then there are those who will allow themselves to be divided from their brother based on what's right and what's wrong. The wicked will always fight against the righteous.

It's better for part A and part B to be fighting against each other and part A still acting under the influence of the truth then for part A and part B to be united under falsehood.

As for why I said this movement was 'evil', here are the things that turned me against it:

Most of our traditional values were actually set in motion a long time ago. For instance, the Bible says “ You shall earn your living by the sweat of your brow”. What if society didn’t need you to work for money? How could that value hold true? The fact is, values become outdated, just like knowledge and everything else. With respect to the current findings of science, most of the values of society seem to be out of date by thousands of years.

From the Activist Orientation Guide PDF found linked in post #1.

Establishment Religion, in many ways, seems to be rooted in a perceptual misunderstanding about life's processes. For instance, it presents a worldview that often puts the human on a different level than other elements of nature. This 'spiritual ego' has led to dramatic conflicts for generations, not only between human beings, but inadvertently between us and the environment itself. However, as time has moved forward, Science has shown how human beings are subject to the exact same forces of nature as everything else.

Ibid.

Regardless of these notions, one glance at society today makes one wonder why the ideal of universally valuing and respecting your fellow human being has never taken root. It was the Jesus character who said: “Love thy neighbor as thy self”. But how? How can we have a society where people live together in harmony, working for the common good , as the religious ideals promote? The answer is that it is up to us to design a system that allows for those humane ideals to flourish. Today’s self interested, money oriented society creates an environment that refuses to allow for the universal caring of another. This system is based on the perpetuation of oneself, at the expense of others, and therefore it can never allow for a world of balance and harmony. The fact is, it is time to stop praying, stop wishing and stop blindly talking about our supposed humanistic and religious ideals and actually work to make them happen!

Ibid.

The Zeitgeist Movement is not a political movement. It does not recognize nations, governments, races, religions, creeds or class. Our understandings conclude that these are now false, outdated distinctions that are far from positive factors for true collective human growth and potential. Their basis is in power division and stratification, not unity and equality, which is our goal.

Ibid.

Conclusion: the Zeitgeist Movement is anti-established religion, which is one step away from being anti-religion. Frankly, in a society based on these values, I doubt a worship center could even be erected, despite Aesa's assurances. It sets itself up as a savior to the world; the answer for the problems of our day. It is, however, nothing more than an organizational false Christ.

[Aesa]

My reservation on this issue would be if the community planners didn't set aside some sort of area or building specifically for worshipers of various religions. I assumed from your first explanation that no plans would be made for a general area for worship centers.

There wont be per-se, but since the culture will be free to do as it pleases in such a sense - if people wanted a worship center they would be able to have it built.

In essence, people wont have to live in one of the sustainable cities either. They could chose to live wherever they pleased. All such things, such as religion, would be allowed to 'go back to nature' and 'be what they'll be.'

People who have faith in worldly things- who trust in the arm of the flesh- will always walk in crooked paths.

Actually, the Bible says that everyone (including the faithful) will always walk in crooked paths.

those two things need to be the basis for the society (hence America's success).

That's rubbish. America is probably the most corrupt nation on the entire planet (all are, but America comes up trumps). America's success has occurred, mostly through it's indifferent corporate empire that is continually exploiting the world. It has nothing to do with a 'sound government' or 'good values' (because for the most part America's institutions and corporations are devoid of both those things - and in a monetary-based economy it is those things that are the true power and image of the culture).

I've done my thinking on this subject. I believe Christ said it best:

Luke 12...

That's the problem with basing Christ in literal history. The Bible/BoM and other scriptures demonstrate clearly that he has been written as a composite character.

One one end he says I bring peace. Then on the other end he says I bring division, a mans enemies will be in his own household.

You cant have both.

there are those who will allow themselves to be divided from their brother based on religious differences

Unfortunately these are superficial. Take some classes in comparative religion, or do some comparative religion in an armchair fashion and you start to realise that they all (on the whole) uphold the same values.

Most of our traditional values were actually set in motion a long time ago. For instance, the Bible says “ You shall earn your living by the sweat of your brow”. What if society didn’t need you to work for money? How could that value hold true? The fact is, values become outdated, just like knowledge and everything else. With respect to the current findings of science, most of the values of society seem to be out of date by thousands of years.

This rings true. If that's evil then you essentially are saying you wish to paralyse technology.

However, I think Mormons can actually relate to that statement a bit. What is being talked about there is the reality that all knowledge will undergo change because all things in this universe are emergent (for example, an engineer who trained 70 years ago couldn't get a job today) and subject to change. Mormons, who believe in continuing revelation should understand this.

Establishment Religion, in many ways, seems to be rooted in a perceptual misunderstanding about life's processes.

This is absolutely true. Religion tends to perpetuate the idea of inherent 'good' or 'evil' - which by the way if you have agency is a total contradiction. It also tends to perpetuate (though not always) literalism -- in other words "every word in the Bible is literally true." This is what causes the silly idea that Evolution is not true ... it's not that it's not true, it's just that many of the religious are so materialistic that they wont let go of the idea that god created the world in one earthly week. Oh, and the world is 6000 years old. There's so many examples.

the Zeitgeist Movement is anti-established religion, which is one step away from being anti-religion.

What you're not quite realising is that religion is only institutional because of the monetary system, because of politics and because of the legal system to name just a few.

I mean - America is supposed to be anti-establishment religion (separation of 'church' and 'state'), this is the same thing.

If you would like to know about whether religious centers would be 'allowed' (which makes me laugh, because there will be no such restriction in this culture) why not e-mail, phone, or write to The Venus Project yourself? link

I can assure you there are many, many Christians who are involved in this direction -- and don't take my word for it, ask them.

it is time to stop praying, stop wishing and stop blindly talking about our supposed humanistic and religious ideals and actually work to make them happen!

This actually aligns with Christianity. Jesus talks many times about fulfilling our values, and not just talking about them. (It's late however, so I'm not going to particularly cite them tonight).

Thank-you for your critical discussion, though, this will be helpful for others to read.

P.S.: If you want a quick answer from TVP I'd suggest a phone call because they have been inundated with e-mails since the beginning of the movement.

[Maxel]

Actually, the Bible says that everyone (including the faithful) will always walk in crooked paths.

Really? Could you quote chapter and verse?

That's rubbish. America is probably the most corrupt nation on the entire planet (all are, but America comes up trumps).

Can you prove that? Also, how do you define corrupt? I think you're spewing rubbish.

America's success has occurred, mostly through it's indifferent corporate empire that is continually exploiting the world. It has nothing to do with a 'sound government' or 'good values' (because for the most part America's institutions and corporations are devoid of both those things - and in a monetary-based economy it is those things that are the true power and image of the culture).

Frankly, I see capitalism and our current economic system as vital to the growth of our nation- the good kind of growth. Are there things wrong with it? Yes. Is it perfect? No. However, is it (ideally) the best system out there? Yes.

By the way, I suggest you read up on current political structures. America's greatest export is the Constitution, some have said. What makes it great is its political structure- not its economic system (although that helps).

That's the problem with basing Christ in literal history. The Bible/BoM and other scriptures demonstrate clearly that he has been written as a composite character.

Really? It's my turn to say 'that's rubbish'.

One one end he says I bring peace. Then on the other end he says I bring division, a mans enemies will be in his own household.

You cant have both.

You can. The lines of division and unification are the key factor: Christ will unite the righteous under His banner, and divide the wicked from the righteous at the last day. Before that day, a similar yet imperfect division will take place among the children of men.

Unfortunately these are superficial.

I'm glad we agree!

Take some classes in comparative religion, or do some comparative religion in an armchair fashion and you start to realise that they all (on the whole) uphold the same values.

Done; and done. You're right; virtually every religion teaches the same core principles. Glad we can agree on this too.

This rings true. If that's evil then you essentially are saying you wish to paralyse technology.

Only if you want to equate technology with morality- which is what the Zeitgeist Movement appears to do.

Of course if it doesn't, the only logical assumption would to be that eventually it will. If values become outdated, and we learn that science phases out values, the only logical conclusion would be that, eventually, science itself will replace morality- which, of course, it cannot. If people try, they will create a moral vacuum in which anything- and everything evil- will be sucked into.

However, I think Mormons can actually relate to that statement a bit. What is being talked about there is the reality that all knowledge will undergo change because all things in this universe are emergent (for example, an engineer who trained 70 years ago couldn't get a job today) and subject to change. Mormons, who believe in continuing revelation should understand this.

We do understand that; very well. The difference, however, is that we understand revealed religion to give us the end answers- that is, Christ is revealing to us the fundamental nature of the universe when he said "You shall earn your living by the sweat of your brow". An effect and/or condition cannot come into existence without a preceding cause and/or change. Movement away from that fundamental truth- and others like it that Christ taught- is a movement away from sensible and honest living to some bizarre, self-contained delusion that has no choice but to end bitterly and possibly violently.

This is absolutely true. Religion tends to perpetuate the idea of inherent 'good' or 'evil' - which by the way if you have agency is a total contradiction.

...? No, it's not. Good and evil could not exist if one didn't have agency. Good and evil cannot exist if men have no agency- which is what you would have us believe, judging from your comments other places that all crime has an underlying cause and that there are no real 'criminals'.

What you're not quite realising is that religion is only institutional because of the monetary system, because of politics and because of the legal system to name just a few.

Now, really... that's laughable. Can you tell me, then, why organized religion has survived in virtually every society, both monetary and non-monetary?

I mean - America is supposed to be anti-establishment religion (separation of 'church' and 'state'), this is the same thing.

Hold on, America is NOT founded on the idea of anti-established religion. The separation of church and state is to prevent the tyranny of organized religion over the people, and at the same time to protect religion from influence of the government.

This actually aligns with Christianity. Jesus talks many times about fulfilling our values, and not just talking about them. (It's late however, so I'm not going to particularly cite them tonight).

You're right; one of Christ's doctrines is to live His teachings and not just talk about them. However, the wording "it is time to stop praying, stop wishing and stop blindly talking", coupled with the other anti-religion rhetoric, is painfully obviously a sleight to the idea of prayer as something useless and ineffective. Prayer is not either.

Thank-you for your critical discussion, though, this will be helpful for others to read.

Yes; quite educational.

P.S.: If you want a quick answer from TVP I'd suggest a phone call because they have been inundated with e-mails since the beginning of the movement.

I am not calling them. I've read enough of their garbage online- that's what lead me to be so against them. Thought I would throw that out there.

[Aesa]

coupled with the other anti-religion rhetoric, is painfully obviously a sleight to the idea of prayer as something useless and ineffective. Prayer is not either.

Okay then, go contract aids and see if prayer gets rid of it. I'm not even kidding.

"Romans 3:23 (New International Version)

23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,"

Sin, is I'm sure you'll recognise wickedness and that which separates man from God.

I can quote plenty more but it's late and I should be in bed.

Frankly, I see capitalism and our current economic system as vital to the growth of our nation- the good kind of growth. Are there things wrong with it? Yes. Is it perfect? No. However, is it (ideally) the best system out there? Yes.

If you want to maintain capitalism you're going to have to paralyse technology permanently. As technology continues to automate, the need for humans in the workforce will be continually diminished. There is now robotics available to the effect that it can fertilise, water and pick fruits from plants without human involvement - it's just a matter of time before industry picks this up. McDonalds has begun the automation of it's restaurants in certain locations in the US. If people cannot get jobs, they will not have purchasing power and this will spell the 'final failure' of monetary economics - unless ofcourse you want to put these people on permanent social benefits (and god, imagine the crime rate then!!). You cannot maintain capitalism in an environment that creates abundance, because it was designed for an environment of scarcity and really no technology at all.

I suggest you read up on current political structures. America's greatest export is the Constitution, some have said. What makes it great is its political structure- not its economic system (although that helps).

Too bad they have the worst track record for upholding it in your government.

It is the economic system. You collapse capitalism (which it is now) and that's the 'end of america' as we know it, period.

America's corrupt corporations are what has created it as a superpower, nothing more and nothing less. And by the way, they're inherently corrupt because this system forces them to be.

Getting onto the topic of Constitutions, they're pretty disgusting things anyway because they're open to a very convenient thing called interpretation.

Really? It's my turn to say 'that's rubbish'.

Sorry, but they do. Christ contradicts himself like crazy. This makes sense, since so many people have given their accounts of the whole story.

Only if you want to equate technology with morality- which is what the Zeitgeist Movement appears to do.

Of course if it doesn't, the only logical assumption would to be that eventually it will. If values become outdated, and we learn that science phases out values, the only logical conclusion would be that, eventually, science itself will replace morality- which, of course, it cannot. If people try, they will create a moral vacuum in which anything- and everything evil- will be sucked into.

Actually we equate equal rights and equal access with morality. Something monetary economics by it's very need to put the profit priority over human concern can never do. It's technology that enables us to create this abundance.

If everyone does not have their health, medical, food, water, and other such needs fulfilled at all times you have an imbalance and equal rights are nothing more than a paper proclamation.

If you don't 'believe' Science and Technology is responsible for -all- the betterment in your life. Drop it all right now and go live in a cave, and you aren't even allowed to use something as simple as a wheel or a pen or a piece of parchment - because they're all technological innovation. You wont do it because you know how absurd it sounds.

Movement away from that fundamental truth- and others like it that Christ taught- is a movement away from sensible and honest living to some bizarre, self-contained delusion that has no choice but to end bitterly and possibly violently.

That's a totally illogical premise. For fundamental truth to exist it has to be established and unchanging (completely revealed) from the outset. Such a thing never has and never will occur.

..? No, it's not. Good and evil could not exist if one didn't have agency. Good and evil cannot exist if men have no agency- which is what you would have us believe, judging from your comments other places that all crime has an underlying cause and that there are no real 'criminals'.

I'm not saying good and evil as concepts cannot exist, but if you have agency you cannot be 'good' or 'evil' in and of yourself - that's a total contradiction to say otherwise because if you are inherently evil then you have to be evil forever because that evil force would never be able to be 'taken over' or controlled by the opposite 'good' force because it is inherent and things inherent cannot be changed (this where the concept of instinct comes from) ... which means that behaviours are inherited traits.

Now, really... that's laughable. Can you tell me, then, why organized religion has survived in virtually every society, both monetary and non-monetary?

Your concept of organised religion appears to be one that differs to mine. Organised religion, by it's very nature is one which is involved with the established power structures on some level or another - so it's much the same organised in the same way politics is.

Every Western religion is like this to some degree or another. Whether they use advertising or pressure politicians or try to interfere their beliefs with Science or run businesses (as in, the hierarchy of a church) ... etc,. Established religion, here then, are merely run like other corporations.

Hold on, America is NOT founded on the idea of anti-established religion. The separation of church and state is to prevent the tyranny of organized religion over the people, and at the same time to protect religion from influence of the government.

Which is anti-established religion. Established religion is involved with the runnings of society to the point of being a pressure group in some way or other to manipulate the content of legislation (among other things), "unestablished religion" is not ... it is merely concerned with it's spiritual message.

Essentially what you're doing right now is attaching a great deal of ego to your (likely) long-held beliefs. This is understandable as belief generally trains people to do so.

Summary:

If you want to sustain capitalism (or any other form of monetary economics), you must indefinitely paralyse the advance of technology in areas such as nanotechnology, machine automation and sustainable energy to name but a few. Essentially because those things will implode monetary economics.

Take America's corporate power, and it's ability to have veto power on a lot of decisions made in our world (due to the amount of capital it holds - which is essentially made out of thin air by a joke of a banking system) and there is nothing left in regards to it's power and influence. Don't believe me? You don't have to, just sit back and enjoy the ride.

By the way, our discussion is fast becoming a debate. I'm not interested in trying to coerce you into this way of thinking. That doesn't work. Real understanding comes through arriving at realisation by one's self - otherwise you're just relying on what's being handed down to you by another, and that is dictatorship in purity. So, while I will continue to respond in a discussion manner - I will -not- debate you to no end, as it's totally inappropriate.

---

In regard to separation of Church and State, I think the words of the Deistic/Atheistic founding fathers put it into context (or at least begin to):

"Lighthouses are more useful than churches"

- Benjamin Franklin

"This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it!"

- John Adams

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man"

- Thomas Jefferson

"The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun."

- Thomas Paine

If the Zeitgeist Movement is anti-religious, then by comparison - they want you dead.

Further reading in that regard Separation of church and state - tribe.net

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"

~ The Treaty of Tripoli ratified by John Adams 1797

"The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma" ~ Abraham Lincoln

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, & I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

~ James Madison Memorial and Remonstrance, 1785

"...our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry..."

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.

Letter to Francis Hopkinson (13 March 1789)"

- Thomas Jefferson

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb in a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." ~ Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to John Adams

Some say the film attacks Christians. What is your response to this?

The idea that the film is against any group is a fallacy. The only thing the film addresses is ideology and beliefs. Sadly, many don't realize that one's ideology is not them. We are emergent beings and everything we believe is taught to us one way or another. Therefore to say the film is attacking "Christians" is about as absurd as saying the film attacks people with baseball caps. This is a serious problem in our society, for identity is erroneously associated with belief. Once again, propagandists against the project use this idea that the film "attacks" a group in order to try and manipulate their surroundings into not thinking critically about the information. The same kind of propaganda has materialized where the project has been called "new world order", "satanic" "marxist" and other irrational, thoughtless distinctions not worth bringing up. Q/A

Edited April 14, 2009 by Aesa

[Maxel]

Okay then, go contract aids and see if prayer gets rid of it. I'm not even kidding.

You don't understand my position but assume it to be the common straw man you're used to. No kudos for close-mindedness. The short version is: prayer is a means of communication with God, and it is an outlet and manifestation of our faith. If, however, our prayer isn't backed by action then it is vain. One of my favorite quotes goes "Pray as if everything depended on God; work as if everything depended on you".

What you're telling me is that prayer is ineffective (read 'useless'). Christian theology- on all fronts, and all creeds- disagrees with you. You're almost entirely alone in that camp among your Christian brothers/sisters. If, however, you want to step outside and join atheists and agnostics, you'll find plenty of company.

"Romans 3:23 (New International Version)

23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,"

Sin, is I'm sure you'll recognise wickedness and that which separates man from God.

Yes; all have. However, sinning (or continuing to sin) does not equate to living by a false creed and philosophies ('walking in crooked paths'). Indeed, Paul said that he "died daily" (1 Corinthians 15:31), yet he did not walk in crooked paths (or, follow man-made philosophies).

I can quote plenty more but it's late and I should be in bed.

You've said that before, in posts that are followed- about 5-10 minutes later- by more posts from you on different threads. I'd like to see more. I'm waiting. Please enlighten me.

If you want to maintain capitalism you're going to have to paralyse technology permanently...

Really...? If I recall my history correctly, some of the greatest inventions and discoveries of our time- the assembly line, the light bulb, the telegraph, the telephone, etc.- were created in our capitalist society. The industries will, of course, have to evolve and grow, but the system itself is not phased out through technology. If humans will eventually be replaced by machinery, who do you think will run the machinery? Who will maintain the public systems? Who will research and create newer technologies? Humans are motivated by competition and opposition: without those two components, humanity stagnates and dies.

It is the economic system. You collapse capitalism (which it is now) and that's the 'end of america' as we know it, period.

Well of course it's the end of America 'as we know it', silly goose! America has never been anything other than capitalist. We don't know anything different.

America's corrupt corporations are what has created it as a superpower, nothing more and nothing less. And by the way, they're inherently corrupt because this system forces them to be.

So America's corruption spawns from corrupt superpowers which are corrupt because of the economic system which is corrupt... why? You've produced no cogent argument, Aesa, despite a lot of posturing and rhetoric.

Getting onto the topic of Constitutions, they're pretty disgusting things anyway because they're open to a very convenient thing called interpretation.

And what would you replace them with? Feel-good resource economics with no coherent governmental structure?

Here, for the faithful of this website, is the heart of the Zeitgeist Movement: calling evil good and good evil. We know the American Constitution to be inspired of God, and here is Aesa telling us that it- and the other governmental constitutions that it inspired- are "disgusting" because they must be interpreted.

Sorry, but they do. Christ contradicts himself like crazy. This makes sense, since so many people have given their accounts of the whole story.

Well, I guess I'm just one of those Bible-believing nutjobs, because I don't see any contradictions within Christ's teachings. That is, however, because I've applied myself to understanding it and not attached myself to a pretty new philosophy perpetuated by the blind seeking to lead other blind men to ruin.

Actually we equate equal rights and equal access with morality. Something monetary economics by it's very need to put the profit priority over human concern can never do. It's technology that enables us to create this abundance.

So, morality is dictated by the rights shared in common with the society? What if every person had the "right" to kill his fellow man, and every person had full access to a gun? Would killing someone with a gun become moral? Every person is given that "right", and every person has access to the means to exercise that right.

If you don't 'believe' Science and Technology is responsible for -all- the betterment in your life. Drop it all right now and go live in a cave, and you aren't even allowed to use something as simple as a wheel or a pen or a piece of parchment - because they're all technological innovation. You wont do it because you know how absurd it sounds.

Of course science and technology (the non-capitalized kind) aren't responsible for all the betterment in my life! There are things outside humanity's science and technology that better my life: positive government, exercise, reading, sleeping, eating yummy food. Technology plays an undeniable role in all of those things, but it is not the ultimate driving factor. It seems you would have me supplant my worship of God with the 'worship' (in the passive sense) of man-made technology. Again, the setting up of a false Christ.

Also: if technology is responsible for all betterment of modern society, can I blame all modern wars on technology? Before airplanes and navy destroyers most wars were localized and involved no more than 2-3 nations. Technology was what made World Wars I and II possible- can I blame those wars and the resultant death and privations on technology?

That's a totally illogical premise. For fundamental truth to exist it has to be established and unchanging (completely revealed) from the outset. Such a thing never has and never will occur.

Well, that's where we differ: I believe such a revealing has occurred (notice what I posted on your 'Christ in Egypt' thread), has continued to occur down the ages (through prophets and wise men) and will still occur. It's people wanting to disbelieve the hard truth and replace it with easier to believe lies- like a global utopia based in resource economics and the suppression of organized religion- that are responsible for obscuring that truth.

Of course, there are also those people who just hate goodness because they prefer evil- the kind of criminal that isn't created by a lack of basic resources.

I'm not saying good and evil as concepts cannot exist, but if you have agency you cannot be 'good' or 'evil' in and of yourself - that's a total contradiction to say otherwise because if you are inherently evil then you have to be evil forever because that evil force would never be able to be 'taken over' or controlled by the opposite 'good' force because it is inherent and things inherent cannot be changed (this where the concept of instinct comes from) ... which means that behaviours are inherited traits.

Let's break this down.

if you have agency you cannot be 'good' or 'evil' in and of yourself

You can if your decisions are based against a concrete code of ethics (i.e., God's eternal laws). It is only when one hesitates to compare an individual's actions against external standards where the idea of relative truth come into play- an idea which is wholly against established Christian theology.

if you are inherently evil then you have to be evil forever because that evil force would never be able to be 'taken over' or controlled by the opposite 'good' force

You assume, of course, that a person is 'all good' or 'all evil' and not taking into the account that there are people who are weak, but want to do good. In other words, doing evil is a strong temptation and easy to do, but there are those who desire to do good and erase the badness from their lives. It is possible via the Atonement of Christ- that 'good force' you're talking about.

it is inherent and things inherent cannot be changed (this where the concept of instinct comes from)

Except of course for mutations and the overcoming of genetically predisposed addictions (such as alcoholism); a person's desire for [enter object/action here] and even the color of a person's hair over time. Darn those pesky facts, getting in the way of your philosophizing!

On a side note: what you're saying (in the most recent quotation) makes sense in a very limited sense when constricting parameters are put on it, but far too simple to be applicable in a larger scale.

which means that behaviours are inherited traits.

Yes, many behaviors are inherited. However, the ability to model and shape one's behaviors through willpower is also inherent in every human being.

Your concept of organised religion appears to be one that differs to mine.

Obviously. I view it as good; you seem to think of it as a great evil.

Organised religion, by it's very nature is one which is involved with the established power structures on some level or another - so it's much the same organised in the same way politics is.

Yes, organized religion is organized. Is organization bad though? It seems that nature itself follows some organizational pattern- is nature evil?

Every Western religion is like this to some degree or another. Whether they use advertising or pressure politicians or try to interfere their beliefs with Science or run businesses (as in, the hierarchy of a church) ... etc,. Established religion, here then, are merely run like other corporations.

May I offer another view:

Organized religion and corporations both draw their inspiration for organization from the order of the universe- that is, authority and order.

Which is anti-established religion.

Maybe in the Zeitgeist Movement philosophy you live by- but not in the world that I and most other thinking American lives in. Last time I checked, the separation of church and state was to keep both entities from crossing the border between the valid societal role each play- a border that, if crossed, could spell doom for the entire country.

Established religion is involved with the runnings of society to the point of being a pressure group in some way or other to manipulate the content of legislation (among other things), "unestablished religion" is not ... it is merely concerned with it's spiritual message.

In other words, organized religion seeks to spread its philosophies and ideals- peace, unity, love, etc.- while unorganized religion just sits back and lets the world rot. I'd stick with the former- despite the fact that there are many religious groups that attempt to influence politics in a most unhealthy way. That's wrong. However, you don't throw the baby our with the bath water.

Essentially what you're doing right now is attaching a great deal of ego to your (likely) long-held beliefs. This is understandable as belief generally trains people to do so.

You actually underestimate the situation. Because we're arguing gospel principles, I'm attaching enormous weight- the weight of me believing my point of view is inspired of God and is close to the Absolute Truth- to my long held beliefs (in fact, I've been a member all my life; you may read my conversion story here). Your attempt to deflate the substance of my beliefs is successfully deflected the fact I'm more stubborn and staunch in my opinions than you had even guessed!

Essentially what you're doing right now is attaching a great deal of import to this (likely) newfound philosophical movement you're advocating. This is understandable, as such is human nature when a person is not grounded in the eternal principles of the Gospel. I encourage you to open your mind and free yourself from the social imperative pressured upon you from outside sources to fight traditional values and society and join with radical movements pretending to advocate social change! Subvert the dominant paradigm! Pray, read the scriptures! Believe! It will open your eyes.

If you want to sustain capitalism (or any other form of monetary economics), you must indefinitely paralyse the advance of technology in areas such as nanotechnology, machine automation and sustainable energy to name but a few.

Greedy capitalism- where those at the top keep a stranglehold on progressing technologies- maybe. However, the source of the evil inherent in greed will not be fixed by the solution you are forwarding, and in fact will corrupt any society, no matter what its governmental structure.

Take America's corporate power, and it's ability to have veto power on a lot of decisions made in our world (due to the amount of capital it holds - which is essentially made out of thin air by a joke of a banking system) and there is nothing left in regards to it's power and influence. Don't believe me? You don't have to, just sit back and enjoy the ride.

I'm actually fighting so that deflation in power doesn't happen. You might be overjoyed at the prospect of your fellow men suffering terribly, but I'm not so much for it.

By the way, our discussion is fast becoming a debate. I'm not interested in trying to coerce you into this way of thinking.

I'm glad you realize that now. I will not, however, let you continue to advocate the Zeitgeist Movement without my personal opposition in the matter. Rest assured, I will be there (when my busy schedule allows) to fight you. Count on me to be like that annoying uncle (or nephew, depending on your age) who just can't let you have your fun.

In regard to separation of Church and State, I think the words of the Deistic/Atheistic founding fathers put it into context (or at least begin to):

First of all, we've already had an enlightening conversation on the Founding Fathers (here). By the way, some of the founding fathers were assuredly Deistic, but I haven't read any accounts of any being atheistic. And trust me, if any of them were atheistic, it would have been brought up in that discussion.

I find one quote of yours particularly enlightening (as to the reliability and honesty of your sources of information):

"This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it!"

- John Adams

This is ripped from a larger quote. In context, it reads:

Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!" But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell.

-- John Adams, quoted from Charles Francis Adams, ed, Works of John Adams (1856), vol. X, p. 254

Positive Atheism

I suggest you double-check your sources before posting such 'damming' quotes. If such a quotation, when taken in context says the exact opposite of what you paint it to mean, how am I to trust your other quotes? In addition, I have researched each of these men (a little) and find that, while some are deistic and others have problems with the Christianity of the day, none of them are against organized religion for various reasons- they may not agree with it theologically, but none are against organized religion in general. In fact, John Adams was specifically for it because it was a useful tool for keeping the people in line (you can find that tidbit in the website I linked).

However, the ENTIRE point is moot because my faith submits that the founding fathers were inspired to bring about the Constitution of the United States- not that they were inspired in all their thoughts, faith, and beliefs. My stance is the result of a prolonged study of the word of God, and through communication with Him via the Holy Ghost.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"

~ The Treaty of Tripoli ratified by John Adams 1797

Hear hear. America is not, politically, a Christian nation. Most of the people who live in it are Christian and, therefore, can safely be called a Christian nation in that regard- but it is not a Christian nation.

As for the rest of your quotes: they merely provide a painfully clear example that the religious traditions extant during the lives of those speaking was not the right Church- hence, the truth of the restored Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That, however, is another discussion.

Edited April 15, 2009 by Maxel

[Aesa]

You don't understand my position but assume it to be the common straw man you're used to. No kudos for close-mindedness. The short version is: prayer is a means of communication with God, and it is an outlet and manifestation of our faith. If, however, our prayer isn't backed by action then it is vain. One of my favorite quotes goes "Pray as if everything depended on God; work as if everything depended on you".

What you're telling me is that prayer is ineffective (read 'useless'). Christian theology- on all fronts, and all creeds- disagrees with you. You're almost entirely alone in that camp among your Christian brothers/sisters. If, however, you want to step outside and join atheists and agnostics, you'll find plenty of company.

Actually I'm glad you've said that. You've managed to take away a lot the materialism that I thought you attached to prayer. In other words, there are a lot of people who say something like "Thank God for that aspirin" (as an example) when in reality God has nothing to do with the effect of the aspirin - if He/She did you wouldn't need it in the first place. If you define prayer as a means of spiritual communication, then I'm all for that. I think this is a good explanation for even why Atheists 'pray in a crashing plane' sometimes -- they are seeking some connection with a oneness.

You can if your decisions are based against a concrete code of ethics (i.e., God's eternal laws).

Which really aren't concrete because everyone, including Mormon church members I've met, all have subjective views on what they are; their relevance and how they should be understood.

an idea which is wholly against established Christian theology.

That's like saying "taste is something devoid in food." You can't use the term 'Christian theology' like that without giving a really strong term of reference because Christian theology is like a grocery store (granted, this occurs in all religions and traditions but it's by far most rampant in Christianity).

Yes, many behaviors are inherited. However, the ability to model and shape one's behaviors through willpower is also inherent in every human being.

No they aren't. They're based on your "frame of reference." You cannot know how to, say, become a bodhisattva or fulfill spiritual jihad (the good kind, for the sake of discussion) if you haven't been exposed to those concepts in the first place.

Obviously. I view it as good; you seem to think of it as a great evil.

No, I don't and I'm sorry you think this. I am highly religious, I view the entire existence as divine in and of itself and our religions as expressions of that amazing thing which is the human being. However, this isn't a discussion of my beliefs.

I do, however, view religion as (like all other established self-preserving systems) having the propensity to be very dangerous if it has a false basis in history. When things like this occur, people will go ahead and acknowledge that their's is the only correct way and die for their beliefs (as an example) - not only that they will be silly enough to think that it's up to them to proselytise the entire planet yet on the same page (if they know anything of comparative religion) acknowledge that their religion shares so many common threads both in values and the stories they believe in that it is utterly lidicrous to claim to be 'the only true one' when religions of the present and past are telling the same stories which are (when you get into it) basically pure allegory and based on mans tendency to deify the world around him. However, I can't force people to recognise that they're all connected (and this is the 'problem' religion sometimes causes - that they don't recognise this) because it's up to each individual to recognise that conclusion. Fundamentalism, is what is dangerous - it's the cause of the crusades, of ridiculous notions from the Pope that condoms make aids worse (it's not promiscuity that causes aids (especially if protection is involved - why doesn't someone tell him this?), etc,.

Yes, organized religion is organized. Is organization bad though? It seems that nature itself follows some organizational pattern- is nature evil?

Is not inherent though. :) And, if we're talking about my views on 'good' and 'evil' they do not exist and are created by the culture - this is the logical consequence of the reality that our behaviour is shaped/warped by the environment.

Organized religion and corporations both draw their inspiration for organization from the order of the universe- that is, authority and order.

That's a semantic interpretation of nature. You can't do that, because in that respect, nature cant answer back.

It's not the corporation that's 'bad' (infact in a resource-based economy things such as industry would be a more unified body that works together to make the best possible products) but the system that forces it to be bad.

Why don't corporations care when they have an oil spill, or are logging forests or continue to pollute the environment by exploiting oil reserves? Because they can't afford to. They're not evil, their behaviour is just generated by the mode of operation (money where profit has to come before human concern in almost all cases).

In other words, organized religion seeks to spread its philosophies and ideals- peace, unity, love, etc.- while unorganized religion just sits back and lets the world rot. I'd stick with the former- despite the fact that there are many religious groups that attempt to influence politics in a most unhealthy way. That's wrong. However, you don't throw the baby our with the bath water.

Utter nonsense. I love this. Many of the pagan religion of the "old world" were not organised religions and by all reports they lived in very sophisticated cultures.

Oh, and, pagan cultures coming to mind I'd like to quote Fresco on something because I think it makes a great point:

In Rome when they used to feed Christians to lions, the kid would say "Daddy, can we come next week to see Christians being fed to the lions?"

And he'd say "Only if you're good."

Are these kids sick? No, their value system has been distorted by the culture.

This is a very revealing example of how society shapes values and behaviour because today we would view such a thing as totally reprehensible (yet, it's still fine for us to kill millions of innocents in the Midlde East - but I digress).

Greedy capitalism- where those at the top keep a stranglehold on progressing technologies- maybe. However, the source of the evil inherent in greed will not be fixed by the solution you are forwarding, and in fact will corrupt any society, no matter what its governmental structure.

Science corrupts society? Hmm, only in the wrong hands. All of what Science creates is an inanimate object and it's corrupted today because we live in a totally warped culture.

There is no such thing as "Kind Capitalism" it is all greedy and it has to be because the core tenet of Capitalism is to pursue one's self interest.

Apparently this promotes the culture's interests, however as we've seen nothing is further from the truth as we continue to lose more freedoms, see an increase in crime, and so forth.

I'm actually fighting so that deflation in power doesn't happen. You might be overjoyed at the prospect of your fellow men suffering terribly, but I'm not so much for it.

It's going to happen whether you like it or not because this whole system is collapsing. Granted, it might not be quite there yet (things might go up again once or twice more) but it's not far away.

You absolutely will have to suppress all of the high technology I've talked about, and oppose machine automation by industry and so forth - if you want to maintain Capitalism.

It's collapsing, not because the government has no idea how to maintain their system - but because it's obsolete at an increasing level to how our culture is run.

This is not an opinion. Sustainable technology spells the end of a competitive, scarcity-driven culture.

By the way, some of the founding fathers were assuredly Deistic, but I haven't read any accounts of any being atheistic. And trust me, if any of them were atheistic

We can infer greatly though. You have to take into account that these men were, by the standards of their culture, absolute genuises. They accepted a deistic God, which is essentially the Colonial parent of Atheism. I say that because they didn't believe anything 'about' god (notice, not capital G) - which is exactly in line with Atheism/Agnosticism of today.

If such a quotation, when taken in context says the exact opposite of what you paint it to mean, how am I to trust your other quotes?

I apologise for the out of context quote. I looked in a few place and it appeared sound. You have no need to trust anything I say to you - verify it for yourself.

John Adams was specifically for it because it was a useful tool for keeping the people in line

I'm aware of that. Don't you find that he recognised it as a means of social control and loved it is a little disconcerting?

hence, the truth of the restored Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That, however, is another discussion.

No offense - but too bad by this rate it's going to take thousands of years at best to catch on.

You've said that before, in posts that are followed- about 5-10 minutes later- by more posts from you on different threads. I'd like to see more. I'm waiting. Please enlighten me.

I'm sorry - that's a habit of my horrid sleeping pattern (which I always fall into when on holidays). Main problem is I don't have a copy of a Bible here and the only one available is this huge one from the 1800's which I'm not getting out just to find some verses (so if I'm going to add verses it'll have to wait until next week).

[Islander]

No, I don't and I'm sorry you think this. I am highly religious, I view the entire existence as divine in and of itself and our religions as expressions of that amazing thing which is the human being. However, this isn't a discussion of my beliefs.

I do, however, view religion as (like all other established self-preserving systems) having the propensity to be very dangerous if it has a false basis in history. When things like this occur, people will go ahead and acknowledge that their's is the only correct way and die for their beliefs (as an example) - not only that they will be silly enough to think that it's up to them to proselytise the entire planet yet on the same page (if they know anything of comparative religion) acknowledge that their religion shares so many common threads both in values and the stories they believe in that it is utterly lidicrous to claim to be 'the only true one' when religions of the present and past are telling the same stories which are (when you get into it) basically pure allegory and based on mans tendency to deify the world around him. However, I can't force people to recognise that they're all connected (and this is the 'problem' religion sometimes causes - that they don't recognise this) because it's up to each individual to recognise that conclusion. Fundamentalism, is what is dangerous - it's the cause of the crusades, of ridiculous notions from the Pope that condoms make aids worse (it's not promiscuity that causes aids (especially if protection is involved - why doesn't someone tell him this?), etc,.

Utter nonsense. I love this. Many of the pagan religion of the "old world" were not organised religions and by all reports they lived in very sophisticated cultures.

Oh, and, pagan cultures coming to mind I'd like to quote Fresco on something because I think it makes a great point:

Science corrupts society? Hmm, only in the wrong hands. All of what Science creates is an inanimate object and it's corrupted today because we live in a totally warped culture.

There is no such thing as "Kind Capitalism" it is all greedy and it has to be because the core tenet of Capitalism is to pursue one's self interest.

Apparently this promotes the culture's interests, however as we've seen nothing is further from the truth as we continue to lose more freedoms, see an increase in crime, and so forth.

.

I read the manifesto by the "Unibomer" and he sounded just like you. A completely artificial, unrealistic and Utopian argument.

Before those few men that signed the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, ALL other men on the earth were subjects to a ruler and lived at the mercy of such ruler with no claim on self or property than the clemency and benevolence of said ruler. ONLY the nobles had access to the means and opportunity to provide an increase and the people were exploited and forced into a meager existence. It was Capitalism that brought about the most transparent, prosperous, hopeful and fair society in the world. It was capitalism that stepped in and crushed fascism and genocide, it is in this system that you so much despise that millions have found the freedom, hope and prosperity denied the world over by ALL the other political systems.

The very way in which you live and the opportunities you enjoy were brought about by the capitalism you so much deride. It is the very system that allows you to reach out across the world and engage in this, by now, frustrating and circular debate. It is the very system that allows you to express freely without fear of loosing life or limb. ANY AND ALL other political systems would have truncated your ephemeral intellectual exercise by putting you to death after sharing this silly, speculative and fictional social theory of yours.

[Aesa]

It was capitalism that stepped in and crushed fascism

Too bad that it's revived it, then.

Fictional social theory?

Well, you can conclude that - but it obviously represents you going on a big "self-preserve."

Why? Because technology is going to kill Capitalism (no, monetaryism in general), and that is that.

If it doesn't, then we're going to have to paralyse it pretty soon. We're going to have to ban nanotechnology and robotics and all sorts of other things. Technological Unemployment is the end of capitalism.

Don't take my word for it, here's an economic paper on the issue to get you started http://www.eui.eu/Personal/Researchers/georgd/JMpaper_duernecker.pdf

This is why abundant energy such as Geothermal Energy is suppressed - because it's so abundant that it could provide for the entire planets energy needs endlessly. If that's utilised in a Capitalist society at it's most efficient level, you couldn't put a price on it. This is what machine automation and sustainable technology is doing. This is why most ATM's don't cost you money for transactions - because they're available everywhere and no one would use them if you put a price on them, they'd still rely on the human teller.

On top of that; if you want a world that's sustainable, where the goods and services produced are efficient (devoid of planned obsolescence, etc,) and where there are equal rights (resources abundant for all) then you can't maintain monetaryism in any form - for the nature of the structure simply goes against all those things.

A completely artificial, unrealistic and Utopian argument.

Yeah, you're totally right. Available technology being put to use is a veritable utopia. /sarcasm

Something you need to think about is that Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, Fascism, and the others are all the same. They all use the same things money; prisons; police; cruelty; law; politics; military; corporate power; cookie-cutter education,etc,.

The only difference between Communism and Capitalism is the amount of control by the State. (and goodness, our cultures are tightening the reigns on us everywhere you look - and that's because they have to protect themselves from their own failures somehow)

I get the feeling that you haven't watched these films, because you seem to be in the dark about the true state of technology. If you haven't watched them then why are you bothering to discuss these issues? You're coming from an uninformed perspective.

Here is Roxanne Meadows in two short videos talking about the present state of technology:

And the purpose of money

which will help you begin to recognise why sustainable technology will implode such a system.

And here is a discussion on the Scientific Method:

Edited April 15, 2009 by Aesa

[Maxel]

Which really aren't concrete because everyone, including Mormon church members I've met, all have subjective views on what they are; their relevance and how they should be understood.

Well maybe you should ask theology instead of people. Mormon theology is very, very clear on exactly who we are, where we came from, and where we're going. Ultimately, though, it doesn't matter if humans understand all of the truths in the universe or not- God has revealed a few crucial keys of knowledge that we can judge by.

That's like saying "taste is something devoid in food." You can't use the term 'Christian theology' like that without giving a really strong term of reference because Christian theology is like a grocery store (granted, this occurs in all religions and traditions but it's by far most rampant in Christianity).

I give you that. I should have said something along the lines of "general Christian theology", because every Christian religion I know of believes in absolute truth and that man can be good or evil. I'm hard-pressed to think of one that doesn't.

No they aren't. They're based on your "frame of reference." You cannot know how to, say, become a bodhisattva or fulfill spiritual jihad (the good kind, for the sake of discussion) if you haven't been exposed to those concepts in the first place.

I don't understand how this follows from the preceding quote.

I do, however, view religion as (like all other established self-preserving systems) having the propensity to be very dangerous if it has a false basis in history. When things like this occur, people will go ahead and acknowledge that their's is the only correct way and die for their beliefs (as an example) - not only that they will be silly enough to think that it's up to them to proselytise the entire planet yet on the same page (if they know anything of comparative religion) acknowledge that their religion shares so many common threads both in values and the stories they believe in that it is utterly lidicrous to claim to be 'the only true one' when religions of the present and past are telling the same stories which are (when you get into it) basically pure allegory and based on mans tendency to deify the world around him. However, I can't force people to recognise that they're all connected (and this is the 'problem' religion sometimes causes - that they don't recognise this) because it's up to each individual to recognise that conclusion. Fundamentalism, is what is dangerous - it's the cause of the crusades, of ridiculous notions from the Pope that condoms make aids worse (it's not promiscuity that causes aids (especially if protection is involved - why doesn't someone tell him this?), etc,.

This is... hard to follow. Your profile says you're a Christian and you claim to be highly religious, yet you seem to deny many of the traditionally established Christian doctrines (and I'm talking about such basic ones as 'Christ lived' and 'the Bible is at least mostly reliable' and 'a Christian's duty is to spread the Gospel throughout the world'). I'm not attacking, merely trying to find out where you stand.

Pray tell, though- if promiscuity (or the willingness to have sex with multiple partners) doesn't 'cause' AIDS (by 'cause' I mean facilitate the transmission of) what does?

Is not inherent though.

The fact that we find some sort of organized religion- and by 'organized' I mean a religion with an actual order to it, with priests, some rudiments of theology, etc.- in virtually every culture throughout history seems to hind that, at the least, it is an inherent part of organized society. But, I digress.

And, if we're talking about my views on 'good' and 'evil' they do not exist and are created by the culture - this is the logical consequence of the reality that our behaviour is shaped/warped by the environment.

There's another possibility: good and evil exist, but behavior is still shaped/warped by the environment. It is a person's conscience that allows said person to choose between what's really right and really wrong. It does not follow that behavior is (even minutely) shaped by environment, so good and evil don't exist. I point this out because, as a representative of the Zeitgeist Movement, I assume this is the stance it takes.

That's a semantic interpretation of nature. You can't do that, because in that respect, nature cant answer back.

I... don't get it. I don't see how it's inappropriate or wrong or whatnot to state that the very essence of organization is based on nature because nature itself is organized.

Why don't corporations care when they have an oil spill, or are logging forests or continue to pollute the environment by exploiting oil reserves? Because they can't afford to. They're not evil, their behaviour is just generated by the mode of operation (money where profit has to come before human concern in almost all cases).

Utter nonsense. A corporation is made up of people, and the people running it decide the policies and actions, not some (false) idea that profit is greater than all other factors. I will readily admit there are companies run by men like that- again, however, it is because of the pride and greed inherent in human nature and said men not overcoming said greed. Again, the problem exists, but the problem is not the system: it is the people, and the people will not be fixed by changing the system.

Utter nonsense. I love this. Many of the pagan religion of the "old world" were not organised religions and by all reports they lived in very sophisticated cultures.

We're going to have to come to a more clear definition of what 'organized religion' is before we proceed. I assume organized religion has some sort of ecclesiastical order- priests, acolytes, etc.- and often diverse worship practices.

Oh, and, pagan cultures coming to mind I'd like to quote Fresco on something because I think it makes a great point:

This is a very revealing example of how society shapes values and behaviour because today we would view such a thing as totally reprehensible

Yes; society affects behavior. No; that does not mean it is the ultimate and only factor. If behavior relied solely on behavior for its formation, then there would never be any dissent within the ranks of humanity. In fact, humans never would have risen from primitive hunter-gatherers societies to today's societies if environment dictated behavior.

Is that your position? That society is the ultimate factor in deciding behavior?

Science corrupts society? Hmm, only in the wrong hands. All of what Science creates is an inanimate object and it's corrupted today because we live in a totally warped culture.

Try that on the other foot:

Capitalism corrupts society? Hmm, only in the wrong hands. All of what Capitalism creates is a society in which the individual can rise to his/her true potential and it's corrupted today because we live in a totally warped culture.

There is no such thing as "Kind Capitalism" it is all greedy and it has to be because the core tenet of Capitalism is to pursue one's self interest.

One's self-interest is what needs to be met by each individual- but not necessarily at another's expense. Capitalism is merely one system- I believe the best (by far)- in which every person can apply his/her innate talents to the real world and turn hard work into profit. Ideally, each person's work would benefit the community just as much as it benefited the person doing the work and careful attention would be given to ensure product efficiency and quality.

You absolutely will have to suppress all of the high technology I've talked about, and oppose machine automation by industry and so forth - if you want to maintain Capitalism.

It's collapsing, not because the government has no idea how to maintain their system - but because it's obsolete at an increasing level to how our culture is run.

This is not an opinion. Sustainable technology spells the end of a competitive, scarcity-driven culture.

I keep hearing this, but I see no cogent logic behind it. History shows the exact opposite: technology has traditionally thrived in the American Capitalist society. That same technology has phased out old categories of jobs, but new categories of jobs have arisen to take their places. Did you ever hear of a computer programmer before the creation of computers? Although computers took over the roles of many different jobs, they also opened up a plethora of new job possibilities.

We can infer greatly though.

You mean, you can infer greatly. Wrongly, I might add.

You have to take into account that these men were, by the standards of their culture, absolute genuises. They accepted a deistic God, which is essentially the Colonial parent of Atheism. I say that because they didn't believe anything 'about' god (notice, not capital G) - which is exactly in line with Atheism/Agnosticism of today.

Really? A quick perusal of Wikipedia disproves this. In fact, Wikipedia states that one factor in the decline of Deism was "rise, growth, and spread of naturalism and materialism, which were atheistic".

Of course Wikipedia is Wikipedia, so perhaps these quotes- pulled from Modern Deism.com- will help shed life on their actual beliefs. The first listed "unofficial" tenet of Deism is:

1. Belief in God based on Reason, Experience and Nature (nature of the universe) rather than on the basis of holy texts and divine revelation. Essentially, through the use of Reason, God’s existence is revealed by the observation of the order and complexity found within nature and our personal experiences.

Another:

3. Belief that mans relationship with God is transpersonal. However, this does not create a feeling of a distant and cold deity but of one in which God has a profound and unfathomable relationship with all of creation (nature) rather than just one aspect of it.

Does that sound atheistic to you?

I apologise for the out of context quote. I looked in a few place and it appeared sound. You have no need to trust anything I say to you - verify it for yourself.

I do. Your track record isn't starling. I don't mean to offend.

I'm aware of that. Don't you find that he recognised it as a means of social control and loved it is a little disconcerting?

Not really, no. I don't believe Adams' goals- or any of the Founding Fathers' goals- was to submit humanity to their rule. George Washington declined the offer to be king. They specifically blocked all routes to tyranny that they could foresee. 'Social control' isn't a bad thing- it means that people can be reined in if they wish to rebel and harm others, and if that control is done through peaceful means, all the better.

Ultimately, though, organized religion supports organized government, which is essential for healthy human survival. The willingness to submit to one usually translates to a willingness to submit to the other.

There's a copy of the Bible online at the LDS website here; just click on 'Old Testament' or 'New Testament' or use the search function in the top left of the page.

[Aesa]

every Christian religion I know of believes in absolute truth and that man can be good or evil.

Perhaps the earliest gospels? You know, the Gnostics?

However, the ability to model and shape one's behaviors through willpower is also inherent in every human being.

No they aren't. They're based on your "frame of reference." You cannot know how to, say, become a bodhisattva or fulfill spiritual jihad (the good kind, for the sake of discussion) if you haven't been exposed to those concepts in the first place.

I don't understand how this follows from the preceding quote.

Quite simply, you appear to be saying that someone can have the 'willpower' to shape their behaviour. When in reality, they're limited by what's available to them/what they chose to be interested in, etc,.

This is... hard to follow. Your profile says you're a Christian and you claim to be highly religious, yet you seem to deny many of the traditionally established Christian doctrines (and I'm talking about such basic ones as 'Christ lived' and 'the Bible is at least mostly reliable' and 'a Christian's duty is to spread the Gospel throughout the world'). I'm not attacking, merely trying to find out where you stand.

Pray tell, though- if promiscuity (or the willingness to have sex with multiple partners) doesn't 'cause' AIDS (by 'cause' I mean facilitate the transmission of) what does?

The majority of people who get aids get it from just having that 'one try' at unprotected sex with a random.

Sorry, my profile is long out of date. I don't deny that a Jesus of Nazareth lived, just that by the time the pen got to paper it was so distorted and mythologised to no end.

The fact that we find some sort of organized religion- and by 'organized' I mean a religion with an actual order to it, with priests, some rudiments of theology, etc.- in virtually every culture throughout history seems to hind that, at the least, it is an inherent part of organized society. But, I digress.

Not really. Still environmental determinism, a trickle down effect.

good and evil exist, but behavior is still shaped/warped by the environment. It is a person's conscience that allows said person to choose between what's really right and really wrong. It does not follow that behavior is (even minutely) shaped by environment, so good and evil don't exist. I point this out because, as a representative of the Zeitgeist Movement, I assume this is the stance it takes.

Not quite. Good and evil do exist but they don't exist WITHIN you.

You're not born with anti-semitism, or bigotry, or greed, or hatred or elitism or violence. You pick those things up. They're evil, but it's not inborn.

I... don't get it. I don't see how it's inappropriate or wrong or whatnot to state that the very essence of organization is based on nature because nature itself is organized.

Nature is lawful, and organised. But not in a hierarchial way. This sums of natural organisation:

[...]It is time to broaden our loyalties and affiliations beyond the narrow confines of the marketplace,

tradition, and the nation-state to encompass the human species as a whole, along with the planetary

environment that supports us all. It is time we view the earth as an indivisible organic whole, a living

entity composed of countless forms of life, all brought together in a single community.

pride and greed inherent in human nature

I'm not even going to bother addressing all the other nonsense about the idea that the structure doesn't force corporations to be greedy because the evidence is there, it does.

And, you need to go back to psychology class. Human nature does not exist any further than this: Self-preservation (the human being will do whatever it needs to do in order to survive and continue it's species.)

You put a human in an environment where it has to fight to live, and it will.

“GREED AND COMPETITION ARE NOT THE RESULT OF IMMUTABLE HUMAN TEMPERMENT…GREED AND FEAR OF SCARCITY ARE IN FACT BEING CREATED AND AMPLIFIED … THE DIRECT CONSEQUENCE IS THAT WE HAVE TO FIGHT WITH EACH OTHER IN ORDER TO SURVIVE”

-Bernard Lietaer, Founder of the EU Currency System

innate talents

Don't exist, but that's a whole other discussion.

If behavior relied solely on behavior for its formation, then there would never be any dissent within the ranks of humanity. In fact, humans never would have risen from primitive hunter-gatherers societies to today's societies if environment dictated behavior.

That's utter nonsense. Actually this is what would be the case if we were creatures ruled by "human nature." Because it can't change, since it's something inborn.

Humans are adaptive creatures, which means their behaviour is determined the environment, and our cultures are just continuing attempts to better adapt and live in the world.

One's self-interest is what needs to be met by each individual- but not necessarily at another's expense.

Unfortunately it has to be, that's it's very nature. Unless it's in the sense of you have a collective 'self-interest' which is what an RBE would orient society toward, but that's really a derogation of the term because that wouldn't be a "me, me, me" / "take, take, take" self interest.

History shows the exact opposite: technology has traditionally thrived in the American Capitalist society. That same technology has phased out old categories of jobs, but new categories of jobs have arisen to take their places. Did you ever hear of a computer programmer before the creation of computers? Although computers took over the roles of many different jobs, they also opened up a plethora of new job possibilities.

You're quite right. But every sector is now being affected by outsourcing/redundancy/automation (because of industry's priority of profit) and unfortunately the automation is happening very quickly and there is no new sector to take all these jobs.

Please read that paper before you make any further comments on this issue.

Technology can only be sustained in Capitalism so long as it is profitable, and you cannot profit off something that is efficient sustainable and abundant. This is why sustainable energy and electric cars are suppressed.

You mean, you can infer greatly. Wrongly, I might add.

Nope, scholarship generally agrees that Deism is the parent of other forms of modern 'non-belief'.

1. Belief in God based on Reason, Experience and Nature (nature of the universe) rather than on the basis of holy texts and divine revelation. Essentially, through the use of Reason, God’s existence is revealed by the observation of the order and complexity found within nature and our personal experiences.

Actually, it's not a capital g.

They believe in a god that created the universe and then just 'disappeared' and doesn't give a crap in regards to human affairs.

if they wish to rebel and harm others

People don't just 'wish' to do that. The overall consensus is that people are lured into violent and destructive behaviour by the culture.

To quote just the example from the movements manual:

The ‘Merva-Fowles’ study, done at the University of Utah in the 1990s, found powerful connections

between unemployment and crime. They based their research on 30 major metropolitan areas with a

total population of over 80 million.

Their findings found that a 1% rise in unemployment resulted in:

a 6.7% increase in Homicides;

a 3.4 % increase in violent crimes;

a 2.4 % increase in property crime.

During the period from 1990 to 1992, this translated into:

1459 additional Homicides;

62,607 additional violent crimes;

223,500 additional property crimes.

5

If you were to take a well-to-do, ethical, ‘stand-up’ person, strip them of their wealth and resources

and drop them into a poor city with nothing but the shirt on their back, there is a very high

probability that this person will begin to lie, cheat and steal in order to survive.

It is no surprise that the poorest neighborhoods in the United States maintain the highest crime rates.

To confound this sort of stuff, you need look no further than all the news stories about crime rates going up and church attendance going up during an economic downturn.

which is essential for healthy human survival

Incorrect, none of our problems are political. That is a complete fallacy.

I am absolutely sure that you haven't consulted the materials I've directed you to, especially in my most recent posts and in my PM to you. And if you haven't then you hold no water in this discussion - it's like debating about Islam without ever having touched a copy of the Qur'an.

I'm not continuing this discussion with you until you can say you've done so. Because we're ultimately going in endless pointless circles filled with ignorance about things such as human behaviour, which is very important to understand.

[prospectmom]

There is also no point in debating someone who has a closed mind and will not consider other's opinions.....

[Aesa]

A refresh of material to consult:

These films (free online)

This movie (optional because you have to buy it)

Economic paper on technological unemployment

Comments on technological capabilities:

Money:

Some other stuff:

(that's from the film you'd otherwise have to pay for)

On top of that, there's also

which is an important excerpt from Zeitgeist Addendum because it details information on the sustainable technologies being suppressed by our structure (because they're sustainable, and therefore unprofitable).

Consult that information, (and more I will provide when/if necessary) and then we can pursue a fair and open minded discussion.

[Aesa]

There is also no point in debating someone who has a closed mind and will not consider other's opinions.....

I couldn't agree with you more.

If you all educate yourself about sustainable technologies you'd see that they will cause the collapse of capitalism (above all it's other problems). Monetaryism may have embraced technology, but the technology that it embraces and benefits uses scarce resources (eg: oil) whereas Geothermal energy uses water, solar power uses the abundant energy of the sun, and wind power uses wind. Don't turn around and say 'those sources are weak, etc,' consult the information I've provided to see for yourself that that's untrue.

Just one example from that being that the US department of energy has said that if wind power was used in just 3 states it would power the entire nation. Abundance doesn't have a price tag, scarcity does

I'm the open minded one here. Open minded doesn't mean 'considering all points' but rather 'considering all points with the conditional requirement of near-empirical evidence.'

Edited April 15, 2009 by Aesa

[prospectmom]

I am a simple person who tries to learn as much as I can..... I read these deep posts and go to many of the references givin.... I just can only control my space in this world... do my part and from my stand point I see lots being done to use sustainable energy...... I have faith and know all will be ok if we individually do our parts...... I enjoy everyones deep debates gives me pause to really think ...... but I am no extremest and never will be.....

spelling errors a plenty.... please forgive and thanks guys love to read all this

[Aesa]

I can understand that prospectmom.

We (this movement) are quite literally attempting the greatest environmental shift for humanity, ever. We are attempting to, for the first time, create a society where no one "owes someone" for anything. We are attempting to create a culture where people are left to pursue true incentive, and that is their interests.

The reality is, change will never happen unless the system collapses and people have lost confidence in the system. Right now, that is in the process of happening (don't take my word for it - do the research as best as you can when you can).

Bottom line is that a monetary system has to maintain a labour force to keep the cycle of money going. As machines continue to automate all sectors, people will not be able to get jobs. When this happens, they either have to go on some form of permanent social services and essentially have limited resources their whole life - or we'll move to a system where the technology doesn't enslave people in such a way but frees them.

It's all open to your consideration, and personal research. I'm not here to try and "convert" you to this idea (and this is why I don't like debating) but rather to offer you really well sourced information to consider.

Unfortunately some of the people fervently debating in here don't care to check the information provided but are just interested in furthering an agenda against something they falsely feel threatened by.

[prospectmom]

For me I have no credit card debt... sadly no longer own a home... but do all I can to live within my means , help others when I can and be a positive part of my small community... I live in the mountains by choice.. but thanks to this computer age am more connected to our world....

We are attempting to, for the first time, create a society where no one "owes someone" for anything. We are attempting to create a culture where people are left to pursue true incentive, and that is their interests.

What a wonderful ideal just not realistic or possible to me....

[Aesa]

It's only impossible so long as we decide it is. This idea that it is impossible is based in lack of understanding (and I don't mean that as an attack), and it's the same lie the royals tried on your founding fathers.

"It'll never work."

Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society

This can never occur in a scarcity-driven, monetary-based economy.

[prospectmom]

Explain how it can work in this country????? I don't see a way.... Now in pockets of our country we watch out for each other and needs are met sometimes without being asked... People care and help each other .. but in the real world????? how???

[Aesa]

Explain how it can work in this country?????

The answer is it can't in our present system.

But the further issue is that it's where we're moving anyway.

As technology advances the need for humans in the workforce will be continually diminished. From McDonalds automation to robots that can care completely for plants as well as harvest them, to name just a few.

Also outsourcing is a huge problem for us westerners because of industry's priority of profit jobs are constantly being outsourced (another excellent example that this culture creates a competitive industry that doesn't care for you and me).

in pockets of our country we watch out for each other and needs are met sometimes without being asked... People care and help each other

This is an excellent example of how much more altruistic humanity can be. Volunteer work is huge.

The reality is, we have to change. We can't rely on our leaders to do it because they serve vested interests. You might say "It sounds so impossible." But we have to try, education is the real solution here.

It's time we see each other for what we all are - human. Everything else is an extrapolation, and we -all- have the same basic needs.

[Maxel]

Perhaps the earliest gospels? You know, the Gnostics?

I'll have to concede that; I know very little about the Gnostic religion.

Quite simply, you appear to be saying that someone can have the 'willpower' to shape their behaviour. When in reality, they're limited by what's available to them/what they chose to be interested in, etc,.

Wait... so one's behavior isn't influenced by willpower? Is that what you're saying? What I'm saying is that a person's willpower influences a person's behavior because by exercising said willpower- also called free agency, or the right to choose- one can choose their actions. There are people who allow social circumstances to dictate behavior, but those people give up their willpower to change. If humanity didn't possess willpower, we never would have risen to our current status as the dominant species of the planet.

The majority of people who get aids get it from just having that 'one try' at unprotected sex with a random.

Can you quote a source for that? I don't necessarily disbelieve you, but the idea that 'most people' get aids from just one mistake is somewhat incredulous to me.

Not really. Still environmental determinism, a trickle down effect.

So, what? You're saying there was once a world religion, or different ones that have survived in different forms throughout history? I've stated my position; what's yours?

Nature is lawful, and organised. But not in a hierarchial way. This sums of natural organisation:

[...]It is time to broaden our loyalties and affiliations beyond the narrow confines of the marketplace,

tradition, and the nation-state to encompass the human species as a whole, along with the planetary

environment that supports us all. It is time we view the earth as an indivisible organic whole, a living

entity composed of countless forms of life, all brought together in a single community.

You have to understand, this is all a bit underwhelming to me. Things like this point to a general connectedness and order to nature, but gives no real insight into the nature of things.

I'm not even going to bother addressing all the other nonsense about the idea that the structure doesn't force corporations to be greedy because the evidence is there, it does.

Really? Can you point to the actual evidence? Again, no cogent argument. Here's an idea: interact with the bulk of my argument. I'm interacting with yours.

And, you need to go back to psychology class. Human nature does not exist any further than this: Self-preservation (the human being will do whatever it needs to do in order to survive and continue it's species.)

So, if human nature doesn't extend beyond self-preservation, then how does the altruistic goal of the Zeitgeist Movement exist?

You put a human in an environment where it has to fight to live, and it will.

Yes. Also, put a human in an environment where (s)he is safe but has to fight to save another, and many people will put their lives on the line to save that other person- even if said 'other person' is a complete stranger. As for the nice quote by Bernard Lietaer- perhaps if the quote was more substantive I could work with it. As it is, you've presented the bare-bones of what seems to be a quote ripped out of context.

[innate talents d]on't exist, but that's a whole other discussion.

I think it's relevant to this one. So, inborn talents- that is, a person's predisposition and natural adeptness at certain tasks- don't exist? Are we all born exactly the same with no differences?

That's utter nonsense. Actually this is what would be the case if we were creatures ruled by "human nature." Because it can't change, since it's something inborn.

Humans are adaptive creatures, which means their behaviour is determined the environment, and our cultures are just continuing attempts to better adapt and live in the world.

So, all human growth throughout the centuries is just a natural response to the environment in which we live? Here's the problem with that:

If humans lived solely by response to outside stimuli (our environment) we would be reactionary creatures, incapable of inborn impetus and incapable of reacting to the world around us on any level other than a reactionary one. We would have no ability to evaluate and be proactive about situations. Humans are physically inferior to every other species of animal on this planet. Either we lack sharp fighting implements (canine teeth, claws, etc.), physical size and strength (like elephants and hippos), speed and dexterity (like monkeys and birds), or other crucial elements that keep different species of animals alive and well. What do humans have? Our inborn ability to adapt and evolve- proactive traits hinting that humans are not solely reactionary.

Yes, people are partly reactionary, and society affects our behavior (to a large extent). However, that is not the end of the matter.

Unfortunately it has to be, that's it's very nature.

No; not really. In addition, there are other viable human emotions- the need to be loved and give love, for instance. The need to create something. The need to leave a legacy for the world.

Unless it's in the sense of you have a collective 'self-interest' which is what an RBE would orient society toward, but that's really a derogation of the term because that wouldn't be a "me, me, me" / "take, take, take" self interest.

I'm pointing this out because it hints at a general trend of yours. Any evidence to the contrary of your dogmatic claims is brushed aside as irrelevant or somehow not the issue at hand.

You're quite right. But every sector is now being affected by outsourcing/redundancy/automation (because of industry's priority of profit) and unfortunately the automation is happening very quickly and there is no new sector to take all these jobs.

Capitalism, however, does not thrive on outsourcing or redundancy. The 'priority of profit' must be weighed against other factors. A responsible business owner in a capitalist society should probably not outsource any significant amount of his/her business' work to someone outside the community, as it reallocates funds that could be benefiting the community in which the business owner does business. It is the mixture of that greedy money-grabbing policies mixed with the globalization of the economy that has lead to the serious outsourcing problem that America faces.

Please read that paper before you make any further comments on this issue.

Why... Are my uninformed opinions threatening you somehow? You should be glad you have this golden opportunity to publicly correct someone so obviously in the wrong if your goal is to spread the ideals of your movement.

Technology can only be sustained in Capitalism so long as it is profitable, and you cannot profit off something that is efficient sustainable and abundant. This is why sustainable energy and electric cars are suppressed.

Right... By that logic, capitalist society wouldn't have profited off of any advancement in efficiency, sustainability, or abundance. Yet- contrary to your ideological beliefs- it has. Again, it is the greed- and I want to add here 'laziness'- of certain business owners that leads to the suppression of these technologies.

Nope, scholarship generally agrees that Deism is the parent of other forms of modern 'non-belief'.

Can you support that claim?

Actually, it's not a capital g.

I copy/pasted this quote directly from the website. Perhaps you'd like to take the issue of Deist philosophy up with the Deist himself? I'm sure there's a 'contact us' section on the website.

They believe in a god that created the universe and then just 'disappeared' and doesn't give a crap in regards to human affairs.

That's agnosticism, not atheism. And, all my research points to a different set of beliefs than the one you portray. The onus is on you to support your case.

People don't just 'wish' to do that. The overall consensus is that people are lured into violent and destructive behaviour by the culture.

Overall consensus? By whom? You show one study- impressive though it is- and call that a consensus?

To quote just the example from the movements manual:

The ‘Merva-Fowles’ study, done at the University of Utah in the 1990s, found powerful connections

between unemployment and crime. They based their research on 30 major metropolitan areas with a

total population of over 80 million.

Their findings found that a 1% rise in unemployment resulted in:

a 6.7% increase in Homicides;

a 3.4 % increase in violent crimes;

a 2.4 % increase in property crime.

During the period from 1990 to 1992, this translated into:

1459 additional Homicides;

62,607 additional violent crimes;

223,500 additional property crimes.

5

If you were to take a well-to-do, ethical, ‘stand-up’ person, strip them of their wealth and resources and drop them into a poor city with nothing but the shirt on their back, there is a very high probability that this person will begin to lie, cheat and steal in order to survive.

It is no surprise that the poorest neighborhoods in the United States maintain the highest crime rates.

In this, your most concrete evidence, the conclusion is that 'there is a very high probability'- based on a percentage increase of crime during economic times. I won't argue with the evidence. It makes sense to me. If, however, I wanted to play with the data, I would ask the question: why not more? If circumstances were bad enough to make some people turn to crime and not others, and times were hard for everyone- why didn't everyone turn to crime? To say that society is the sole factor in a person's behavior is just... wrong. I've said why. I have no desire to do so again.

To confound this sort of stuff, you need look no further than all the news stories about crime rates going up and church attendance going up during an economic downturn.

So this suggests that people either turn to crime or religion during hard times. Brilliant: the answer is more religion!

Wait... is that not what I was supposed to get from that hard-hitting information?

Incorrect, none of our problems are political. That is a complete fallacy.

Wait... how is a discussion about the separation of church and state not about political problems? How is a discussion about crime and society completely void of politics? Is it just because you're so sure you've found the answer that you've closed the door to everything else?

I am absolutely sure that you haven't consulted the materials I've directed you to, especially in my most recent posts and in my PM to you.

Bingo. I thought I had better things to do with my time. I was honestly going to get to it later. Not so sure, after seeing this doozy:

And if you haven't then you hold no water in this discussion - it's like debating about Islam without ever having touched a copy of the Qur'an.

I'm not continuing this discussion with you until you can say you've done so. Because we're ultimately going in endless pointless circles filled with ignorance about things such as human behaviour, which is very important to understand.

So watching a movie is going to open my eyes to the whole gambit of human emotions, and make me an expert on the history of economics, religion, politics, and human nature? My independent studies on the sundry matters, my battle with chronic depression resulting in a heightened need for human understanding, mean nothing unless I've watched this movie? Am I not able to think for myself?

Aesa, you live in a box built by the Zeitgest Movement. Anything outside the box is completely 'bad' or 'fallacious' to you. Those dark feelings you've had while you've read my words- those feelings that I'm just plain wrong because I am- are actually a hint. Dig down deeper and you'll find the real reason you're feeling that way, if you're honest with yourself.

Aesa, your actions have more in line with someone who's been mildly brainwashed than a clear thinking person. I don't know how else to say it. The refusal to deal with hard, contradictory evidence, the speed with which you brush everything that doesn't suit you aside as irrelevant to the conversation, the promising of evidence supporting your claim and then conveniently forgetting about it later- it all points to one end, and that end isn't good. Then, there's this crowning act: the decision that you won't interact with me until I meet your personal demands and watch the movie- undoubtedly the thing that convinced you so strongly to join the Zeitgeist Movement. It also gets you out of actually providing solid evidence for anything you say- something I keep asking for and never get.

----------------------------------------------------

I am done as well. I joined this thread because I read up on what Aesa originally posted and I got the very, very strong feeling that this Zeitgeist Movement is evil masquerading as good. One needs look no further- if they possess a logical mind (I use 'logical mind' like Joseph Smith did- that is, a mind that has been uncorrupted by the false doctrines of man) they can see the fallacies leap off the page. I think Aesa's and my exchange has made the truth of the matter painfully clear. I of course did not present my case perfectly, and I'm sure there's holes in my argument- but if nothing else, the manner in which we each presented our cases speaks volumes.

[Maxel]

prospectmom-

The idea of a society where no one "owes something" for anything is impossibly to achieve, even with Christ as the King during the Millenium. We will always, while on this earth, to earn our bread by the sweat of our brow.

This talk of technological advances phasing out traditional values is as much an offense to God as the blatant abandonment of the family and engaging in carnal, sexual perversions. This is evil masquerading as progressive goodness!

The Venus Project finds its efficacy in the fact that it is close to the United Order. In the UO, all mankind will have all things in common and will be perfectly equal. That, however, is impossible to live in and sustain until Christ, the perfect King, will come and reign again (or until right beforehand). When it is possible to live, it will be because we have men directly inspired of God sitting at the head of the government.