A Most Unsettling Trend: Christians Rejoicing in ISIS

a reply to: Tangerine

I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.

But I'll give it a try:

I believe that if the entire populace of the world all focused on peace, mutual care and respect, and worked TOGETHER, we could create a world where everyone has enough, and everyone is looked after, and no more war.
There are people who want that - but not enough of us. It takes EVERYONE, and I'm afraid that is highly unlikely to happen.

We need an external threat, something that directly threatens the existence of us all, something like an alien invasion.

We'd come together like never before to face the threat, but if that threat then disappeared, we'd return to butchering each other almost immediately. For the good of mankind I would personally welcome this...

a reply to: Prezbo369

We need an external threat, something that directly threatens the existence of us all, something like an alien invasion.

This is exactly what Robert Wright talks about in his book "Non-Zero" -

In his book, Nonzero, Robert Wright traces this integration to ongoing evolution of non-zero-sumness leading to greater interdependence and greater social complexity. Non-zero-sum is a term from game theory that means having overlapping interests as opposed to the competing interests of zero-sum games. A tennis match is a zero-sum game where only one side can win. In a non-zero-sum game, either both win (positive game) or both lose (negative game).
Wright attributes greater social integration to technologies that pull us together and to common threats that push us together.

positivepsychologynews.com...

Highly recommended reading - ALL of his books:
The Moral Animal,
The Evolution of God,
and Non-Zero.

Let me end by saying humbly that Robert Wright’s arguments are far more interesting, colorful, and complex than I can capture here. Greed and lust for power are not ignored, and in fact play a role in the evolution of social complexity. Yet there is such a hopeful message about the test we are now facing to our moral imagination.

“So how will we do on this test? Judging by history, the current turbulence will eventually yield to an era of relative stability, an era when global political, economic, and social structures have largely tamed the new form of chaos.

The world will reach a new equilibrium, at a level of organization higher than any past equilibrium. And the period we are now entering will, in retrospect, look like the storm before the calm” (p. 9).

Will it?

It depends on all of us.

“All told, our menu of options is rich, ranging from self-annihilation to graceful adaptation” (p. 10).

positivepsychologynews.com...

That's what I keep saying, but conservatives keep ignoring, shouting down, insulting, and/or laughing at me. Oh well.....

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Prezbo369


Highly recommended reading - ALL of his books:
The Moral Animal,
The Evolution of God,
and Non-Zero.

...
“So how will we do on this test? Judging by history, the current turbulence will eventually yield to an era of relative stability, an era when global political, economic, and social structures have largely tamed the new form of chaos.

The world will reach a new equilibrium, at a level of organization higher than any past equilibrium. And the period we are now entering will, in retrospect, look like the storm before the calm” (p. 9).

...

I see absolutely no evidence to suggest that this is likely or even remotely possible.

a reply to: Tangerine

I see absolutely no evidence to suggest that this is likely or even remotely possible.

Okay - I think I understand.

Are you saying it's impossible with the way things are right now?

I think you're right.

BUT - if you think his books are nonsense, that's another thread and topic altogether.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Tangerine

I see absolutely no evidence to suggest that this is likely or even remotely possible.

Okay - I think I understand.

Are you saying it's impossible with the way things are right now?

I think you're right.

BUT - if you think his books are nonsense, that's another thread and topic altogether.

YOU brought up his books. Now YOU don't want them discussed or, more accurately, challenged.

a reply to: Tangerine

What??? I'm perfectly fine and ready to discuss his books - all three of them.!!!!


Not sure what your beef is now. Have you read them?

I have. Even provided links to sources about them.
Want to discuss???? PLEASE, by all means, discuss - I'm right here. With bated bre..... fingers.

You're usually very rational, and make a lot of sense. Don't know what happened with you today - but - sure....
lay it on me. You pick a sentence from his book, or a paragraph or a chapter, or whatever....and I'll discuss it.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Tangerine

What??? I'm perfectly fine and ready to discuss his books - all three of them.!!!!


Not sure what your beef is now. Have you read them?

I have. Even provided links to sources about them.
Want to discuss???? PLEASE, by all means, discuss - I'm right here. With bated bre..... fingers.

You're usually very rational, and make a lot of sense. Don't know what happened with you today - but - sure....
lay it on me. You pick a sentence from his book, or a paragraph or a chapter, or whatever....and I'll discuss it.

I responded to that which YOU posted. Sheesh.

a reply to: JDmOKI

From my experience religious people are the most prejudice people on the face of the planet. Just look at the bickering going on in this thread alone, all because they are different religions. It's sad to be honest. Oh and here you go, check this out!

Cultism

Religion doesn't fall far from the tree.

originally posted by: amicktd
a reply to: JDmOKI

From my experience religious people are the most prejudice people on the face of the planet. Just look at the bickering going on in this thread alone, all because they are different religions. It's sad to be honest. Oh and here you go, check this out!

Cultism

Religion doesn't fall far from the tree.

That link provides a very poor definition of cult based on whether or not you agree with the group. A far better definition is that used by cult experts: a cult is a group that uses deception to recruit and threats or intimidation to retain members. It is usually led by an "all-knowing", all-powerful charismatic leader. The designation "cult" has nothing to do with ideology. A cult can have any ideology.

a reply to: Tangerine

I responded to that which YOU posted. Sheesh.

You know, I have read and reread the posts in this thread.
I posted some information regarding Robert Wright's books.

I still don't understand what your question (or response) was supposed to mean.
Anyway,
thanks for playing.

All these Christians that believe in god and worry about the devil. Should read their bible. They are the devil spawn according to it. Killing for greed an power, worshiping other gods and deities,( Jesus, Mary, apostles, saints, pope ect.. ) craven images.( cross, Jesus on the cross, carved animals and symbols, ect..) That and so many other things wrong with how they follow the path laid out by Jesus and those before and after him. Not that it isn't all fantasy anyways. What a bunch of fools. Follow priests instead of their fairy tale book. Read the stupid book and think, if you are going to be a robot for the cause. Most all are destined to their imaginary hell.

a reply to: Tangerine

Did you even open the link, because what you posted is almost verbatim as to what I linked. Plus I linked the definition of cultism, not cult since were being picky. But what does it matter? You didn't get the point of my post anyways.