Do believers and unbelievers benefit from each other?

by Narkissos 26 Replies latest jw friends

  • frankiespeakin


    I see you are a man of many labels(generalizations) for people,,but not enough labels to be very accurate. Sounds a little Mc Carthyish <--- (label)(sorry).

    Anybody else that would like to talk about these labels feel free. I'll get back to this soon I hope.

  • frankiespeakin


    Bullshit. There's enough food to feed everyone, there's enough money for basic healthcare, and the more people we have, the more wealth generators we have. There is an anti-human propoganda campaign being waged by certain elites who want the human race to suffer a cataclysmic population implosion. Their preferred methods of removing "surplus" humanity are hinted at in their "green" ideologies as being mass starvation, plagues, or natural disasters being posited as "Mother Earth's Revenge" as though the planet itself had a mind or a pile of dirt could somehow object to pieces of it being pulled up and burned for heat.

    You say that because we have enough food and money and that if the population keeps growing, it will produce more wealth or "wealth generators" as you call it. This thing called "wealth" will that protect us??And what on earth do you mean by: "There is an anti-human propoganda campaign being waged by certain elites who want the human race to suffer a cataclysmic population implosion" Who are these "elites" could it be a bogie man of some ones imagination??

    Also what a broad generalizing label:"Their preferred methods of removing "surplus" humanity are hinted at in their "green" ideologies as being mass starvation, plagues, or natural disasters being posited as "Mother Earth's Revenge" as though the planet itself had a mind or a pile of dirt could somehow object to pieces of it being pulled up and burned for heat".

    I don't know of anybody like this,, who are these people that want people to starve to death,,is that like G Bush says: "were goona get the bad people" a imaginary bogie man.

    And then who, pray tell, decides who lives and who dies? Our survival as a species has ALWAYS relied upon steady population growth - sometimes it needs to be reined in, but not that often when you look at history.

    Circumstances decides, that's who. And your assumption about population growth did you make it up yourself or did you read it somewhere?

    And when we fill this planet, there are others to go to. But these certain anti-human elites and intellectuals want to exterminate humans or render their populations vulnerable to the same agonies that rabbits, dolphins, or termites suffer. Disease, predators, and starvation. It's disgusting and stupid and short-sighted.

    What a wounderfully easy solution to the population problem just get in your starship and fly away.

    You have this fanciful imagination about some "elites" and "intelectuals" who are these people is there a club they belong too? Don't just tell me they're everywhere.

    As for your "loss of the ego" theory, why don't you go first? Right now! Show us the way, oh Messiah of Death - tape it and put it on the internet. Send it to the Darwin Awards. "When Green Ideology Arrives At Its Natural Conclusion."

    A little ranting at some imaginary "elites" bogieman.(Me).

    Your last minute struggle to retain your individuality should highlight the fundamental flaw in your theory -whether created or evolved, individual sapience is the path that this universe directs all life and all effort. Group think is disastrous for the individual and the species.

    Your comments here seem pretty dogmatic, as if you know the path the universe directs all effort. Well it's your beleif but that is all. It must be nice to have the universe all figured out.

    If I seem rather vehement, its because I have spent far more time than productive arguing with "Green Anarchist" morons in my town; who simplisticly state that we need to reduce population - the morons fail to see that democracy and wealth production tend to create their own natural brakes on population growth - individualism, indolence, homosexuality, etc.

    More labels "Green Anarchist" don't beleive I ever heard that one before.

    So are you a democrat???

    Natural brakes may be catostrophic too,, not just the ones you mention. I think you illustrate quite nicely,,the problems we have when we already know the answers.

    And the thing is, even non-believers in a traditional Christian sense have an intuitive loathing for the anti-human propaganda being spewed from Green "thinkers". It's bullshit, and nonsense, and is dangerous; since it is often coopted into fascist movements. CZAR

    Well I see you have quite a distaste for people that have different views than you. And you like to call them all kind of generalizing names (labels).

  • Narkissos

    Wow. I'm just back and I really enjoyed reading all of your thoughtful posts. Thanks! Imho very interesting points were made by everybody, either irenically or conflictually (who cares?).

    This made me think about a related issue, i.e. radicalism vs. dogmatism.

    Let me begin with a third concept: centrism. It is originally a political concept but can be extended, figuratively perhaps, to a number of religious of philosophical issues. If I remain on the "believers vs. unbelievers" cleavage, limited as it is (but let's take it as just a case study), I would say agnosticism could represent the center left, and deism the center right. There is a border in between, but it is rather a gray zone than a definite line. There is natural respect between both sides, as none of them is very assertive. But the "benefit" (perhaps not the best word, but the best I could think of as a non-English speaker) is accordingly limited. It's a lukewarms' agreement to disagree.

    Opposed to centrism are both radicalism and dogmatism. But not in the same way. Dialogue between dogmatisms of both sides is but a deaf dialogue, resulting at best (at worst really) in an "objective alliance" pattern: such as often occurs between political extremists (the Palestinian Hezbollah and the Israeli "hawks", or Bin Laden and Bush are the admittedly questionable examples that come to my mind). Actually each side politically thrives on the other. On the other hand, if we define radicalism as the attitude of people of both sides taking their own stance seriously, I think there is something more. Radicalism has a depth which dogmatism misses, and people who dig really deep under their own beliefs really meet other deep thinkers of the "other side". This often occurs between mystics of different religions (which are antagonistic at the dogmatic level). I think it also happens between such people and full-fledged materialistic philosophers. A deep interpretation of Judaism or Christianity, for instance, can welcome materialism as a powerful "anti-idolatric" tool, inasmuch as mystics wouldn't want their "God" to be the "God" materialists are fighting against... And Czar's interesting idea about health care would appeal, not to the vague idea of God of the average churchgoer, but to a very radical interpretation of Christianity as implying a literal sharing of goods.

  • frankiespeakin


    I find labels, i don't know how to say it,sometimes helpful but never very accurate. Maybe some what accurate for a particlar stand one is taking at a particular moment in time only.

    The bad side of labels is that when we start putting these labels on things and especially if we put a label on ourselves we limit the mind severly because we set up these limits in the imagination,,it causes us to loose some freedom of thinking. I think labeling which in large part comes from man's ability to judge things and compare things is flawed by the incorrectness inherent in man's limited scope of seeing and so we have to think of these labels as very limited,, they may help us to think of something we never thought of before and at the same time narrow the things the mind will observe. I'm not against labels completely,, I'm trying not use one in my case because it may take away some of my flexiblity. Oh I have changed a lot in the last few months,,I hope I'm pliable to change even more.

  • Narkissos


    We can handle but a limited number of variables, so we have to artificially "freeze" the rest mentally -- although we know everything is mobile. Arbitrarily naming things and forging concepts (which is actually a way of "fixing" -- or killing, perhaps) is an essential part of our thinking process. The identities, distinctions and borders we thus create are all questionable, yet we need to posit them, provisionally, just to get to the following step. I tend to prefer walk-like thinking to build-like thinking, nominalism to realism -- perhaps as a reaction to the JW experience, I don't know. In all cases I think my imagination is getting more and more "fluid". I cannot say things exactly the same way twice.

  • jgnat

    I personally don't like being labelled, because I think a label defines me too quickly. I have dimension. For example, the JW label on me would be "worldly" or "opposer". Gee, I think "worldly" is a big stretch. I pin my blouses, have never watched a porn movie, took my first drink in my forties, and I get tongue tied when I swear. "Opposer"? OK, maybe. But I only push back. The WT sales machine is relentless, and I feel I am simply defending my family and my life.

    On the other hand, cans without labels are a real pain. Am I having mushrooms, peaches, or green beans for dinner?

  • frankiespeakin


    Yes, I think fluidity is very import to slow down the aging processes of the mind,,to remain flexible.


    Cults like labels because it arrest thinking, for if you accept their labels and use them you are letting them tell you how to look at the world.

Share this