Why do people apply human rules to the Creator

@LeopoldBloom You said: "If we can't understand the creator's motives or intentions, doesn't that completely negate religion?"

You have got the relationship the wrong way round. The Kingdom of God is not the USA. You don't get to elect God. God is the ultimate dictator. You had better understand God's motives or you go to Hell.

@sree251 I was talking to the other guy and pointing out the contradiction where on one hand, God's motives are beyond human understanding, but on the other hand, we know exactly what he wants from us.

However, since God doesn't exist, it's a purely philosophical dispute. But that doesn't sound like a very merciful God, who demands that we jump through hoops or he will torture us for eternity. That sounds more like a demon. In fact, the Gnostic Christians believed that the God of the Bible was a demon and the point of life is to go beyond him to the true God.

@LeopoldBloom The nature of God is beyond understanding but his Ten Commands are crystal clear. Which of those Commandments don't you understand?

Breaking the Commandments will invite torture. We kill each other. Is that not torture? I am sure you support the Ukraine war regardless of the consequences even though we know what happened when we nuked the Japanese in WW2. God tells us do not kill but we don't obey. God does not torture us. We torture ourselves. If I command you not to bang your head on the wall or you will suffer but you do that. Why would you blame me for breaking your head?

@sree251 You can't have it both ways. God's nature can't be both beyond understanding while also crystal clear.

The Ten Commandments include pointless crap like "no other gods before me." That implies that there are other gods, which contradicts the claim that there is only one god. Whoever wrote that didn't think it through correctly. Regarding the others, the prohibition against killing is problematic. Quakers, Mennonites, and some other denominations don't believe in killing for any reason, including self-defense. Catholics believe in the concept of "just war," where killing is allowed under certain circumstances. Right-wing fundamentalists think killing is just fine as long as it's BIPOC or white liberals.

Every culture on earth has some prohibitions against murder, theft, and other negative actions. If you need the Ten Commandments to tell you that those are wrong, you're a degenerate. The Ten Commandments are also deficient in that they leave out some important ones, like "don't commit genocide," "don't rape," "don't enslave people," and "don't molest children." Imagine how much better the world would have been if those were included.

Comparing the Ukraine war to our nuking Japan in WWII is idiotic, even for you. We nuked Japan to end a long war that we had been directly involved in for years, that many American soldiers had given their lives for. We can argue over whether the bombings were necessary, as it's possible Japan would have surrendered before a land invasion of the mainland, but at the time, people were ready for the war to end. Ukraine on the other hand is the illegal invasion of one country by another. We're not directly involved, we're just sending Ukraine military aid. If we end that, Russia will conquer the country and the situation will be far worse.

@LeopoldBloom Thank you for sharing your thoughts. You have said many things here that I want to respond to. I will deal with the first one I need to address. What made you say that Catholics believe in "just war"? I was raised a Catholic, and even planned on going on to a seminary after high school because I aspired to be a Jesuit. There is no acceptable reason for killing people. Self defense is not a determinable act.

@sree251 The concept of "just war" is the view that warfare is justified if the reasons for it meets an agreed-upon set of criteria. The Catholic Church's position began with St. Augustine, who said that the right to wage war is given to governments when their authority is legitimate. Thus, war is acceptable to resist invasion or to prevent greater evil. The view that warfare is never justified for any reason is the position of Quakers and other pacifist denominations.

@LeopoldBloom What Catholic position? You are imputing things about Catholicism that are not true. Catholics in times of war do seek guidance when governments draft them and order them to fight the "enemy". The Church provides the guidance. It has no authority to command the laity. It's always between the Catholic and God, the final authority on right conduct.

@sree251 I'm not writing a dissertation. St. Augustine was Catholic in case you weren't aware. But that is correct, if the government is legitimate, then Catholics are expected to go to war if their government commands them to. I remember right before the second Iraq War, Pope John Paul II expressed his view that the U.S. should call it off, but he didn't say that Catholics in the military should refuse to fight.

Some American cardinals and bishops are upset with Pope Francis, because he hasn't issued an order that Catholic politicians who are pro-choice, like Pelosi and Biden, should be denied communion.

@LeopoldBloom First of all, the Pope is woke. He is human, like you are. And so was St. Augustine. And so is the President of the US and the King of England. We and they are all playing roles as political and religious figures in society. Roles are make-belief positions in relationship. Legitimacy of government is also make-belief. Nothing in life is real. Everything is a matter of convention. Breaking convention is entirely up to each of us. It takes courage to do that. If you don't have the guts, then you follow the convention even if it leads you down the tubes.

Take Muhamad Ali, for instance. He rejected the convention and refused to play the role when ordered to go to war by the US Government. He was punished by the likes of you people who can't break convention. As it turned out, Ali was right and we were all wrong. So, when it comes to the Pope and St Augustine making the call on just war, do we break convention or not? Doing the right thing is only possible when God is with you.

@sree251 Define "woke" so we're on the same page.

I was too young when the Vietnam War was going on, but I would have opposed it as I've opposed most wars the US has been in. However, we have laws and if Muhammad Ali got a pass, then everyone should have gotten a pass. I recall Jimmy Carter granting amnesty to everyone who refused to participate in that war. My father-in-law was a conscientious objector and nothing happened to him, so Ali's beef wasn't that he was against war, just that particular war. However, being against a particular war isn't a neutral position. For example, if you oppose US military aid to Ukraine, then by default you support Russia because without that aid, Russia will steamroll Ukraine. So refusing to take a position is still taking a position.

I agree that things like government and money are conventions, or shared illusions that we all have collectively agreed to respect. I would put religion in the same category. None of these things exist in nature. But that doesn't mean they're not real. Human beings are social animals, and we evolved to relinquish a degree of personal freedom for the good of society as a whole. So on a fundamental level, we want to cooperate with each other, and we will feel guilt and shame for failing to do so, at least some of the time. Moral codes are a reflection of this and an attempt to apply rules generally.

@LeopoldBloom This is a good discussion even though you are woke. I am not using the word "woke" as a slur but as an identifier for the mindset of liberal progressives. We don't share the same perspective on social issues mainly because we don't share the same values. Generally, we get heated up over matters like partners in an unhappy relationship.

I do not oppose US involvement of the good kind in Ukraine. I oppose US instigation of and support of conflict with Russia. For a start, we don't have the money. We are broke. Every cent of American taxes is meant for immediate needs of Americans. Your rationale for supporting Ukraine makes the American people a combatant. Is being a peacemaker not a role America should play on the world stage? The US is now regarded as a warmonger. US taxes collected in 2022 amounted to $4.9 trillion and we give $800 billion to the Pentagon to maintain a war machine.

@sree251 If "woke" to you means "liberal progressive," why not use that term? Using "woke" incorrectly is insulting even if you don't intend it to be.

The word actually does have a definition. It began in the 1960s in the Black community to refer to someone who understood the root causes of discrimination. More recently, it was defined in court by a lawyer for Ron DeSantis (who ought to be an expert) as the belief that systemic inequities exist and should be addressed. I agree with that definition. Is it your view that there are no systemic inequities of any kind, or if there are, they should be endured?

I also oppose instigating conflict with Russia. That's not what happened here. Putin has been interfering in Ukraine militarily for nearly a decade, culminating most recently in his illegal invasion. Our aid to Ukraine is allowing them to resist that.

If we are "combatants," it's interesting that Putin doesn't view us that way, I suspect because he knows that would be a mistake. So he's fine with making believe that this is a regional conflict between Russia and Ukraine with no one else involved.

I would love to see our obscene, bloated military budget (of which aid to Ukraine is a negligible part) reduced, with the savings invested in infrastructure and social welfare programs. But whenever that's brought up, it's the Republicans in Congress who start screaming "socialism" while accusing Democrats of "hating America" and "not supporting the troops."

@LeopoldBloom What have the politics in Congress got to do with our discussion? The US government is defunct. This is obvious based on its lack of focus on its job of running America,not ruining her. This is a topic for another discussion.

Putin does see the US and the UK as combatants trying to drive a wedge between Europe and Russia. The EU is an economic bloc that has been integrating with Russia, the supplier of energy and commodities. The west is not a homogeneous cultural animal. The Brits had spawned offspring (the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand). The French have always viewed us with contempt. So, have the Germans. They don't fancy playing second fiddle on the global stage. Putin is patient and sees Russia's place within a European economic bloc.

Woke is a good word. Short, direct, and to the point. Woke people prefer pretentious expressions. I prefer "black", they prefer "African American". I prefer dog while they prefer "canine companion". Americans have always been direct before getting snowed by cancel culture. I would like to explore objectively why this has happened in America. Are you up to it?

@sree251 You have a few erroneous claims that will have to be corrected before we can have anything approaching an objective discussion.

First, the US is not "defunct." We are still the most powerful economy in the world and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

Putin as the Russian leader quite naturally favors Russian hegemony, which is often in conflict with ours. He has wanted to take over Ukraine for years, which is not in the interest of the US, so we're within our rights to stop him.

The French and Germans only viewed us with contempt when the ineffectual buffoon Trump was President. They view Biden as a return to normalcy where the US is now back to being the "adult in the room" where our stability can be counted on.

You're clearly using "woke" as an insult. I only refer to Black people as "African American" if they ask me to. I've never referred to a dog as a "canine companion." You're arguing with an imaginary opponent. However, using words you disapprove of is not a philosophy, it just makes you a sensitive snowflake who is offended when someone's language doesn't conform to your preferences. It has nothing to do with the underlying view which you don't seem to even be willing to understand. I defined it for you but you're still using your own definition.

Even DeSantis has moved on from "woke" as the appeal of "anti-wokeness" was overblown. Continuing to use it just shows how out of touch you are.

@LeopoldBloom My erroneous claims. Let's deal with them.

US government is defunct.

You said no because it is the most powerful economy in the world at US$25.46 trillion. Nearly 70% of the US economy is driven by personal consumption. Debt: credit card debt, mortgages, loans. Congress is doing the same thing: printing fake money and selling it as US treasuries to foreign and domestic buyers. Am I wrong?

@sree251 You are correct, however, saying it's "defunct" is patently incorrect. You can say "in my opinion, if things keep going in the same direction, it will be defunct in xxx years," but talking like that's already happened isn't helping your argument.

Your understanding of the national debt is deficient. All money is "fake." Fiat currency doesn't exist in nature, it's a purely artificial construct. Sovereign countries don't work the same way as private households or businesses. Congress can print all the money it wants as long as everyone accepts the dollar in payment for goods and services. The U.S. debt isn't a problem as long as inflation continues, as money borrowed now will be repaid in cheaper future dollars. Also, the national debt is being paid off all the time, whenever someone cashes in a government savings bond. It's not like a static debt (like personal credit card debt) that just sits there; it's dynamic. On top of that, a significant portion of it is one part of the government owing money to another part of the government.

@LeopoldBloom Of course, money is fake. It is a token, a promise to pay because one has net assets (such as gold, properties, etc.) to back up the promise.

I am correct in saying that the US government is defunct. It is an organization that sets public policy and runs the affairs of the citizens of the USA. It is much like a country club and we Americans are the members of that club. Using this analogy, the club's management (i.e the US government) has blown a big hole in the club's finances. The club is broke and has been unable to balance its operating account year after year. It has to borrow money from its members (i.e. selling treasuries to Social Security) and outsiders (i.e. debts held by foreign governments like China, Japan, etc.). to meet the bloated costs of running the club. The failure of the US government in maintaining its borders is akin to a country club management that is allowing non-members (i.e. refugees breaking across US borders) access to club facilities. Instead of focusing on club matters (i.e. tending to members), management staff take trips to other club to mess with their affairs (i.e. Nancy Pelosi in Taiwan, and Biden in Ukraine).

Your perception of the US as the most powerful economy is mistaken. Using the same analogy of the country club, the net worth of the club does not include the total net worth of all its members some of whom are multi billionaires (i.e. American business corporations). Don't confuse the US government with successful American brands such as Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway, Microsoft, etc.). The combined net worth of American businesses is indeed staggering but they are not woke and capitalistic monsters that you condemn. Perhaps, Mr.Gekko can say it better,.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVxYOQS6ggk

@sree251 The problem with your analysis is that none of what you say has come to pass. First, the US is not the only country in the world with national debt. It's not even the country with the highest debt compared to GDP. As I explained previously, the national debt is nothing to be concerned about. A sovereign country is not a household and its finances can't be viewed as such. If money is accepted for goods and services, on the assumption that it can be exchanged for goods and services later, that money has value, and saying it's "fake" is no different than saying laws are "fake" because they don't have an objective identity. We have conventions in society and these are effectively just as real as natural laws.

Even commodities like gold or real estate have no intrinsic value. They only have value if people can use them or can exchange them for something else they need. A brick of gold won't do you much good if you're by yourself in the forest, except maybe as something you can throw at an animal to kill it so you can eat it. And as Rudy Giuliani is finding out, his multi-milion dollar New York apartment, that he's selling to pay his legal bills, is only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it.

We don't have an open border, that's right-wing nonsense. In 2022 alone, there were over 2 million immigrants apprehended at the border.

The US is a world empire and government officials will travel to other countries to influence policy. If you think the US should contract its influence and become more insular, that's fine, but be prepared for a drop in your standard of living. There's nothing inherently wrong with globalism other than a few well-placed businessmen becoming obscenely wealthy from it. Access to a world market benefits everyone.

I don't confuse US corporations with the US government, but it's a fact that the US is by far the world's largest economy by dollar volume. And you can stop using "woke" since you don't know what it means and are just using it as a pejorative. The opposite would be "asleep" - are you asleep? Do you prefer to think of yourself as asleep?

@LeopoldBloom The US is a world empire? The value of this conversation is its facility for the display of points of views that are shocking. You can make such a statement without being embarrassed? A democracy is not suppose to be an imperial power. Woke culture is indeed imperialistic. Nobody is right except you? You are espousing the Wolfowitz doctrine that has been defining US foreign policy after the fall of the Soviet Union. Dick Cheney told Wolfowitz to write that principle for domination of the world.

What right do you have to go into your neighbor's house to influence how he runs his show? Is it because you do not want diversity degrading the quality of life in your neighborhood? What if you get your head bashed in? To ensure that doesn't happen, you would need to carry a big stick to bash the other guy's head in. And the US has been doing that since Vietnam.

Apparently, you believe that it is necessary for US politicians to travel to every corner of the globe to tell other people how to live their lives. This is what the National Endowment for Democracy is for, isn't it?

@sree251 Democracy is an internal form of government. It has nothing to do with foreign relations. The US has around 700 military bases scattered around the world; if that's not an empire, I'm not sure what is. We don't directly control external colonies; we exert economic and military pressure to influence other countries. Calling this "woke" is meaningless; you might as well call it "broccoli" or "Steve."

I never said I agreed with the US imperial state. My preference would be for us to drastically reduce our overseas military presence and reinvest the money in civilian infrastructure and social welfare programs to more directly benefit people back home. There are a lot of places we don't need to be.

The US has been exerting this power since well before Vietnam, in fact, it's been exerting it before we were even the United States. You should read Dee Brown's Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee for the history of US imperialism right here in North America. The mere fact that the US exists at all is due to British, French, and Spanish imperialism. I'd like to break the cycle, but I'm not going to make believe that it didn't happen or be a tankie like you and say that only the US is imperialistic while everyone else is just reacting to us.

Would it make you happy if US politicians just made phone calls instead of personal visits? What about other leaders coming here? Is your ideal vision for the world one where countries have no relations at all with each other? Or only the US is isolated and everyone else participates in the global economy? You seem to have a very poor understanding of international relations.

@LeopoldBloom Well, I am glad we do agree that we need to tend to social programs at home. I would not only junk all military presence abroad but at home also. We need to scrap all military bases and nuclear weapon installations in the US. Keeping the US Army would not be a bad thing if we could repurpose its function to dealing with natural disaster response at home.

US politicians should have no business outside US borders. Foreign relationships are best fostered by American businesses in a free global market place. We should close all embassies and disband the CIA. The only legitimate international relationship is the direct one between people, not governments. Think about that John Lennon song "Imagine" (no countries). Nationalism is evil. It's time to go global and set the people free. The internet is here.

@sree251 I'm fine with a one world government if everyone else is. But completely disbanding the military and our foreign assets would be foolhardy unless everyone else does the same.

I don't trust businessmen to make decisions benefitting everyone long term. Businesses naturally will favor short-term profit over the long-term health of the communities that support them, unless controls are imposed on them. Giving businesses free rein to do whatever they wanted would end any free global market place, because maintaining open channels isn't in their interest. I don't want to be ruled by unelected corporate overlords. A true free market is a fantasy anyway as it can only exist as a protected enclave within a government-maintained system.

This is why libertarians are described as housecats - they think they are doing everything for themselves without realizing that someone else makes their life of freedom possible.

@LeopoldBloom If you subscribe to the belief that the government provides for you, then it explains why people are pack animals, cattle to be used as canon fodder in times of war. Weapons of mass destruction target the herd.

The human psyche is a strange beast. It cannot be tamed. It has to be destroyed.

@sree251 Only a child thinks the government provides for us by magic. We pay taxes and the government uses the proceeds to fund programs that ideally benefit society. Without government-funded law enforcement, business would be severely hampered as everyone would have to either hire a private security provider or spend time and money protecting themselves. And that doesn't count programs like the interstate highway system, which wouldn't exist without government.

There's no need to destroy the human psyche. We have naturally evolved to "tame" ourselves by giving up a portion of our individual freedom for the good of society. There wouldn't be very many of us if we were all living on our own, like tigers or hamsters. As social animals capable of cooperating with each other, there are a lot more of us, so cooperative behavior was selected for. The downside of this is that we are capable of greater destruction, but with over 8 billion of us, I'd say we've been pretty successful. Limited to hunting and gathering, the environment could at most support half a billion of us.