Category Archives: Knowledge

WTF is a Person Of Principle?

MOD: REPOST SEPT 12th, 2022

This is one of my oldest articles. VERY INTERESTING!

Wow this guy Ramsey McNabb is insane! This was interesting.

Usually, when someone is called a ‘person of principle’ it is meant as a compliment. For the most part, we take that phrase as applying to the ethical elite: those who lead highly moral lives, and never, or at least rarely, fail to follow their moral principles. A person of principle means someone who faithfully follows their principle or set of principles rather than abandoning them when convenient. If faced with a seemingly difficult decision in life, he or she will refer to his or her guiding set of principles and then merely deduce the correct action from it. If on rare occasions such principled people do not behave according to their principles, they would consider such actions to be moral mistakes on their part.

A Christian would certainly strive to be a person of principle. Such a person would live his or her life according to the moral guidelines set out in the Bible, especially for instance the Ten Commandments. Suppose Norbert, a Christian, really wants to get his son a wristwatch from the local department store, but cannot afford to pay for it. He is quite certain that he could steal the watch without being caught. To resolve his inner dispute, all he has to do is refer to his set of guiding principles, and he will recall that “Thou shalt not steal” applies. Norbert, being a man of principle, leaves the store disappointed, without the watch, but also without having violated his principle, and therefore without having acted immorally.

A committed utilitarian is also a person of principle. Suppose Amina is walking down the street, on her way to tutor a boy she knows so that he can pass his upcoming biology test. Suddenly she sees two children stumble into a crevasse left by last week’s earthquake. No one else is around, and it would probably take quite some time for her either to save the children herself, or call for help and wait for it to arrive. She is faced with a dilemma. She can go do her tutoring, and ignore the accident she just witnessed; or she can help the children and miss her tutoring commitment. Being a committed utilitarian, and therefore a person of principle, all she needs to do is consult her guiding principle: “Do whatever will bring about the greatest good for the greatest number.” That solves her problem, because saving the two trapped and wounded girls helps the people who are most in need, and it also helps the greater number of people.

A person who lives her life by Kant’s ethical theory would also be a person of principle. Suppose that Terra, a Kantian, finds a fifty-dollar bill on a football field, and she pockets it, because after looking carefully, she does not see anyone else around. Lucky for her, because she could sure use the money to buy her mom that ceramic pit bull terrier for Christmas. However, ten minutes later, Biff, the quarterback of the football team, comes over to the field and seems to be scouring the ground, as if he’s looking for something he lost. Terra quickly concludes that the money is probably his. Being a person of principle she consults Kant’s categorical imperative, which is her highest guiding principle: “Act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will to become a universal law.” She figures on that basis that anyone who finds money should be able to keep it if they don’t know to whom it belongs. But the case has changed, and she couldn’t possibly will that everyone should always keep the property of others just because they’ve briefly misplaced it. She returns the money to Biff, who promptly uses it to buy a ceramic football player for his father.

These are people of principle. They have beliefs and they are committed to living their lives according to those principles. They seem to be highly moral people who make excellent ethical choices. But watch where their principles take them…

Norbert the Christian is invited to go flying with his pilot friend Erica. They fly up north for about an hour, but then the engine gives out and Erica crash-lands the plane in a farmer’s field. Erica is trapped in the cockpit and begs for water. Norbert leaves her and runs to the nearby farmhouse. He knocks on the door but there is no answer. He notices a “NO TRESPASSING” sign. He also notices a hose attached to a tap on the side of the house. He could get water for Erica, but that would be stealing, since he has not been given permission by the owner. Norbert, being a person of principle, will not steal, no matter the case, so he fails to provide Erica with her much-needed water.

When our utilitarian, Amina, grows older, she becomes a doctor. A patient, Mr. Wiggles, comes to see her because he has sliced his finger badly. It’s only hanging on by a flap of skin. Mr. Wiggles would like Amina to repair his hand; but she has other ideas. She has four severely ill patients, who all need urgent transplants to survive their illnesses. The first needs a heart transplant; the second needs two new lungs; the third a bone marrow transplant; and the fourth needs a new liver. When she checks his medical files, Amina notices that Mr. Wiggles is a perfect match for all these patients. Amina sedates and slaughters him (against his will), and uses his organs to save the other patients. She manages to keep the entire procedure a secret from the public, and from everyone involved. She has brought about the greatest good for the greatest number of people. She has sacrificed one life, but saved four.

Our Kantian, Terra, sees a young girl run past frantically. The girl scurries underneath a nearby parked Honda Civic and hides. Moments later, a notorious escaped murderer comes onto the scene and inquires into the whereabouts of the girl. Terra thinks about Kant’s categorical imperative, and realizing that she could not universalize the maxim of her action if she were to lie, she decides to tell the truth, and thereafter the young girl is attacked and killed.

There is an exception to every rule, they say, and maybe they’re right, especially in ethics. Maybe being a person of principle isn’t such a good idea after all…

Dealing With The Exception

The exception is perhaps the greatest obstacle for any moral theory to deal with. You adopt a supposedly ideal moral system which should tell you what to do to act morally in any possible case: all you have to do is deduce the proper action from your principle or set of principles, then follow it. No problem. You’ll be doing the right thing, and acting without sin. But then you run into that odd, unexpected situation where following your rulebook doesn’t seem so neat and tidy. This new case is special, unique, and unanticipated by your ethical system. In fact, it just feels wrong to follow the rules here in this instance. Do you go with your rulebook, or your current intuition?

There are many who would step in and try to defend principled (rulebook style) ethics. They have three obvious defenses:

(1) Simply deny that apparent problems create exceptions.

(2) Hold the view that principles can be rewritten so that the apparent exceptions are no longer exceptions.

(3) Argue that each apparent exceptional case is really a case of conflicting principles, where two or more principles both apply, but one is overruled by another of greater priority.

The first defense holds that there are no exceptional cases. This means that when our current intuition clashes with the principle on which we base our moral system, we should follow our principle, no matter how wrong it might feel.

While this response avoids the problem of the exception, it pays a price that is far too high, often leading us to sacrifice the well-being of innocent people in service of a principle. This is highly counterintuitive and difficult to stomach. It also requires that we have one single overarching principle which defines our entire ethical system, since a plurality of principles would lead to situations where the principles conflict. But the notion that everything that matters morally can be summed up into one action-guiding principle is extremely questionable.

The second defense holds that when faced with an exceptional case, we should rewrite our principles so that the apparent exception is no longer an exception. So in Terra’s situation, where she must choose between lying and allowing an innocent person to be attacked, she might adjust her “do not lie” principle so that it becomes “do not lie unless you must do so to protect innocent people.” While this approach sounds perfectly reasonable, it completely undermines the authority of Terra’s moral principles. After all, if she can overrule and amend her principles whenever she sees fit, it is really Terra who is doing the moral work, and not her principles. Furthermore, as soon as Terra admits that her principles are open to adjustment, she has no assured principled method of determining in any new case whether it is time to follow her principle as it was, or whether it is time to rewrite it yet again.

The third approach would rank different principles in such a way that even though each principle matters, some matter more than others. So, for example, lying might always be a moral minus, but allowing an innocent person to be attacked could be a greater moral minus. Hence, lying, though itself wrong, is morally required in Terra’s case.

This might be the most plausible of the three defenses of principles, but there are also drawbacks to taking this route. To know which principle wins out in cases where principles conflict, you would either have to rank all the principles on a hierarchy, or else leave it up to an individual to decide priority on a case-by-case basis. Ranking all moral principles would be a troublesome task, to say the least; but leaving it to be decided on a case-by-case basis seems to minimize the moral authority of principles and the guidance that they can provide, leaving a lot to individual judgement. Further, if there is a strict hierarchy, there will be a top deciding principle, which leads to the same problems as with the first defense.

Moral Particularism

The above three defenses all deserve substantial consideration – certainly more than can be devoted in this article – but in the end I believe that there is a fourth option, and that the fourth one is the best. It’s a theory which is steadily gaining momentum and strength in philosophical circles, even though it flies in the face of much of the history of moral philosophy.

Moral philosophy for the most part has historically been an attempt to find the right principles by which we should live our lives. Whether it is a set of divinely inspired commandments, Mill’s principle of utility, Kant’s categorical imperative, or some other principle(s), determining the proper course of action in any given situation has been thought to require little more than deducing from the right set of universal principles, and moral philosophy has, for the most part, been a search for that perfect set of principles. But I believe that moral judgement is not a matter of applying some overarching universal moral principles. In my view, it is quite the opposite. I propose instead that the moral knowledge we have is founded on particular cases, and that the principles we have are mere generalizations from those cases. Thus, our fourth option when faced with exceptional moral cases is: Allow our particular moral judgements to simply override our principles, thereby invalidating those principles.

This approach lands me among those who propose a theory known as moral particularism. The moral particularist holds that the traditional approach to ethical theory is not the best. Rather than deducing the right action from some principle or set of principles, the particularist holds that moral judgement can get along just fine without any dependence on principles.

Imagine that you see a young girl crash her bicycle. She is knocked unconscious, and lying on a set of railway tracks only a dozen steps or so from you. In the distance, you see a train approaching, although it’s still thirty seconds from reaching the girl. What goes through your mind? Do you do a quick mental survey of your moral principles and attempt to apply them to the situation so that you can deduce what the right thing to do might be? Do you compare your two options – saving her and watching her die – and then apply the categorical imperative or the principle of utility to see which action your principle recommends? Or does it occur to you immediately that you should help her, without any application of principles? The moral particularist thinks that you do not need to apply a moral principle to conclude that you should help her. For the particularist, moral knowledge starts in clear-cut cases like this. If you know anything at all with regard to morality, you certainly know you ought to help the girl. You know you should help her even if you do not know any greater universal principles like the categorical imperative or the principle of utility.

W.H. Gass makes a similar point about clear cases: “When we try to explain why they are instances of good or bad, of right or wrong, we sound comic, as anyone does who gives elaborate reasons for the obvious, especially when these reasons are so shamefaced before reality, so miserably beside the point.” (W.H. Gass, ‘The Case of the Obliging Stranger’, The Philosophical Review, Vol. 66, No.2, 1957, p.196.) If the particularist is pressed to explain why you should help the young girl on the railway tracks, then rather than appealing to some overarching impersonal principle, the particularist will reply with particular reasons, for example: “The girl will die if you do nothing,” or “Because she’s about to get crushed,” or “Her family will be devastated,” or “Wouldn’t you want to be saved if you were in her shoes?”

So the particularist has a different interpretation of the relationship between particular cases and moral principles. Exceptional cases do not trouble particularists, since principles are mere generalizations from cases anyway. For the particularists, principles are, at best, helpful moral crutches. We can fall back on them when we are unable to properly examine the details of a specific case, or when our judgement is impaired or untrustworthy, or when we do not have enough information to fully understand what makes a particular case unique. But it should be made clear that for particularists, moral principles are tools that exist only to serve and help us, and they should be ignored or modified when they don’t. On the contrary, for universalists (believers in universal principles), our moral competence depends on how well we serve universal principles. Yet there is something strange about the notion that morality is ultimately a matter of applying impersonal moral principles to particular cases – morality becomes a matter of calculation rather than care. M.U. Walker makes a similar point: “Even as the theories tell us how to live they defeat or defy motives of attachment to particular people that give us reasons to live or allow us to live well.” (M.U. Walker, Moral Understandings: A Feminist Study in Ethics, Routledge, 1998, pp.30-31.)

If you are not yet convinced, imagine that someone asks you to justify the commonly-accepted principle that murder is wrong. How would you do it? If you are inclined to respond by giving examples of how terrible murders can be, then you are agreeing with the particularists, since you would be using particular cases to justify principles, and thereby treating principles as derivative. Yet justifying moral principles without appealing to specific cases seems almost impossible. As R.W. Krutzen writes, “One could not know ‘the deliberate, intentional killing of innocent persons is wrong’ if one did not know ‘the deliberate, intentional killing of this innocent person is wrong’.” (R.W. Krutzen, ‘In Defence of Common Moral Sense’ Dialogue 38, 1999, p.259.)

Other Arguments For Particularism

Jonathan Dancy, author of Ethics Without Principles, is most likely the leading proponent of moral particularism. He argues for what he calls reasons holism, which holds that a certain factor can constitute a reason in favour of doing an action in one situation, while constituting a reason against doing that same action in another situation. For example, the fact that “a lot of people will be there” is sometimes a good reason to avoid a place; but it is also sometimes a good reason to go to that place. If you want peace and quiet, it will be a reason against, but if you want to be involved in the festivities, it will be a reason for. Dancy claims that this sort of holism is generally accepted outside of the realm of morality, but is not at all popular in the realm of morality, where many philosophers assume that a moral factor must make the same sort of difference wherever it occurs. Dancy challenges that assumption, and argues that there is no clear distinction between moral reasons and other reasons. Reasons holism works just as well in morality, he thinks. For example, the fact that an action will cause inconvenience to someone is usually a reason not to do it. It would be wrong, for example, to trip up an elderly man who is taking his Sunday stroll to the neighbourhood church. However, if a child-molesting kidnapper is running down the street with a child in his arms, the tripping-up action’s status as inconvenience-causing is a reason in favour of doing it! According to Dancy, if reasons do not function the same way in all cases, then universal moral principles cannot be the foundation of moral thought.

Other particularists rely on Wittgenstein to strengthen their position. Following Wittgenstein’s concept of family resemblances, they argue that it is possible to acquire a concept through experience even if there is no ‘essence’ to the concept, or any clear definition of the concept. Wittgenstein argues, for example, that there is no essential definition available for the concept of games. Some games involve running, but not all games. Most games involve competition, but not all do, because many games are played individually. Also, there are some things that involve running and competition that are not games. So it is thought by Wittgenstein that games share similarities, as members of families do, but that there is no one key ingredient which defines the essence of games. Nevertheless, we regularly use the concept and language of ‘games’, and we do so with little difficulty. Some moral particularists want to say that moral concepts, like right and wrong, are similar to such concepts, in the sense that they have no single essence, but they can be used and understood anyway.

Conclusion

There is certainly much more to be said about moral particularism, both for it and against it, and this discussion has barely scratched the surface. I don’t expect that every reader will immediately agree that moral principles are unnecessary. That would be unrealistic, since moral philosophy itself is (still) often seen as the search for the right set of universal principles. I do, however, hope I have cast doubt on the universalist position, and have offered particularism as a theoretical competitor. We should at least not just assume that moral thought is a top-down affair, in which proper moral action is deduced from higher moral principles. We should at least acknowledge and consider the possibility that it might be the other way around – that moral thought is a bottom-up affair, in which the building blocks of moral knowledge are the clear particular moral cases, and that moral principles are inductive derivations from those cases. There are many important ongoing battles which characterize what philosophy is all about, for example empiricism vs. rationalism, freedom vs. determinism, and Cartesian dualism vs. eliminative materialism. I suggest that the moral particularism vs. moral universalism debate should take its rightful place as one of philosophy’s greatest battles.

SOURCE

Did Einstein Believe in God?

MOD: EDIT – Repost from 2020! 🙂

“There must be something behind the energy” – Einstein

In school, my younger years, it was my understanding that Einstein was all science. And I thought he was an atheist. He was not. Doesn’t bother me either way, but perhaps was some group’s idea to ‘hide’ or ‘alter’ what he really said from the conscience of mainstream civilization post 1960. When finding this article on bethinking.org I thought I would share this incredible work with you.

What would Einstein say about God? I admire him and Edison very much, as Tesla. Who doesn’t?

Except, I wonder, what did he say about God specifically?

Dawkins explains that in dealing with Einstein’s religious views he relied on Max Jammer’s book Einstein and Religion

What did Einstein really say?

The following quotations from Einstein are all in Jammer’s book:

“Behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force is my religion. To that extent, I am in point of fact, religious.”[8]

“Every scientist becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men.”[9]

“Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man.”[10]

“The divine reveals itself in the physical world.”[11]

“My God created laws… His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking but by immutable laws.”[12]

“I want to know how God created this world. I want to know his thoughts.”[13]

“What I am really interested in knowing is whether God could have created the world in a different way.”[14]

“This firm belief in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God.”[15]

“My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit, …That superior reasoning power forms my idea of God.”[16]

“There must be something behind the energy”

What gives the lie to Dawkins’ claim that Einstein was an atheist is Einstein’s repeated references to “a superior spirit””a superior mind”“a spirit vastly superior to men””a veneration for this force” etc. etc. This is not atheism. It is clear Einstein believed that there is something beyond the natural, physical world – a supernatural creative intelligence. Further confirmation that Einstein believed in a transcendent God comes from his conversations with his friends. David Ben-Gurion, the former Prime Minister of Israel, records Einstein saying “There must be something behind the energy.”[17] 

According to Dawkins, “Einstein was repeatedly indignant at the suggestion he was a theist.”[19] The evidence from Jammer’s book is the exact opposite. What Einstein actually said is:

“I am not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist.”[20]

“Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source.”[21]

“There is harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, yet there are people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me to support such views.”

SHOUT OUT TO BETHINKING.ORG, INCREDIBLE ARTICLE, RESEARCH, AND SOURCING.

Very interesting. Check out the article for way more knowledge and more reasons to take a deep breath and explore all possibilities and think ‘outside the box’.

ARTICLE SOURCE

Learn To Love Yourself

I am the webmaster of thenumber28.

To the person reading this, may your life be filled with joy forever.

We are all going through a rough and difficult time. So, Stay strong.

Hello my friends = )

Right now, there are people all over the world who are just like you.

They’re either lonely, they’re missing someone, they’re depressed, they’re hurt, they’re scared from the past, they’re having personal issues.

They wish, they dream, they hope. And right now, they are sitting here reading these words, and I’m writing this for you so you don’t feel alone anymore.

Always remember, don’t be depressed about the past, don’t worry about the future, and just focus on today. If today’s not so great don’t worry! Tomorrow’s a new chance. If you are reading this, be sure to share this to make others feel better.

People Upset 2000Mules

I’m just going to let this video speak for itself.

Anyone watch this yet? It’s $29.99 to buy the 2000Mules documentary and we should all pay for it. Recently have you heard psychos are threatening to burn down Churches for Roe vs Wade I pray that may our Father God of the Universe – our creator – place STRENGTH & COURAGE into our law enforcement and PROTECT AMERICA

I LIKE TUCKER CARLSON GENTLEMEN

Charles Krauthammer known as a supporter of abortion legalization (although he believed Roe vs Wade was wrongly decided)

 “If it’s still low, then we can bump it up,” she joked, “I want a Lamborghini.”

What did Charles think about Abortion?

Opinion | The Example of Charles Krauthammer – The New York Times (nytimes.com)

When he was 22, enrolled as a student in medical school, he hit his head at the bottom of a pool, broke his neck and injured his spinal cord. Charles used a wheelchair and had only partial use of his arms and hands. The fact that he graduated from medical school is itself remarkable. (After he broke his neck he spent 14 months in the hospital recovering.) He rarely spoke about his accident, and when he did, he did so in a relaxed, matter-of-fact manner, minimizing its impact. He once described his accident to me as “my one bad break,” adding, “Overall, I’ve been dealt a pretty good hand.” He was without an ounce of self-pity.

On June 8, Charles announced that his doctors had informed him that he had only a few weeks to live, the result of an aggressive, rapidly spreading cancer. “This is the final verdict,” he wrote in a note to his readers. “My fight is over.” He died on Thursday.

It is a shattering loss. Charles, who received the 1987 Pulitzer Prize for commentary, was not only an elegant writer; he also had a beautiful mind: precise, logical, subtle and blessedly free of cant. He loathed trendiness and the fads that sometimes sweep over the culture.

Political tribalism is rotting American politics; it needs more people who reject partisan zeal and can speak honestly about their own side’s blind spots and defects. Charles, alert to the maladies of the American right, was a fierce critic of Pat Buchanan in the early 1990s, when Mr. Buchanan was bringing conservative audiences to their feet with a nascent version of the ugliness and divisiveness that has come to characterize the Republican Party under President Trump. This helps explain why it was no surprise that Charles has been a harsh critic of Mr. Trump, who is an anathema to everything Charles prized. (In October 2015 Charles, in reacting to Mr. Trump’s claim that “I’m a great Christian,” told me, “Hell, I’m a better Christian than Donald Trump.” Charles, a Jew who referred to himself as a “complicated agnostic,” was right.)

I have enormous respect for Charles, and he believed Row vs Wade was done incorrectly.

John F. Kennedy said, “The Greeks defined happiness as the full use of your powers along the lines of excellence.” Charles Krauthammer lived a happy life.

Do your homework – Learn Something, stay thirsty my friends

PS: Information on Hate Crimes

HATE CRIME LAWS

ABOUT HATE CRIMES SOURCE

Since 1968, when Congress passed, and President Lyndon Johnson signed into law, the first federal hate crimes statute, the Department of Justice has been enforcing federal hate crimes laws.  The 1968 statute made it a crime to use, or threaten to use, force to willfully interfere with any person because of race, color, religion, or national origin and because the person is participating  in a federally protected activity, such as public education, employment, jury service, travel, or the enjoyment of public accommodations, or helping another person to do so.  In 1968, Congress also made it a crime to use, or threaten to use, force to interfere with housing rights because of the victim’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; in 1988, protections on the basis of familial status and disability were added.  In 1996, Congress passed the Church Arson Prevention Act, 18 U.S.C. § 247.  Under this Act, it is a crime to deface, damage, or destroy religious real property, or interfere with a person’s religious practice, in situations affecting interstate commerce.  The Act also bars defacing, damaging, or destroying religious property because of the race, color, or ethnicity of persons associated with the property.  

In 2009, Congress passed, and President Obama signed, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, expanding the federal definition of hate crimes, enhancing the legal toolkit available to prosecutors, and increasing the ability of federal law enforcement to support our state and local partners.  This law removed then existing jurisdictional obstacles to prosecutions of certain race- and religion-motivated violence, and added new federal protections against crimes based on gender, disability, gender identity, or sexual orientation.  Before the Civil Rights Division prosecutes a hate crime, the Attorney General or someone the Attorney General designates must certify, in writing, that (1) the state does not have jurisdiction; (2) the state has requested that the federal government assume jurisdiction; (3) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to state charges did not demonstratively vindicate the federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence; or (4) a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice.

HAPPY MOTHERS DAY :)

5/8/2022 @ 12:07AM HEY HAVE A JOYFUL TIME WITH MOM TODAY!

GOING TO READ YOU THIS SCRIPTURE. SOON I WILL BE POSTING AUDIO CLIPS, TO GUIDE YOU ALL.

Romans Chapter 8 vs 28 with the King James version Printed by Authority in London and New York Old and New Testaments

Appointed to be read in Churches. Rose Gold Outline

ROMANS 8 vs 28 – “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.”

HAPPY MOTHER’S DAY!

Happy New Year 2022

So much suffering in the past few centuries, the dark ages, the sickness and death, the wars.

Many were dark, cold, couldn’t see because they didn’t have glasses. We have modern medicine.

Our technology is going to accelerate in the next ten years.

What an amazing time to be alive.

I just want to say if it was not for my faith, I would not be here.

Faith truly does move mountains.

Someone told me that – what if Good and Evil is a part of the same coin. (ying & yang?)

What is Yin and Yang?

Briefly put, the meaning of yin and yang is that the universe is governed by a cosmic duality, sets of two opposing and complementing principles or cosmic energies that can be observed in nature. The yin-yang philosophy says that the universe is composed of competing and complementary forces of dark and light, sun and moon, male and female.

God allows the evil to exist. We cannot have light without the dark.

We have free-will.

But I would encourage all of you, to choose the good. For your children. For humanity. For your grandmother. For our grandfather. And may you be rewarded. You have a choice, do the best you can.

I have studied so many religions, to find the truth. And the truth is, believe – there are still many sources of energy that we do not understand. And things we cannot see, even with technology.

The whole of Einstein’s life’s work was to show that what we perceive as hard matter is mostly empty space with a pattern of energy running through it. This includes ourselves.

And what Quantum Physics has shown is that when we Look at these patterns of energy at smaller and smaller levels, startling results can be seen. Experiments have revealed that when you break apart small aspects of this energy, what we call elementary particles, and try to observe how they operate, the act of observation itself alters the results – as if these elementary particles are influenced by what the experimenter expects. This is true even if the particles must appear in places they couldn’t possibly go, given the laws of the universe as we know them: two places at the same moment, forward or backward in time, that sort of thing.

King Solomon ruled the whole kingdom of Israel, and he still would never be as great as a King that he was, without the grace of God. Solomon married the daughter of the Pharaoh in Egypt to cement his rule. He continued making treaties with all the countries around him, ensuring that his rule would be marked by peace, not war. Solomon authored three books of the Bible: Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes.

I only say that I am no longer a religious man, and that isn’t what I believe in anymore – because – these groups, in my opinion, cause quarrels among each other and it causes everyone to fight about it. Imagine if your family has multiple beliefs, they won’t accept each others ideas, causing division. However they all have the same goal.

I just would rather believe what is revealed to me and pray for peace. And using all the books, from all religions, find the truth.

And that is why – I am spiritual.

What does spiritual mean anyway?

Relationship between religion and spirituality

While spirituality may incorporate elements of religion, it is generally a broader concept. Religion and spirituality are not the same thing, nor are they entirely distinct from one another. The best way to understand this is to think of two overlapping circles like this:

  • In spirituality, the questions are: where do I personally find meaning, connection, and value?
  • In religion, the questions are: what is true and right?

Where the circles overlap is the individual experience, which affects the way you think, feel, and behave.

Spirituality versus emotional health

You will notice as you read on that many practices recommended for cultivating spirituality are similar to those recommended for improving emotional wellbeing.

This is because there is a connection between the two—emotional and spiritual wellbeing influence one another and overlap, as do all aspects of wellbeing.

  1. Spirituality is about seeking a meaningful connection with something bigger than yourself, which can result in positive emotions, such as peace, awe, contentment, gratitude, and acceptance.
  2. Emotional health is about cultivating a positive state of mind, which can broaden your outlook to recognize and incorporate a connection to something larger than yourself.

Thus, emotions and spirituality are distinct but linked, deeply integrated with one another.

FURTHER READING

“You do not need to know precisely what is happening, or exactly where it is all going. What you need is to recognize the possibilities and challenges offered by the present moment, and to embrace them with courage, faith and hope.” – Thomas Merton

If you are from unitedspirit – WELCOME BROTHERS AND SISTERS !

So we have to, evolve, as that is the human soul – and we are now in the future.

Welcome to 2022.

Food for thought = Do you think we reincarnate after death or do we survive as a spirit, or are you just, as they say, dust to dust?

We need to bring Dr. Strange on here with some multi-verse ideas to teach the new generation that all things are possible with God. But – the religion – privileged to live in the USA, to have that Freedom (to choose what is best for the individual), and BTW I love international people and ideas.

We need to immigrate more international people from around the world with science and new ideas.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING 2021

To my friends, my family, my readers =

This year I am thankful for many things.

I just want to tell you that, no matter what you have done, and no matter what you have failed to do – that God’s mercy endureth forever.

There is good in your heart. You are part of the human creation. The DNA genes that penetrate your heart veins & flow inside and pump the red blood inside you.

I wish you a Happy Thanksgiving – be with the ones you care about.

Be thankful. I thank you all for reading.

Compassion For Humanity

A terrible storm descents on a country town. Eventually the streets are flooded, and the water is rising fast. The town preacher is standing on the steps of the church, praying for deliverance, when a guy in a row boat comes by. “Better get in the boat, preacher! The water is rising fast!”

The preacher waves him away. “No. I have faith in the Lord. He will protect me.” And so the guy rows away.

The water keeps rising, and the preacher has to retreat to the bell tower. At this point, another guy comes by in a speed boat. “Get in, preacher! The dam is going to break, and we’ll all be washed away!”

Again, the preacher waves him away. “No. I have faith in the Lord. He will protect me.” And so the guy guns the engine and zooms away.

The flood waters keep rising, and the preacher is forced to climb to the very top of the steeple. About that time, a police helicopter flies overhead. The cops drop a ladder to the preacher and shout at him: “Grab the ladder, preacher! The dam has broken, and the water is coming this way fast!”

The preacher waves the chopper away. “No. I have faith in the Lord. He will protect me.”

Not long after the helicopter flies away, a huge wave of water comes rushing in, and the preacher drowns. He goes to heaven, and he is taken to see God. “My Lord! I had faith! I prayed to you! Why didn’t you save me?!”

And God says, “WHAT DID YOU WANT FROM ME? I SENT YOU TWO BOATS AND A HELICOPTER.”

Compassion begins with the awareness that we suffer and the other people suffer, but that’s not nearly the end of the story. Of course it matters that we recognize this. If we can’t, we may feel isolated and alone, or we may feel pity, contempt, or even anger. Once we connect with the awareness of our suffering and the suffering of others, we have some jobs to do. 

First: Consider that there is something we can do to address our suffering and the suffering of others.

This isn’t necessarily easy, especially if we’ve been hurting for a long time and feel overwhelmed by the scale of the pain we feel and witness. It can be very, very hard sometimes to remember that, whatever our situations, there is always something we can do to be kinder and more compassionate to ourselves and others.

Second: We then have the chance to look inside ourselves and decide if we are willing to do what it takes to address our suffering and the suffering of others.

Again, it may not be easy, but this is not a low-stakes game. This is your one-and-only life we’re talking about. You’re stronger than you imagine you are, and your willingness and intention to take even tiny steps toward addressing your suffering and the suffering of others matters—a lot.

Third: Once you can recognize the fact of suffering and feel willing to do something about it, the real work of compassion comes in moving your hands and feet.

Do something about it. The smallest, subtlest thing matters, Little things build quickly.
Will we put an end to suffering? No. And we probably wouldn’t want to if we could. The rose’s perfume is as much the result of its thorns as anything else. The love we feel for our lovers and our children is all the stronger because of the realization that our time with them is not without limit. Our suffering and the suffering of others is an invitation for us to fully be who we are: kinder, more caring, and more sensitive instruments for living.

Persistence. Continue to reach your goals. Have compassion and faith. Check out this great motivational video.

SFCompassion Source

live more passionately

On September 20th, 2013 this website was launched.

Today marks an important event. It has been precisely 7 years, 11 months, and 28 days since I first created and posted here. I was in tech school at the time. It will be 8 years on the 20th.

What has changed since 2013. Can you remember 2013?

It doesn’t seem that long ago – but it will be 8 years! WOW!

Where will we all be in 8 more years… Perhaps it would be the proper time to read some poetry.

What is Poetry?

Writing a poem is not about bringing some words together to create some charming sentences.

It’s so much deeper than that. Writing poetry is a bridge that allows people to express their feelings and make others live every single word they read.

Poetry is to educate people, to lead them away from hate to love, from violence to mercy and pity.

Writing poetry is to help this community better understand life and live it more passionately.

Who is John Donne? One of the most famous poets.

I personally had no idea who this was, but looking for some great poems I came across this great man named John Donne. Here is some information on him.

His great education and poetic talents, Donne lived in poverty for several years, relying heavily on wealthy friends.

He spent much of the money he inherited during and after his education on womanizing, literature, pastimes, and travel.

In 1601, Donne secretly married Anne More, with whom he had twelve children.[5]

In 1615 he was ordained deacon and then Anglican priest, although he did not want to take Holy Orders and only did so because the king ordered it.

He also served as a member of Parliament in 1601 and in 1614.

John Donne was an English poet, scholar, soldier and secretary born into a recreant family, who later became a cleric in the Church of England.

Under royal patronage, he was made Dean of St Paul’s Cathedral in London.

Donne’s love poetry was written nearly 400 years ago; yet one reason for its appeal is that it speaks to us as directly and urgently as if we overhear a present confidence.

Let sea-discoverers to new worlds have gone,


Let maps to others, worlds on worlds have shown,


Let us possess one world, each hath one, and is one.

Some of Donne’s finest love poems, such as “A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning,” prescribe the condition of a mutual attachment that time and distance cannot diminish:

Dull sublunary lovers’ love


(Whose soul is sense) cannot admit


Absence, because it doth remove


Those things which elemented it.

But we by a love, so much refined,


That our selves know not what it is,


Inter-assured of the mind,


Care less, eyes, lips, and hands to miss.

Ah yes, is it better to have love, then lost – then ever to love at all?

It is a very powerful emotion. The man who can completely control that emotion, is strong indeed.

Someday someone will break you. And then, you will become unbreakable.

Read more here.

Read more about John Donne @ Wikipedia

Difference between Sep 20, 2013 and Sep 16, 2021 (including both days): 7 years 11 months 28 days
or 95 months 28 days
or 417 weeks 0 days
or 2919 calendar days

Within which, there are:

Weekend Days*834
Holidays (show)80
Business Days2005

I thank you for visiting.

Vanity

How does the Bible define vanity and lust? What do they have in common? How are they linked together? What great deception do lust and vanity share?

With everything going on in our world, with the media and entertainment, I myself almost forgot what this even means.

I was fascinated with the results of researching this.

What is Vanity?

Vanity (sometimes referred to as pride in Scripture) occurs when we decide something makes us an overall better or more valuable individual than others. The definition of lust includes far more than strongly desiring illicit sex (Matthew 5:28, Romans 1:27). It is the intense desire and demand that we have something because we decide we need it.

Vanity ultimately seeks validation in the eyes of others. For example, the devil not only wants to rule everything, but is vain enough to think he is deserving of worship (which will happen in the end time). This worship will underscore, to him, his believed superiority (Isaiah 14:13 – 14, Revelation 13:7 – 8). Lust, however, simply demands from others what we do not have.

Both of these ways of thinking are quite similar. They both are self-absorbing and self-centered deceptions that leave little, if any, room for considering the wellbeing of others.

In fact, both of them can be pursued so intensely that their negative impact on the lives of others is either minimized or not even considered.

Allegory of Vanity

Allegory of Vanity Peter Candid (1548 – 1628)

The attitudes of vanity and lust are also linked together as they are the first.

King Solomon lists a proud look (vanity) at the top of his list of seven things God hates (Proverbs 6:16 – 19). Pride is also considered, by the Catholic Church, one of the seven deadly sins or attitudes.

Paul states that those who do not have God live according to the vanity of their own minds (they decide for themselves what is right and wrong, Ephesians 4:17).

Lust, according to Paul, is directly linked to breaking the tenth of the Ten Commandments which forbids coveting (Romans 7:7, Exodus 20:17). It is both deceitful and corrupting (Ephesians 4:22) and wars against what is truly good for us (1Peter 2:11).

The book of James teaches that human nature’s tendency towards lust is the ground from which further sin can blossom (James 1:13 – 15). He also states that contentions and conflicts between people spring from trying to fulfill its selfish desires (James 4:1 – 3).

Two sins ever committed. Lucifer turned himself into the first vain being when he decided his beauty, wisdom and all that he was blessed with made him greater than his Creator (Ezekiel 28:16 – 17). The devil’s new selfish way of thinking then led him to foolishly pursue the power and authority of his Maker (Isaiah 14:13 – 14).

The Apostle John ties all of the above together when he states that the lust of the flesh and eyes, as well as the pride (vanity) of life, leads to eternal death (1John 2:15 – 17).

The twin sins of lust and vanity are based on a single great deception.

This deception is that an individual can achieve their greatest existence possible through focusing on themselves and their own desires.

This is diametrically opposite to what Jesus taught.

Christ revealed that those who seek to “find” their life will lose it, but those who lose it (through selflessly loving others) will find it (Matthew 10:39). We must therefore place God at the center of our personal universe and not dedicate our existence on pursuing the destructive sins of lust and vanity.

Not sure what you believe – but only one man – Yeshua, has the power to forgive this sin.

Jesus, whose English name comes from the Hebrew “Yeshua” via the Greek “Iesous”.

Love, Peace, Mercy, Respect.