Beyond tribalism; How well does your religious label serve you?

Not if you agree with the label others stick on you. Most of the time, though, I don't.

Thanks IRFrank. I will compose a response later. I have to make a friend a vegan cake.
Thank you for all your input here!

Since this is an incorrect assertion... first how could you know...? Second why would you accuse me of something that you could not know?

That's what should 'boggle the mind' of those that read your post and my (first) reply on this thread.

I suspect that if tests could be devised to actually investigate and analyze this "tendency" it could easily lead to a finding that we all tend to serve ourselves rather than strive for a greater good.

Even without tests, it can logically be argued that by doing what they did, Mother Teresa, Albert Schweitzer, the Mahatma Gandhi all did what served their personal interests first and foremost...and were no nearer to actual altruism than Idi Amin or Saddam Hussein.

I made no accusation. The statement could just as easily inferred that you thumbed up the posts.
For future reference, I will not divulge your "secret" communications leading up to this point, but will make no guarantee of not doing so with future communications. This is for your good, more than it is of mine.

there is no possibility to communicate without acceptance of others at face value?

seems odd

My reply made no accusation of the direction of any 'thumbs'. The rest of your post makes no sense to me.


Your compassion in this uncalled for outburst 'boggles the mind'! ....

...Especially as I've taken no part in this thread!?

Skeptical of ? Of the idea that there might be "something more" to The Whole Shebang

Okay. Concede my vocab limited in such areas

Again Matt and forgive me for my apparent density but not sure what you mean by "that". If you mean what I wrote as the skeptic's view, then the cognitive, well, it's a matter of def, while I'm not sure preferable to whom

But if you mean "physically," I disagree, unless I misunderstand what's meant by the term. If by "nihilistic," another very general term, "depressing," then yes of course. However, without explaining how it started, his Physical Universe as I describe it is exactly what "Science" is telling us today: Big Bang, Big Show, Big Cooling Off; then Dispersion Forever anon

It's sort of vague. I see Intuition as a sort of subliminal reasoning, alas almost worshiping it

Not at all, I'm flattered by your responses


No way

Well, I wouldn't agree with that. There has to be a continuum. Yes, we are all self serving, but wisdom leads one to exhibit that through helping others. Is there not a greater good? I understand your point but it does not lead me to a position that I perceive to provide happiness or well being. Did Albert Sweitzer live as he did for himself? Yes, to the extent he believed it made him a better person. Does that lead us to the question as what does provide fulfillment and happiness?

I presume IRF that you mean than helping others, but doeswn't it depend upon who those others are

The devout Cristian for instance keeps him in a muddy pen and then hangs Porky by the rear legs and cuts his throat so he bleeds to death before cutting him up then eating him

Again, there must be a middle way. If that pig feeds 'others', is that not the way of nature? Denying any capacity for 'goodness' leads to nihilism, which I am not able to accept.

Oh yes IRF, indeed it is, nature being very cruel but I'd thank the Christian not to first torture the pig

But what do you consider nihilism and incidentally IRF do you consider yourself somehow superior to Porky

If he were in charge he'd consider intelligence to be an evil and of course he'd eat you, but I doubt if he'd first bleed you to death, your end would be much more humane, however little you deserve it

I could take either side in a debate and build a decent case, Frank.

But my gut feeling is that many so-called "helpful" people are being helpful because it serves and satisfies self-needs.

Not going to make a big case for it...just an observation.

Oh god, yes. When i was five, i was angry at the church (or at least the church's minions) and by the time i was 12 i wanted out. I cut a deal that i would go through the confirmation rigmarole, but that i would, apart from that, never attend the mass again.

**********************************************

I completely agree about the material importance of churches, too. In the late 80s and early 90s, i worked in the "charity industry," working in a homeless families shelter. Some of the Christians were contemptuous. The Baptists were very unpopular among the recipients of charity--i can't speak to the complaints against them based on my experience, so i won't go into the details of the complaints.

The national charitable organizations were incredibly stingy, and seemed to look on the homeless people they served as a promotional opportunity. The shelter for which i worked got every penny they could from outside sources, and spent as little as they could on the clients. They continued to take in a great deal of money from their thrift store operations, and to send as much of the income off to the national organization a possible. That, of course, burnished the reputation of the director of that organization in that city, but i don't know if other branches behaved the same way.

But the two organizations which were not only genuinely charitable, but quietly so, were Catholic Social Services and Lutheran Social Services. They weren't doing if for publicity or to attract donations, and they didn't care what someone's religious affiliation was if they needed help. CSS had far more resources than LSS, but the Lutherans would "farm out" people to local congregations. No one was required to attend religious services, and no one asked the religious affiliation of our clients. But an entire congregation would pull together to find employment and housing for those people. The organization i worked for had more than 20 thrift stores in the city. However, to get clothing for our clients, we went to the LSS thrift stores, of which there were only two in the city. We had been provided a pad of their forms, i'd show up with the family and sign one of the forms, and the store manager would turn the family loose to pick out their clothing. No questions, no reservations, just genuine good natured charity.

I won't go into the details, but there were several individuals in the city who made great efforts, with no fanfare, and motivated by their religious beliefs. I don't have to agree with their beliefs to recognize the value of their efforts and the sincerity of their convictions.

Holy crap yes there's a difference.

At one point a former boss (who knew little about the real me) labeled me a "cat person" and apparently let several other people know that's who I was. Within a year I had to donate to Goodwill an entire box of cat bookmarks, cat artwork, some clothes with cats on them, and best (worst) of all a jewelry box (never mind I wear little jewelry) with some frickin kittens or something all over it.

The label didn't make me a (insert label of choice) and it doesn't change the person I know myself to be, but it does effect interactions with others, because it takes them farther away from understanding each other for who we really are.

I didn't realize we were talking about pig torture. Of course, I see no value in that. And yes, I do see myself as higher on the food chain. I'm not sure how we got to his point with me trying to place value on working to benefit others.

Fine, and if it results in benefit, what's wrong with that? Being good has benefits, what a concept.

Perhaps I'm not communicating well.
My intended message was that communicating requires labels in the sense that all words are labels. A word is a label for some "thing", that thing may be an object or a characteristic or even something more abstract.
The meaning of a word is defined by the community.
You and I probably agree the word "red" means this color: ####
We might not agree what the word "Christian" means, however.
Perhaps I define it as someone who 'accepts Jesus as their personal lord and savior'.
Perhaps you define it as someone who 'follows the teachings of Jesus'.
Someone else might define it as someone who 'was baptized into the Church'.
There are many other possible definitions of course.
The point being that there are communication problems, if labels do not have an agreed upon meaning. I might be chunking together people in the Christian label ignoring perhaps significant differences.

Yes I think anarchy would be a good term. Greater connectedness tends toward more anarchic structures in a community. For instance A2K, or Wikipedia.

I am surprised that you don't hear that word self-described more often. I spent most of my adult life in healthcare, this may color my perceptions a bit. If there is an error in healthcare everyone involved both feels and is responsible. Anyone who failed to act to prevent error, or contributed to making an error more likely. The strategy has been for everyone to check or validate everyone else. Anyone regardless of "rank" can and should be able to veto something, and demand an explanation or call for another expert to confirm. This is encouraged and expected.
In my experience this is empowering of people, and people live up to that expectation. If you expect responsibility people tend to live up to expectation. Self-fulfilling prophesies.

That is an excellent question, and of course I have no answer to it.

I do wonder if there will remain a plurality of religions, or if people will tend more toward a more uniform belief. Perhaps the number of religions will even increase so that fewer and fewer people consider themselves sharing the same beliefs with a specific group.

I am vegan, however I have many friends who are not (In fact almost none of my friends are). The friend I made the cake two kinds of brownies for, is actually Muslim. He owns and operates a Lebanese restaurant, all of the meats he serves are from Halal butchers. Which is from my perspective one of the most barbaric and reprehensible practices. Nidal however is not an evil man. He is one of the most loving and caring people I know. He simply has a more narrow definition of who does and does not suffer. We grow in steps.

I did become vegan for ethical reasons, primarily because animals are capable of suffering, so I should not participate in perpetuating that suffering. Attempting to live while causing the least harm.
I know that makes me a minority, but shaming or calling people out on "abuse" is not effective, and often brings the accusation "you love animals more than people". It is all stages, I appreciate more when people love people, that tends to be my primary concern.

As for the feeding of people, that to is a reason for my veganism. Veganism is generally a more efficient form of food production. Eat the plants directly. Saving a 90 to 99% loss in calories by "filtering" those calories through an animal. Other considerations as well. Fresh water. 1 pound of beef requiring as much fresh water as a years worth of showers. I won't bore anyone with all the statistics.

Nutritionally I have found no negatives so long as B12 is supplemented. There is in fact mounting evidence of its nutritional superiority especially in combating the #1 and #2 causes of preventable death and illness. Cancer and cardiovascular disease. Vegan men also have higher testosterone levels (perhaps explaining my aggressive nature )

That is as much vegangelizing as I intend to do on the subject, at least here on this thread.
Recipe Fudge mocha brownie. .......... Recipe Chocolate chip cookie bars.
Nidal prefers the chocolate chip bars (sweeter).
I and most of Nidal's employees prefer the mocha bars (richer).

Be nice to people, amen.