I've often brought all of those considerations to the light of day while trying not being agnostic about it, fundamentally we express what we find to be our best consideration for ourselves and the give it a Social distinction.

I haven't been there yet, I have been a bit busy lately, continually making the same mistakes, but I read good things about faulty thinking, someone on Quora (I'm Terry Loder on Quora Terence is my middle name) presenting "Alison and Carter " 2006.
1. It's faulty to think that it's virtuous to defend personal beliefs while also thinking it's morally reprehensible for those beliefs to be questioned publically.
2. Collective rationalisation is a necessary format for function to take place in, and the quandary is that "group think" is the essence of closed mindedness.
3. Stereotyping leads to the underestimation of those considered to be inferior.
4. Pressure towards uniformity incurs 'a group members practice' of self-censorship to in order to create unanimity.
6. The illusion of invulnerability brought on by past success causes a delusion of moral superiority.

This is in-group opposed to out-group, and that is probably where the concept of judgment comes from, the strongest individuals have either a dilemma or a challenge to fabricate a social group-think that incorporates the out-group credibly.

That's why pundits who work on the Ideologies, Religions, Philosophies are the best people who get to be listed in Heaven, see you there.

Afterthought.

It's probably wrong to project personal interests onto society, I don't think it works anyhow, however I do feel a duty to keeping trying so as to know the truth of the matter.

I've often brought all of those considerations to the light of day while trying not being agnostic about it, fundamentally we express what we find to be our best consideration for ourselves and the give it a Social distinction.

I haven't been there yet, I have been a bit busy lately, continually making the same mistakes, but I read good things about faulty thinking, someone on Quora (I'm Terry Loder on Quora Terence is my middle name) presenting "Alison and Carter " 2006.
1. It's faulty to think that it's virtuous to defend personal beliefs while also thinking it's morally reprehensible for those beliefs to be questioned publically.
2. Collective rationalisation is a necessary format for function to take place in, and the quandary is that "group think" is the essence of closed mindedness.
3. Stereotyping leads to the underestimation of those considered to be inferior.
4. Pressure towards uniformity incurs 'a group members practice' of self-censorship to in order to create unanimity.
6. The illusion of invulnerability brought on by past success causes a delusion of moral superiority.

This is in-group opposed to out-group, and that is probably where the concept of judgment comes from, the strongest individuals have either a dilemma or a challenge to fabricate a social group-think that incorporates the out-group credibly.

That's why pundits who work on the Ideologies, Religions, Philosophies are the best people who get to be listed in Heaven, see you there.

Afterthought.

It's probably wrong to project personal interests onto society, I don't think it works anyhow, however I do feel a duty to keeping trying so as to know the truth of the matter.

Well, I did say it was seemingly paradoxical, because the inevitable dillema has to be confronted as a litmus test in order to either strive to survive personally, or go down.

That's mainly because our individual leader in a position of social leadership accepts the challenge or ops-out, if he qiuits, and rarely does this ever happen, usually he's attacked by the contemporaries that he competed with to be in the position he won.

Naturally then the more bipartisanship existing between rival leaders the better for them it is, and so, this is always causing a security at the top for enterprise to exist under it.

Tribal,Feudal, Communal, and Capital driven social structures all embraced this methodology of providing security for leaders who become the architects of social punishments and rewards.

So function within paradox becomes competitive aspiring leaders strutting their Ideologies as deductive reasoning where one priority must be upheld at the expense of another because of limited resources available trying to match insatiable wants.

Alas, Confucius said this must inevitably lead to a concentration of wealth until the expectations can no longer be addressed, and then the leaders would be replaced by their immediate underlings, this is what Trump represented 13 months ago.

And it tends to happen much more in capital oriented society which China was, the very first one, very much so in the 4C BC when Confucius lived, and China is still exactly the same today, except the foot binding and castration has been forbidden.

Morality can't be reflected by a leaders capacity to understand social systems as a best one to pattern his leadership on, he'd be talking to himself.

So the leader that is aspiring to lead his community is limited by the inherent opportunities available to him.

If a conceivable opportunity is available and our leader has knowledge of it, but rejects that course of social construction for a personal reason, say for example, improving his personal bottom line, then we say that leader is corrupt.

I see it as intrinsic traits emanating from what is possible, and possible is a capacity for agreement within known beliefs that are already accepted by social contemporaries.

The highest priority is usually legal statutes, and legislated requirements, following that is reasoning underpinning personal beliefs that have broad agreement and after them are not so popular ones.

So the past being modified to suit the requirements of the present leadership is usually the threat to the highest priority within possibility, thus destroying possible fruitful social endeavours enhancing equal opportunity.

This methodology is built up from empirical development and not from a moral standpoint, to imply that deductive reasoning came from Theology either Christian or Muslim or even Abstract Thinking thinking itself is to say that Practical Concerns are not the highest priority, which we all know they are now, and always have been.

As I understand it, Boggis, Christians believe that God reincarnated as human in order to "save" humans from their innate "wickedness" (according to Wesley), and so thusly they can enter the "Kingdom of Heaven". However, a human must acknowledge their wickedness, and then "accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior", in order to have a heavenly afterlife. (For myself, I have always wondered why God/Allah would bother creating a wicked species, "a worthless piece of crap", if you will. And then decide to "save" him. Also, if this worthless piece of crap is created in the image of God/Allah, what kind of God has his hands on the world, anyway?)
Furthermore, they are assured of a "place in heaven" no matter whatever other "sins" they incur thereafter.
And also, and this is why I wondered if you were Christian, Christians believe that all people who do not do this, are doomed to everlasting damnation.

Now, as to the "moon god" worshipped by Muslims, you really need to do your own research, and stop relying on hearsay.
I wonder too if God can be reincarnated as human. For this reason: humans are part of space-time-material reality, meaning they are time dependent. God/Allah is time independent. Having existence only in space and time signifies that an entity or object must undergo change and eventual decay. That can never happen with a God who is also a creator. God never changes. People do.
Justinian in 529 AD, closed the School of Athens. I believe it was because the study of Aristotle would have resulted in the obvious heresy---for Christians---that Jesus could not have had a Divine Nature.
Interestingly, Isaac Newton was of that same mind, after having been exposed to classical Greek learning.
Yet, I will not try to change a person's faith or belief, UNLESS I find it aggravates suffering, and doesn't mitigate it.

And I'm pretty sure the entire world knows that I feel Christianity is the most intolerant and childish of religions. The very fact that a Christian works for only his own salvation, tells me it is a selfish, childish way of thinking.


The above is my response to a poster on Russia Insider, just now:


boggis the cat > Kira Binkley •


No, I am Christian. Not all Christians are the same, just as not all Muslims are. (Or all Jews, or any other variation of believers in the one God.)

I don’t understand how the system of worship in Islam (or Judaism, which is very similar) would work as well as the Christian acceptance of the Holy Spirit. Our version of ‘Islam’, bowing before God, is to allow personal direction by God. Muslims reject the idea that God can do this, and also reject that He can be incarnated in a human vessel (the Jewish Messiah, or the Christ that gives our religion its name) — but we have shared beliefs and ideas in most areas.

Some Christians are hostile to Muslims (and / or Jews), considering such people to be (deliberately, in some cases) worshipping false gods — Muslims worship a ‘moon god’ is what I have heard, and are thus ultimately being deceived (or willingly serving the enemy of God). Some Christians see enough commonality to consider hostility foolish (where I fit): then a large majority are fairly vague about their religion anyway, so don’t much care.

I get the impression that the ‘moon god’ people are dying out (literally), and Christianity is becoming more inclusive. My view is that this was the entire point that Jesus Christ was for — God extending His acceptance from the Jews out to all people: and these people did not have to follow the Judaic Law — and so is part of His unfolding plan for humanity.

I heard that God does not exist in linear time from an astrophysicist....sorry that I can't remember his name. In linear time, for us at least, we exist only in the second that exists now, because a second ago exists only in our memory, and one second ahead of us cannot be experienced until it becomes the second that exists now. You can't be killed by a bullet that was fired yesterday, or by one that will be fired tomorrow until tomorrow becomes now. God does NOT exist in this time frame, but has access to any time because he created it.
Once again, allah does not exist any more than Zeus or Mercury or Athena does. Also I am not concerned with a multiverse, as I will never be hit by a train from the number 187549037 universe. If that universe DOES exist, then it will be ruled by the ONE God Yahweh, as this one is. If string theory is real, then God devised it. If the big bang is real, then God said 'Let there be expansion'.
Since matter, visible or dark, cannot be destroyed, it will always be with us. Antimatter may not exist in large quantities anymore, but that doesn't mean that small amounts of it don't exist in sparse areas of space, at least until it contacts matter.
The LHC is in no way connected with God's truth. I am only concerned with God's truth because it is what I have faith in to save me from hell and to get me top heaven to live forever. The works of mankind are not held in this belief.
Please...please.....don't throw allah at me anymore, as you yourself said he is a recycled moon god ie; a false god ( one that does not exist).