MASS PSYCHOSIS - How an Entire Population Becomes MENTALLY ILL

[fj1200]

still haven't heard a sales pitch or argument to Harari and those like him that you keep saying won't listen to the Bible.

What's your pitch to THEM?
what's the basis of law when YOU explain it to them?

I don't expect them to listen, care, or agree with me so I'm not going to pitch anything to that group. I already told you my basis for law multiple pages ago, Natural Rights; life, liberty, property.

Besides, Harari seems to be a lightweight. Not worth elevating.

https://www.discovery.org/a/review-o...raris-sapiens/

[revelarts]

Activist & Former Muslim (muslim brotherhood no less) Ayaan Hirsi Ali, became an atheist 20 years ago, became friends with many of atheisms most well known academic/public promoters, now says that Christianity is superior to atheism ...

Why I am now a Christian
Atheism can't equip us for civilisational war

https://unherd.com/2023/11/why-i-am-now-a-christian/


Someone talked to her about God at some point, even if it was as just a book, and she changed because of it.
Islam is not silent, the woke nuts are not silent, many atheist are not silent about dismissing and expelling Christianity.
Telling the TRUTH/reality about history which includes religious history of how & why we have what we have.
And finally the TRUTH about God and Jesus Christ will offend plenty of people but some will turn to parts of the truth overtime... maybe even all of it.
God made reality and it's hard to fight all of it. People get tired of it eventually.

[Kathianne]

Activist & Former Muslim (muslim brotherhood no less) Ayaan Hirsi Ali, became an atheist 20 years ago, became friends with many of atheisms most well known academic/public promoters, now says that Christianity is superior to atheism ...

Why I am now a Christian
Atheism can't equip us for civilisational war

https://unherd.com/2023/11/why-i-am-now-a-christian/


Someone talked to her about God at some point, even if it was as just a book, and she changed because of it.
Islam is not silent, the woke nuts are not silent, many atheist are not silent about dismissing and expelling Christianity.
Telling the TRUTH/reality about history which includes religious history of how & why we have what we have.
And finally the TRUTH about God and Jesus Christ will offend plenty of people but some will turn to parts of the truth overtime... maybe even all of it.
God made reality and it's hard to fight all of it. People get tired of it eventually.

I think that pretty much anyone who is or was religious/spiritual remains open to rediscovering religion. However, they are also the most likely to be totally turned off by attempts to threaten the 'wrath of God' types of arguments. It's also pretty difficult if using hatred or 'wrongness' of other belief systems in general.

BTW, while I personally think Christianity is correct, I wouldn't place $$$ or my soul that Jesus would agree on it being the only way. IOW, Only through acceptance of Christ is my belief.

[revelarts]

Here's Jordan Peterson
also the secular atheist (secular atheist at least so far)
He approaches the idea of human worth and responsibilities coming from both a pseudo-religious or mythical premise and a purely practical POV.

[Gunny]

Not my primary objective but everyone has their own path.

so again
What's your sales pitch?
I've asked many times the only response i'm get over and over is basically "DON'T MENTION GOD or THE BIBLE!, that's BAD." from everyone.
fine. i get it. sheesh. YOU & FJ (others?) don't want to mention God or the Bible or foundational details of European or American history.
I think I've made my points about as clear as i can.
What's your sales pitch.

Harari and tens of thousands, of others don't believe humans have rights. what reasonable argument are going to make?
He says human rights and freedoms are PURE fiction.
What's the secular reasoned response would you start with to back the constitution and bill of rights's view on that, and secure the principals in other law? He's one of the millions who cringe at religion, he and thousands like him are teaching U.S. students in universities today. What do you say to him and them about human rights, the bill of rights & all the laws that are still on the books that align with the ideals of freedom and personal property?

Not your objective? Then why pages of derailing this thread? Your objective which appears to be trying to convince yourself and everyone else your are right and yours is the way appears no better than those you cite as examples.

You want a theocracy based on YOUR religious beliefs. The Ayatollah has one of those. How's that worked for Iran?

When an idea is what's best for all and doesn't infringe on your right to believe what you want, being a naysayer just because you can does nothing positive for you nor anyone else.

[Kathianne]

Not your objective? Then why pages of derailing this thread? Your objective which appears to be trying to convince yourself and everyone else your are right and yours is the way appears no better than those you cite as examples.

You want a theocracy based on YOUR religious beliefs. The Ayatollah has one of those. How's that worked for Iran?

When an idea is what's best for all and doesn't infringe on your right to believe what you want, being a naysayer just because you can does nothing positive for you nor anyone else.

I'm always reminded of those who decided Christ had to be crucified. Certainly it was to fulfill what was promised, yet like Judas, the choices were wrong on a personal front. They all agreed that Christ had not been wrong in any teachings, but his teaching the way he was, was dangerous. They also were threatened by how the message of Christ was being received. They were guarding their power and prestige. They convinced themselves and each other that he was blasphemous and had to die. This fulfilled the prophecies, but at the price of the individuals souls.

Hatred and fear are seldom the way to deal with problems. You don't have to 'hate' your enemy to deal with them. Indeed, once could argue that appeasement of Iran and proxies are creating a scenario of much worse repercussions than were ever necessary.

[revelarts]

I think that pretty much anyone who is or was religious/spiritual remains open to rediscovering religion. However, they are also the most likely to be totally turned off by attempts to threaten the 'wrath of God' types of arguments. It's also pretty difficult if using hatred or 'wrongness' of other belief systems in general.

BTW, while I personally think Christianity is correct, I wouldn't place $$$ or my soul that Jesus would agree on it being the only way. IOW, Only through acceptance of Christ is my belief.

I try not to guess where a professed non Christian might be spiritually speaking, accept by what they say and do. I was agnostic at one point, with no hard feelings toward any religions. I did not CARE what they said. I did not believe any so it wasn't a problem IMO. I think i was unusual, seems many folks are passionate in some direction.
But I agree with you, of course, most people don't want their beliefs challenged, or told the honest "BAD NEWS" about the wrath of God.
Some people are far more sensitivity too that kind of talk than others. Various things like that are 3rd rail issues for some folks. The nerves are raw and the reactions are emotional & explosive rather than rational.

But again Jesus, the apostles, early christians and some even in foreign countries today have been killed for simply telling the story Jesus's redemptive work FROM the wrath of God.
Jesus said some people would HATE his followers for simply talking about it. not forcing anyone into anything, not making it law, just talking.
But he commanded that we are to speak the truth in love anyway. & be wise as snakes but harmless as doves.

Jesus is a healer, loves everyone but he never stepped back from telling people the truth for the sake of polite company or politics.

God has given everyone personalities and hopefully Christians can be honest but tactful and kind.
But frankly if folks ask for a strait answer, I for one will try to give it if i can.

[Kathianne]

I try not to guess where a professed non Christian might be spiritually speaking, accept by what they say and do. I was agnostic at one point, with no hard feelings toward any religions. I did not CARE what they said. I did not believe any so it wasn't a problem IMO. I think i was unusual, seems many folks are passionate in some direction.
But I agree with you, of course, most people don't want their beliefs challenged, or told the honest "BAD NEWS" about the wrath of God.
Some people are far more sensitivity too that kind of talk than others. Various things like that are 3rd rail issues for some folks. The nerves are raw and the reactions are emotional & explosive rather than rational.

But again Jesus, the apostles, early christians and some even in foreign countries today have been killed for simply telling the story Jesus's redemptive work FROM the wrath of God.
Jesus said some people would HATE his followers for simply talking about it. not forcing anyone into anything, not making it law, just talking.
But he commanded that we are to speak the truth in love anyway. & be wise as snakes but harmless as doves.

Jesus is a healer, loves everyone but he never stepped back from telling people the truth for the sake of polite company or politics.

God has given everyone personalities and hopefully Christians can be honest but tactful and kind.
But frankly if folks ask for a strait answer, I for one will try to give it if i can.

I agree, at least to a point. I feel Jesus and the apostles tell their story with a clarity that I can't hope to. Indeed, I trip all over the place just trying to follow to the best of my ability, too often falling short.

I do my best to live the life as I believe I should. I hope that serves as an example to those that know me. If asked, I will discuss my beliefs, but not without it being brought up-I'm not a preacher, but I listen and am always happy to discuss. I'm not the keeper of the gates, God is.

[revelarts]

Not your objective? Then why pages of derailing this thread? Your objective which appears to be trying to convince yourself and everyone else your are right and yours is the way appears no better than those you cite as examples.

You want a theocracy based on YOUR religious beliefs. The Ayatollah has one of those. How's that worked for Iran?

When an idea is what's best for all and doesn't infringe on your right to believe what you want, being a naysayer just because you can does nothing positive for you nor anyone else.

um, Yes I think I am right.
But the amazing thing is that You seem to think you're right.
Is there a problem with us believing we are correct and trying to SHOW others why by using evidence, logic history etc.?
I mean, this is "debate policy" correct.
not "be nice and pretend everybody else is right".


But Gunny I think you've really missed my points.
OK, Please just tell me what theocratic laws I've talked about putting in place?
Tell me ONE.
What are my religious beliefs that I want to impose on others, via gov't or otherwise?
Please, quote me where i said ANYWHERE in this this thread or on the board for all the years i've been here That i want the gov't to tell others what to believe, or to infringe on what others believe.

And I want to make it clear here.
IF YOU CAN NOT DO IT
Then I'm NOT promoting theocracy. And you should back up and come up with a different complaint, because that one is a lie.

I don't appreciate the misrepresentation Gunny.
SHOW ME where I've proposed any new theocratic/religious rules, law, edicts, executive orders of any kind.
If you cannot, then you need to change your argument and stop lying about what i'm saying.

[Gunny]

um, Yes I think I am right.
But the amazing thing is that You seem to think you're right.
Is there a problem with us believing we are correct and trying to SHOW others why by using evidence, logic history etc.?
I mean, this is "debate policy" correct.
not "be nice and pretend everybody else is right".


But Gunny I think you've really missed my points.
OK, Please just tell me what theocratic laws I've talked about putting in place?
Tell me ONE.
What are my religious beliefs that I want to impose on others, via gov't or otherwise?
Please, quote me where i said ANYWHERE in this this thread or on the board for all the years i've been here That i want the gov't to tell others what to believe, or to infringe on what others believe.

And I want to make it clear here.
IF YOU CAN NOT DO IT
Then I'm NOT promoting theocracy. And you should back up and come up with a different complaint, because that one is a lie.

I don't appreciate the misrepresentation Gunny.
SHOW ME where I've proposed any new theocratic/religious rules, law, edicts, executive orders of any kind.
If you cannot, then you need to change your argument and stop lying about what i'm saying.

Your words in your posts in this thread. Not mine.

I don't lie. I have absolutely no reason to. It's not good business, liars always get caught, because they can't remember all the lies they have to tell to cover the first one. Easier to tell the truth. Whether someone likes it or not.

[revelarts]

Your words in your posts in this thread. Not mine.

I don't lie. I have absolutely no reason to. It's not good business, liars always get caught, because they can't remember all the lies they have to tell to cover the first one. Easier to tell the truth. Whether someone likes it or not.

what words specifically?
What religious law, rule, executive order, edict, directive, or orders have I proposed?
What beliefs (religious or otherwise) have I said should be outlawed or imposed?

Should be easy since you keep saying that I want a theocracy.... like Iran.

[Gunny]

I don't expect them to listen, care, or agree with me so I'm not going to pitch anything to that group. I already told you my basis for law multiple pages ago, Natural Rights; life, liberty, property.

Besides, Harari seems to be a lightweight. Not worth elevating.

https://www.discovery.org/a/review-o...raris-sapiens/

Just my opinion based on observation, but I suspect this "shadow society" already unknowingly exists. The extremes on both right and left, and the showing (or not) at the polls suggests there are more people disaffected by current occupiers of government than not. Only minorities on both sides even want current front-running candidates that are nevertheless being foisted on us.

I don't see it as a planned thing and I doubt it could be. I think, as illustrated in one of the videos (Chech Republic, IIRC), some innocuous nothing would set off a chain reaction. Point is, seems to me the ingredients are mostly in place.

Unfortunately, unlike Chech-land, I don't see our government capitulating to a mass showing of popular will.

[fj1200]

Just my opinion based on observation, but I suspect this "shadow society" already unknowingly exists. The extremes on both right and left, and the showing (or not) at the polls suggests there are more people disaffected by current occupiers of government than not. Only minorities on both sides even want current front-running candidates that are nevertheless being foisted on us.

I don't see it as a planned thing and I doubt it could be. I think, as illustrated in one of the videos (Chech Republic, IIRC), some innocuous nothing would set off a chain reaction. Point is, seems to me the ingredients are mostly in place.

Unfortunately, unlike Chech-land, I don't see our government capitulating to a mass showing of popular will.

Well, in regards to Harari and his WEF ilk they're not so much shadow but just eggheads talking to eggheads IMO. As far as the government not capitulating I think it's a matter of momentum. Whipsawing every 4 or 8 years is not going to give time for government to capitulate to anything because it's going to flip back. I think government at the state level has seen a response to popular will there as more and more states have become more and more red since the 90s and maybe even earlier. Goldwater was 60 years ago and arguably the turning point. The Republicans aren't where I/we want them to be but the fact that they're not an essentially minority party anymore says something.

[Gunny]

Well, in regards to Harari and his WEF ilk they're not so much shadow but just eggheads talking to eggheads IMO. As far as the government not capitulating I think it's a matter of momentum. Whipsawing every 4 or 8 years is not going to give time for government to capitulate to anything because it's going to flip back. I think government at the state level has seen a response to popular will there as more and more states have become more and more red since the 90s and maybe even earlier. Goldwater was 60 years ago and arguably the turning point. The Republicans aren't where I/we want them to be but the fact that they're not an essentially minority party anymore says something.

Agree on Harari. He is not well-received critically. A gay, Jew-turned-atheist who IMO espouses a theory based long on personal circumstance and prejudice and short on anything real beyond the attempt to use "science" as window dressing.

My previous comment is more in line with the OP addressing a "sick society" and "parallel society" as a possible solution for those who chose to not follow the religion of bad government. Really, nothing more than an academic exercise I found interesting. I'm far more inclined to believe the only way this government and society is going to end is badly. Too many existent checks in boxes barreling toward disaster with current government driving the train. It would require a sheep-like society that is sleep-walking along to wake up and stop it. I've lost having that much faith in people anymore.