The second sentence annihilates the first sentence. So why is there the first sentence? The writers of this two sentences make themselves untrustworthy and attackable.
What does that exactly mean? âNonâdenominationalâ does not mean the same in every country. So is it possible in the UK that even members of Non-Christian religions can join a Christian church by keeping / maintaining their Non-Christian religions?
Ah, no, I dont think so. Even if there was some generalized merging, there will likely always be new things popping up and getting followers. That said, if we get programmed cyberized merged with AI - re, your other threads - then this will come with an implicit (and possibily explicit) metaphysics. Then you might have unity and there are certainly forces that want unity of belief.
Itâs not about assigning a value to it, but about why this is happening in (mainly) inner-city areas⌠those who inter-marry can now worship without the need for converting to/choosing the othersâ religion. A case of modern day problems getting modern day solutions.
Yes. But nevertheless: it is about tassigning a value to it, because one values such developments, if one has enough mind for valuing it. Therefore I asked the question which is about tassigning a value to it. To be honest, I say that it is not a good development, because the other people who donât want it will probably become fundamental and more fundamental, fanatic and more fanatic, extreme and more extreme, thus dangerous and more dangerous. There are always Non-Christian people who do not want to join a Christian church, and mostly this people are more than those who want to join a Christian church. Do you know what I mean? I am talking aboout a religious âarms raceâ.
I donât know whether I agree or not, but that doesnât matter, because I am merely the questioner. So let me ask you another question: What could those âforces that want unity of beliefâ be?
Inside many religions and certainly in the monotheisms there is the idea that everyone should have the same God(s)/religion I have. So there are forces interested in marketing and coversion within these. Then in general you have a worldview that is trying to cover the entire planet. This worldview sees everying and modular, physical, marketable, controllable, sum of its parts, empty and, in a senseâ inorganic or engineerable and best engineered. This is a religion and one that is promoted via media, advertising, many films, technological replacement of nature, patenting of life both at the organismic level and in terms of parts (for example, genes). Since this is not a theist worldview it is often seen as not religious (let alone insane) but it is. So I see forces amassed behind spreading this. Hence the irritation caused by other kinds of (insane or not) regimes or holdouts - communist, islamist, pagan, anarchist/libertarian, vitalist or whatever.
So you mean somethimg that is not that new in the history of the last 6000 years, but what has really become new since the modern Occidental times is the huge dimension, the technical development, especially the enormous acceleration of the technical development, and - as a result - the possibility that machines replace all human beings. Humans have always tried to design a new religion, but this time the designers will probably either integrate or exterminate all humans of this planet, and this will probably include a huge reduction of the number of the humans.
I think of it more as a semi-humanness. The machines being somewhat like us. I would guess that the seeds of the philosophical bias and need have always been around, but sure, they have taken on more obvious forms recently. A real anti-life hatred, that in most of its advocates is not fully conscious. And you can do a lot of this destruction of life via psychology. IOW there have been cultural facets in parenting, training, societal organization, religion, etc., for a long time that want to squeeze the life out of humans - and out of the world in general. You donât need AI and nano and gm to do this, but these technologies can be used much more effectively. And I suppose the main point I want ot make is it comes from a metaphysical/religious position, though most of todayâs powerful advocates think of themselves not to be religious.
I often say that those who say or/and think that they are not religious are more religious than those who say or/and think that they are religious. Not the truth but the lie is the easier and more effective way when it comes to get, to keep, and to expand power.
Once the significance of the machines out weighs that of humans, humans will simply be outmoded and shortly eliminated, no different than horses in the transportation industry. The process is already well on its way. Machines allow for remote controlled pseudo-life on Earth - the Godwannabeâs dream.
CAn that change? (not that I disagree with what you have said. Mistreating yourself, in certain ways, leads to power and the mistreatment of others. Accepting only a part of yourself and mistreating the other parts is another way to label the issue.)
Well, the rulers need the lie in order to rule, and those who are ruled need the lie in order to not to be pushed over the edge. The truth is that humans need the lie and that humans also need the truth in order to overcome the lie, but the question is whether and, if yes, when they will fully overcome the lie (when the machines will have taken over ? ? ?).
They are community churches that hold community events as well as your standard mass service, so the appeal is magnified to a wider audience of attendees. On Easter Sunday one of my local churches screened a film⌠complete with live music score, and there was a procession of the âbearing of the crossâ consisting of churches from all over London⌠I wish Iâd made it to them, but family were round.
