Tiered Moral Systems

“Atheist”, what are all those words in your Gravatar? Let’s have a look at them:

…agnostic atheist, Bright, English Liberal, secular Zionist, Humanist and Transhumanist, who follows UPB.

Gravatar

But, “atheist”, I know your secret, you’re really a Jew! Or a Christian! OK, I’ll reveal that I’m also an ex-Protestant, ex-Born Again, ex-Christian, studied to be a Muslim (but didn’t) and studied Judaism to become a Jew (but didn’t). I also looked into New Age, Witchcraft, Zen, Buddhism and La Vey Satanism, but only briefly. So take what I write or say about these with a grain of salt.

But, “atheist”, you can’t be agnostic! Ah, but one can and I am, agnostic and atheist. What does atheism mean? It means simply this: without or absence of theism, where theism is belief in god/s. This is in accord with the Wikipedia definition and the meaning of the word parts, “a-” and “theism“. What does agnostic mean? It means simply this: a person without or absent (“a-“) gnosis, where gnosis is “knowledge” about god/s. So “agnostic” and “atheist” means that I do not pretend to know god/s and do not believe in god/s.

But, but, “atheist”, atheism is the belief that there are no gods! I don’t have this belief and your definition is contrary to the accepted definitions I’ve provided already.

But, but, but, “atheist”, I’ve seen this definition of atheism that agrees with me, and I’m right and you’re WRONG! Here’s where that definition of atheism comes from:

1 a: … a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods.

b: a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

Merriam-Webster, Atheism

Merriam-Webster uses this “modified” definition in American English, because of Noah Webster, the creator of Webster’s Dictionary. Why?

…in 1808 he became a convert to Calvinistic orthodoxy, and thereafter became a devout Congregationalist who preached the need to Christianize the nation.

Webster viewed language as a tool to control unruly thoughts.

His American Dictionary emphasized the virtues of social control over human passions and individualism, submission to authority, and fear of God; they were necessary for the maintenance of the American social order.

Noah Webster

Thus the word definitions of Atheism and Atheist are that way in Webster’s dictionary promote Christianity through language, spelling and definition-based mind control. As an aside, this is also why flashcards are evil, because they go straight for memorisation first without understanding, resulting in students who remember but do not understand, who don’t understand that words are constructed from prefixes, smaller words or stems, and suffixes.

But, “atheist”, you believe my god doesn’t exist, which is atheism! I don’t. I’m an atheist, which means I’m a person without or absent theism. As an atheist, I do not have “atheism”. In contrast, you as the theist have theism, specifically Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Ahmadiyya, etc.

But, “atheist”, you can’t simply assume my god/s don’t exist, due to your atheist belief! Remember, I’m an atheist, who simply doesn’t believe in your god/s. Just like the Christians don’t believe in Allah, and the Muslims don’t believe in Jesus as God. I as an atheist, don’t believe in Allah, just like the Christian. And, just like the Muslim, I don’t believe in Jesus as God, except contextually.

But, “atheist”, you have to presume MY god exists! Um,… Isn’t that a bit impolite? What about the religious people in OTHER religions? So they have to believe in your god/s as well as their gods?

Of course, INFIDEL, you must believe in Allah and his Messenger or ELSE! I refuse. And we haven’t even gotten to the Code of Ur-Nammu yet,…

As I was saying, tiered moral systems,…

But, “atheist”, I saw that weasel word, “context” – you are CHRISTIAN! Let’s consider the context:

Infidel, your YouTube videos on context do not convince me! Let’s do maths and logic together, instead. First, let’s agree, there are false and true, and integers and math operations.

false
true = NOT false
1, 2, 3, etc.
+ means to add numbers together
= means to compare numbers

So:

Is 1 + 2 = 3 true?

I hope you’ll agree with me that it’s true. So we have:

1 + 2 = 3 is true

Now:

Is [1 + 2 = 3 is true] true?

I hope you’ll agree with me that it’s true. So we have:

[[1 + 2 = 3 is true] is true]

Now:

Is [[1 + 2 = 3 is true] is true] true?

I hope you’ll agree with me that it’s true. So we have:

[[[1 + 2 = 3 is true] is true] is true]

Now:

Is [[[1 + 2 = 3 is true] is true] is true] true?

I hope you’ll agree with me that it’s true.

And I also hope you notice the rather strange “repetition” going on, and I’m sure you’re smart enough to recognise the pattern going on here, which is a form of recursion. If you’re not sure of the definition of recursion, be sure to click on the link to the definition of recursion.

So, you might remember this?

1 + 2 = 3

There’s no trick. It’s true. What about this?

[1 + 2 = 3]

Perhaps that’s a little hard. This makes it easier to understand:

[1 + 2 = 3] is true

Let’s rewrite both together, then solve the two maths problems, then the logic problem, then the answer:

[1 + 2 = 3] and [1 + 2 = 3] is true
[true] and [true] is true
true and true is true
true is true
true

As you can see the maths problems resolve to true, the brackets are no longer needed, and something that’s true with something that’s true is true, thus we have true as the answer. Basically, it’s all true, and I hope you agree with this.

Now let’s start again:

true

That’s pretty boring.

true is true.

Obvious, right?

true and true is true

Add some brackets

[true] and [true] is true

And remember a certain maths problem from earlier?

[1 + 2 = 3] and [1 + 2 = 3] is true

As you can see, we’ve gone from simple truth to “complicated” truth in the reverse of the earlier, “complicated” to simple truth. Importantly, every step is true and is absolutely true. Let’s go back one step:

[true] and [true] is true

And let’s deliberately break the [true] on the left:

[NONSENSE] and [true] is true

I hope you’d agree that nonsense isn’t true. Yet, the statement remains:

[NONSENSE] and [true] is true

Is the statement true? Obviously not, despite the statement saying “is true”. And of course, it’s not absolutely true either.

So why hasn’t absolute truth fixed the problem with the statement? To make it:

[true] and [true] is true

The inaction of the absolute truth shows that it doesn’t exist. Thus you can see that absolute truth, divorced of context, is nonsensical and false. Truth is a judgement of a condition from a context, the logical opposite of false, as shown right from the start:

false
true = NOT false
etc

In short, in the context of Christianity, I really do accept that Jesus is the Son of God along with the trinity, as part of the knowledge of gnosis of the theism of Christianity. But as an agnostic atheist, with no evidence for god/s, outside of the context of Christianity or other religions, I don’t believe – this is simply an obvious restating of the previous assertions. I’m adept enough to switch between contexts as appropriate, particularly to enlarge my knowledge of the Christianity or Islam or Judaism contexts. So the context summary:

[Everything [religions [Judaism] [Christianity] [Islam] etc] etc]

This context-switching shows why some think I’m a secret Jew, Christian or Muslim.

To reiterate, absolute truth is simply formulated as wrapping a context around a subject and question that is true and asking if it’s true, and doing it again and asking if it is absolutely true, which is absolutely true. Thus it’s not a failure of logic, just a problem of accidentally wrapping context around questions and flowing truth thru:

[[[[1 + 2 = 3] is true] is true] is true] etc

It’s amusing to see apologists ask these types of questions and then they’re surprised when I reply with absolutely true, because it’s correct, it’s absolutely true given the context that is accidentally supposed.

Infidel, I’m watching you, you are a secret Zionist! And we still haven’t gotten to tiered moral systems yet,…

Let’s carry on with tiers of morality and recall the Code of Ur-Nammu, which is one of the earliest law codes found. Here are the first four of the laws:

1. If a man commits a murder, that man must be killed.
2. If a man commits a robbery, he will be killed.
3. If a man commits a kidnapping, he is to be imprisoned and pay 15 shekels of silver.
4. If a slave marries a slave, and that slave is set free, he does not leave the household.

You might notice some obvious problems with these laws. There’s “man” and no mention of women. Obviously, women can murder, steal, kidnap (a baby for example) and marry, yet these possibilities aren’t covered. Then there’s the question of a male child – when does he become a man? 15? 18? 21? When he marries? When he commits a crime? And there’s the slavery part. The people of Ur all died long ago, 2100–2050 BC, over 4,000 years ago, so, unfortunately, we can’t ask questions about this. Perhaps the lawyers of that time made a lot of shekels with this kind of question.

Infidel, obviously those evil polytheists cast out the prophet Abraham so they rejected the word of Allah from the Messenger, Muhammad, in his glorious Qur’an! Um,… OK

See, Infidel, you know Islam to be TRUE! TRUE! TRUE! Let’s calm down.

So that’s one level of morality or law that is inflicted upon the people of Ur by Nammu, their king, over 4,000 years ago.

Infidel, “inflicted”?! Consider “2 If a man commits a robbery, he will be killed.” – who kills the robber? Obviously, this punishment of killing for the crime of robbery has to be inflicted upon the robber, by force, and someone has to use force, killing the robber for his crime, under the directive of the law, whose power comes from Nammu.

Infidel, such barbarity of the polytheists – Islam is better! I agree. Let’s check with Muhammad about the crime of robbery or theft:

[As for] the thief, the male and the female, amputate their hands in recompense for what they committed as a deterrent [punishment] from Allah. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.

Koran 5:38

Infidel, you see the wisdom of Allah here in the words of Muhammad! I see. Let’s go over it then. Is it the loss of one hand for one theft? Or both hands for one theft? What happens if the thief steals three things, one after the other or all at once?

Infidel, it’s one hand, one theft! Recall: “amputate their hands”.

But, Infidel, you have to read it in Arabic! I see,…

Now let’s check with Judaism, in the 10 commandments:

You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

Exodus 20:13

Nice and easy to read, and there’s no boasting about Allah involved.

But, infidel, there’s no punishment for thieves, no hand cutting! Be sure to read Jews and Stealing to see how stealing is against being a Jew. By stealing, the Jewish thief is no longer a Jew but a thief who used to be Jew, and so has to leave. Which is pretty much a death sentence in ancient times.

But, but, infidel, the law must include a punishment! Like the cutting off of hands for theft? Talmud is Not a Code of Law.

So let’s carry on a bit more, and see what Jesus has for us, in the Bible:

³⁷ Jesus replied: “”Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” ³⁸ This is the first and greatest commandment. ³⁹ And the second is like it: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” ⁴⁰ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

NIV Matthew 22:37-40

But, infidel, that’s even worse, and there’s no hand chopping off! Consider this, while one is occupied with loving god and loving one another, who has time to steal stuff?

With secular humanism, “a philosophy or life stance that embraces human reason, secular ethics, and philosophical naturalism while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, and superstition as the basis of morality and decision making.” then theft simply becomes inconceivable as it devalues humans.

With transhumanism, “an international philosophical movement that advocates for the transformation of the human condition by developing and making widely available sophisticated technologies to greatly enhance human intellect and physiology.”, theft is making the human condition WORSE, not better.

As you can see, there are tiers of morality here:

1. If a man commits a robbery, he will be killed.
2. …the thief, the male and the female, amputate their hands…
3. You shall not steal.
4. Love one another – there’s no time to steal.
5. Humans are valuable – theft is dehumanising.
6. Theft makes humans worse instead of better.

And that is Tiered Moral Systems, a pile of morality that shows that theft is bad, wrong, undesirable, something you can’t do, contrary to one’s goals in life, etc.

But, infidel, where’s the hand chopping?!

Cutting off hands, no matter the “moral” “punishment” “reason”, is barbaric. With science, we can measure human well-being and work out morality with science. If you doubt this:

With the Brights movement, we (me as a Bright and other Brights) have “a naturalistic worldview, free of supernatural or mystical elements” and we “want citizens who have a naturalistic worldview to be accepted as full participants in civil society”. Further-more:

The evidence so far is that humans, as social animals, have had their morality built into their DNA. Being moral/immoral is simply part of what it means to be human. The project will endeavor to make such concepts increasingly understandable and acceptable. Morality: It’s only natural!

The Brights, Morality Project

But, infidel, there’s no hand chopping off for theft, so your “Bright” morality is barbaric in allowing theft to be unpunished! But what we have here, is actually a conflict between religion and civics here. In a secular society, we do not chop off hands for theft.

But, infidel, you SHOULD chop off hands, as it stops the thief and the punishment stops more people from being thieves, and it’s in obedience, of Allah and his messenger Muhammad!

In short, we’re discussing reasons to be better people, morality not secular law.

Model-Dependent Realism

There’s more about Model-Dependent Realism on Wikipedia. In short:

Model-dependent realism asserts that all we can know about “reality” consists of networks of world pictures [AKA contexts in my writing] that explain observations by connecting them by rules to concepts defined in models.

The universe of all observations [AKA recorded data] at present is covered by a network of overlapping world pictures and, where overlap occurs; multiple, equally valid, world pictures exist.

Where several models are found for the same phenomena, no single model is preferable to the others within that domain of overlap.

Wikipedia Model-Dependent Realism

It may be helpful to read through the Wikipedia article several times (yes, really do read it again) and realise that models of reality or contexts also necessarily include religions. Note the plural.

But, atheist, religions aren’t science and science isn’t religions, they’re separate! Except that they are quite brutally connected. Both are word pictures, that explain observations, connecting by rules to concepts defined in models (like religious texts).

Let’s take a practical (or maybe impractical) example, like demons. In religion, these entities torment people, jump in their bodies, get cast out, and are a serious hazard to people. In science, many of these demons are epileptic fits, delusions and hallucinations, and so on. Science’s technology has various methods to treat these problems., like drugs, surgery, talk therapy, etc. Religion has various methods to treat or protect against these, like exorcism and talk therapy (note the overlap), polemics and apologetics.

Now let’s take another example of demon possession. In science, these can be multiple personalities, or a mind who has “grown” into one or more additional personalities, where parts of the mind are personified and made into partial or even worse, complete personalities. In religion, this is a demon possession, perhaps 1 or more or many demons (Legion). Also according to Jordan Peterson, a kind of additional personality is an ideological demon, where the principles or doctrine of an ideology overcomes a person, and literally makes them an agent of an ideology instead of a person. Like in the movie, The Matrix, not with Neo, but with the agents.

Now don’t panic. I’m not asserting that life is The Matrix.

If you do think you’re in a simulation, you’re not. Unless you’re cruel and would run an ancestor simulation. Then it’s possible you’re being simulated by your cruel descendants in your future, and thus you’re living in your very own machine Hell.

Let’s get back to demons again:

Jesus and Beelzebul

¹⁴ Jesus was driving out a demon that was mute. When the demon left, the man who had been mute spoke, and the crowd was amazed. ¹⁵ But some of them said, “By Beelzebul, the prince of demons, he is driving out demons.” ¹⁶ Others tested him by asking for a sign from heaven.

¹⁷ Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them: “Any kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and a house divided against itself will fall. ¹⁸ If Satan is divided against himself, how can his kingdom stand? I say this because you claim that I drive out demons by Beelzebul. ¹⁹ Now if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your followers drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. ²⁰ But if I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

²¹ “When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe. ²² But when someone stronger attacks and overpowers him, he takes away the armor in which the man trusted and divides up his plunder.

²³ “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.

²⁴ “When an impure spirit comes out of a person, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, ‘I will return to the house I left.’ ²⁵ When it arrives, it finds the house swept clean and put in order. ²⁶ Then it goes and takes seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that person is worse than the first.”

²⁷ As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.”

²⁸ He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”

NIV Luke 11:14-28

This is why it’s important to be immunised against ideological possession, to grow your own mind to guard against being taken over by ideology, post-modernism, identity politics, feelings instead of reason, narcissists, sociopaths, psychopaths, bullies and vampires, Islam, Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Stalinism, Maoism, insanity, delusion, nonsense, the personification of emotions or worse, and so on. In Christianity, the defence against ideological possession is to have Jesus/God in your head and heart, your mind and to consider what would Jesus do and then do what Jesus do, while remembering the commandments of Jesus. If you don’t care for Jesus and his two commandments (but you SHOULD), then you REALLY need to bind yourself with morality systems like humanism and so on, as I’ve shown above. A heroic narrative that resonates with you and good western culture also helps. For example:

Carl Benjamin Sargon of Akkad points out that the Left is consumed by itself and by selfishness, and by its hatred of patriotism, while the right isn’t.

How can we cast out the demons of ideological possession or rather rescue their victims the poor humans that have taken on these demons voluntarily? We use love and truth. That’s why you, at the very least, should be a Christian and follow the two commandments of Jesus to love, because you get love and truth as your shield and sword, as well as an incarnate guide to moral situations. See also: The Diagnosis and Treatment of Ideological Possession from Foundation for Economic Education

The Armor of God

¹⁰ Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. ¹¹ Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. ¹² For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. ¹³ Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. ¹⁴ Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, ¹⁵ and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. ¹⁶ In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. ¹⁷ Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

¹⁸ And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the Lord’s people.

NIV Ephesians 6:10-18

But, atheist, you’re a Christian! But I’m not. Recall up top the various moralities I have? My moralities include Jesus and his two commandments. Jesus/God I’ve subsumed into myself after being an ex-Christian, and the two commandments I practise as part of my daily life activities. I am.

La Vey Satanism

So let’s examine the temptations of Satan or La Vey Satanism:

The religion’s doctrines are codified in LaVey’s book, The Satanic Bible. The religion is materialist, rejecting the existence of supernatural beings, body-soul dualism, and life after death. Practitioners do not believe that Satan literally exists and do not worship him. Instead, Satan is viewed as a positive archetype representing pride, carnality, and enlightenment. He is also embraced as a symbol of defiance against Abrahamic religions which LaVeyans criticize for suppressing humanity’s natural instincts and encouraging irrationality. The religion propagates a naturalistic worldview, seeing mankind as animals existing in an amoral universe. It promotes a philosophy based on individualism and egoism, coupled with Social Darwinism and anti-egalitarianism.

Wikipedia, LaVeyan Satanism

La Vey conceived of Satanism in response to his observations of corrupt Christians, indulging in prostitution, then dragging themselves to a church service for the forgiveness of sin, for which they had intended to commit earlier, as a rebellion against Christian hypocrisy. I’m sure you’d agree that being a Christian hypocrite is a really bad idea, and it’s understandable how La Vey came to invent Satanism, by observing Christian hypocrites and hypocrisy. For example the very first Satanic statement:

Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence.

Wikipedia, LaVeyan Satanism, The Nine Satanic Statements

That shows that Christian hypocrites preach abstinence, then deliberately indulge, then deliberately choose to ask for forgiveness of their intentional sin, and the Satanist response is, instead of abstinence or denial, the Satanist indulges in the activity. When desiring sex, to have sex. When hungry, to eat. When thirsty, drink. Etc.

What this is, is the love of one’s own self being expressed as part of loving God and loving one another. If you’re hungry, thirsty, lusting, etc as a Christian, instead of denying yourself, have or do those acts that satisfy your body’s hunger, thirst, lust, etc. Now just like you don’t steal food and drink to eat, but you buy or make meals to eat, then the same with sex. If you want to have sex with someone, ask them about it and see if you can work together with it. If the object of your lust and perhaps love is unreachable and you’re really sure, instead of just giving up in cowardice, see if your lust can be relieved by direct means. And note that men as well as women, do need to relieve their body’s lusts. It’s not a sin to do this, unless it becomes all-consuming for you, thus possessing yourself with lust. And recall that in the past with Jesus, men and women tended to marry early in life, rather than in their twenties, thirties and forties, as of today, so the lust problem wasn’t a problem then.

The rest of the Satanic statements are, again, cautions about over-indulging in love for others, with the exception of violence against others. This is assault, and it’s wrong. Note that Satanism supposedly incorporates Social Darwinism, but I don’t think it does at all. I think that’s a mistake on the part of Wikipedia.

Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek.

Wikipedia, LaVeyan Satanism, The Nine Satanic Statements

Note that if you think this means the assault on someone, then that’s bad.

What La Vey Satanism doesn’t do, is build strong families. This is shown by the history of La Vey. His history also indicates he was a liar about his history, and history in general, along with supporting eugenics, which is evil. Satanism is linked to Fascism, another ideology opposed to human flourishing.

In short, there’s value in Satanism for exposing Christian hypocrisy, which we should be alert to. Which should serve as motivation for Christians to love themselves, God/Jesus and others better, instead of being hypocrites. Are you a hypocrite? Be better, take action and love yourself better.

Why I promote Christianity,…

You might note that I occasionally promote Christianity. That’s there to accommodate “Supers”, the opposite of “Brights”, and for ex-Muslims in Islamic-majority countries and nations. If you’re a Muslim and now realise that Islam is lies, that Koran is nonsense, that Muhammad lied, and Allah is imaginary, then, if you need to believe in a god (you’re a “Super”), then Christianity is right for you. Christianity will give you the God you recognise in your head or heart, the God you see, sense, feel or have. It will also help fill your mind with good traits, to love and be loving, so that you’re not immediately infected with various demons of emotions or ideologies and so on.

Dominion by Tom Holland.

Why don’t I criticise or attack ALL religions?

Atheism is Dangerous, Mentally Unsafe?

But, Atheist, atheism contributed to depression, hopelessness and meaninglessness! No, atheism and agnosticism do not contribute to these horrible states of mind. This is because atheism is simply the absence of theism and agnosticism is simply the absence of gnosis (knowledge about gods). See above. As such, they can’t contribute to anything. All it is, is an absence of theism, no matter what type of theism. Consider for example the Muslim martyr-bomber, who is an atheist with respect to Christianity, blowing himself up due to: …atheism of Christianity? Obviously, this is crazy talk, as we know where martyrdom urges come from, not from “atheism” with respect to Christianity, but from the doctrines of Islam, Jihad, Martyr-bombing etc, from Muhammad, where Muhammad wanted his Muslim men to die for him. When you’re a theist, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, etc, along with theism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, comes a moral system embedded in the religion, in the theism. For example, with Islam, there’s martyrdom, killing others in jihad and eventually dying in that jihad. In Christianity, there’s martyrdom, but not while killing others. Instead, it’s Christ-like, dying bravely in service of one’s faith, Christianity, refusing to give up faith in Jesus. And of course, in Judaism, there’s the martyrdom of the Jews is well known, where rather than capitulate, all the Jews in the Siege of Masada, elected to commit suicide rather than surrender to the Romans. Obviously, all these forms of martyrdom are not in atheism, the absence of theism. Thus too, depression, hopelessness and meaningless are not in atheism, the simple absence of theism.

So as an agnostic atheist, I need a moral system, as atheism and agnosticism do not have any. For me, I have secular Zionism, Humanism, Transhumanism, English Liberalism, Bright, and UPB (see earlier this page). All these various moral systems are fundamentally based on Christianity’s second commandment from Jesus, which is love one another, which isn’t in Islam but is kinda implied in Judaism, as Jesus mentions in the bible about the law of the prophets. Free free to look up the two commandments of Jesus in the Bible or at the 10 commandments and the 2 commandments for a more convenient explanation. These various tiered moral systems along with future ones I need to develop with respect to uplifted animals, artificial intelligence, aliens, embodied AI, multi-bodied “people” and info-morphs, help keep me away from depression, hopelessness and meaninglessness, along with several heroic narratives. I’ll cover heroic narratives later on if someone asks.

I urge Christians to not fall into the traps of weak, selfish Christianity – which is to rely upon Jesus and God, while not doing anything in the service of Jesus or God. Being helpless like a baby, while not being an adult, which I see too many Christians falling into, learned helplessness. The other trap of Christianity is to think that the End Times are here or next week, and because of that, to do nothing, as you’re a “good Christian” holding their one bag of gold safe for the return of Jesus, a hard task-master, instead of investing it. Look that parable up, wise Christians, and take action.

Christians, make your religion, your theism a morally good choice for you, your family and nation.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

What is Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs?

Flow and Flow State

Be cautious here. The mystic nonsense can be overwhelming. It really is simpler than the nonsense.

Layers of Ethics

Layers of Ethics: 3 Approaches to Ethics: Principles, Outcomes and Integrity