Social Engineering & The Book of Revelations

True.

Genghis Khan faught to bring unity.
Mohamad did too.
others did not fight.
they brought unity.

Gehghis Khan fought to bring unity under his set of rules.

Mohamad also fought to bring unity under his set of rules.

Others... some fought, some did not....

Those that were conquered were typically either slaves and/or second class citizens... the Christians also did this... even the Israelites, though their success was pretty limited.

God offers unity...under his set of rules.

It is my way or the high way.

Gehghis Khan did it because his God wanted unity among the tribes.
same for Mohamad, Joe Smith, etc
the Bab was peacefull unity

Now that is a pretty naive interpretation of their motivations.

However, even if it was true, not one of the three was truly concerned with "humanity" as a whole, but rather themselves and their followers.

Each of these guys was interested in power (1st) and their definition of god's people (2nd).

As to "his god" Gehghis Khan was essentially a shamanism, animism, totemism, ancestor worshipper... there really wasn't a god influencing his actions. Joe Smith was charlatan taking advantage of a bunch of gullible nitwits. And Mohamad...well at best he was an opportunist who saw a power vacuum in the spiritualism and broken socio-political structure of the Bedouin tribes.

Not one of those guys was guided by a god wanting unity.

They were all seeking power and wealth.

howbout the Bab?
Jesus?

I confess you've got me on "Bab"... what is it?

As to Jesus...his concern seemed to be those that followed his interpretation of the rules. In fact, some of his statement suggested that his concern was only with the Jews that followed his interpretation of the rules... not other Jews, not the gentiles and certainly not all of humanity. Certainly people can argue this point with me, but (realistically) only if they have not read the bible in entirety and not paid attention to Jesus' words....given that Paul (the non-apostle) changed much of Jesus' teachings to suite his own opinion.

If we can believe Paul, and I can't imagine why anyone would believe a word from that charlatan, he was the one who was concerned with the gentiles. Still, even he was only concerned with those that followed the path as he presented it.... not all of humanity.

I pray we all understand God wants us to get along.
the best way?
we follow some simple rules.
can you follow rules?

What God wants God gets God help us all
What God wants God gets
The kid in the corner looked at the priest
And fingered his pale blue Japanese guitar
The priest said
God wants goodness
God wants light
God wants mayhem
God wants a clean fight

https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/rogerwaters/whatgodwantsparti.html

What God wants God gets God help us all
God wants peace
God wants war
God wants famine
God wants chain stores
What God wants God gets
God wants sedition
God wants sex
God wants freedom
God wants Semtex

Yes, I can and do.

While I am not a believer in mythology, I am a believer in the idea of the rules... particularly the rule of law. I follow the rule of law. I typically follow rules even if I don't agree with them.

If I don't agree with them, I either take legal action against them or I ignore them. That is NOT to say that I violate any rules. It depends on how much a rule impacts my daily life and/or my beliefs as compared to the impact of not following the rule(s). Cost - Benefit Analysis

Example 1: I think that not allowing bottles of water past the security station at air ports is idiotic. However, it isn't so important to me that I either fight it legally or ignore the rule...because I want to get on my flight and don't want to be arrested. I obey the rule.

Example 2: During my career I was required to take urinalysis tests on a frequent basis. I disagree with the rule requiring me to have done that. However, my job was more important to me than losing my job... plus I didn't take drugs. I obeyed the rule.

Example 3: I was raised a Christian. Christianity has quite a few "rules" that I don't agree with. I did not fight them legally... hey, it is their right to believe and follow stupid s*** if they want to. I ignore their stupid rules.

Example 4: I disagree with marijuana being illegal. Even though I don't partake of it, when the subject of marijuana legalization came up for vote, I voted against the rule. I took a legal action against the rule I did not like.

I have sent letters to my congressional representatives, I have participated in legal rallies and protests, etc etc... I have taken legal actions in support of my beliefs against rules I don't like.

Etc.

A lot of modern western philosophy (by modern, I mean 19th century and later), agrees with Chaski: that religion is a mechanism to enforce a herd mentality among humans and overall, a means of propagating the human race by positing rules conducive to that end. Some take it a step further by saying that the positing of a perfect and utopian afterlife is a carrot on a string method of further keeping us in line with those rules and laws.

It raises a question I have labored over myself for years:

If you are following rules (a moral code) only out of fear of punishment (going to hell) for not following the rules (being immoral) or out of a fear of losing some reward (entrance into heaven), are you being "good?" Is morality just a dog that has learned not to chew on the couch because if it does, it will get whacked with a newspaper?

Does "good for the sake of being good" really exist?

I have thought it was rather convenient that the reward of afterlife isn't supposed to be seen until one dies.



I guess that depends on whether or not you consider intrinsic motivation any different from extrinsic motivation. I suppose you could say that even though someone like me considers 'doing the right thing' (aka. helping others in need) as simply a way to make myself feel good, I'm still being 'good for the sake of being good'. I still prefer to do it over not, and the only consideration is whether or not I think it will give me a sense of something at the end. Is that 'being good for the sake of being good'?

On the flip side, is that simply egotistical? Perhaps. For instance, in such a consideration where is the line between 'doing good for the sake of a feeling of accomplishment and helpfulness' and 'pitying those who are in a bad situation'?

I guess the question is, given the above thoughts, does it really matter in the end whether or not doing good for the sake of doing good really exists or not?

Is that really the best way or simply the most convenient and expedient?

if the only reason a person does not steal, lie, murder, etc, is to please you. are you pleased?
would you rather they understood why, and agreed?

sounds like you keep the rules as you try to change some rules.
sounds like the right way to me.