[davidgow77]

Pursuant to the thread on time travel and the messiah, where the messiah is defined by the universal acceptance of UNDERSTANDING as being the saviour of all, I thought it only fair to start a thread about the Anti-christ.



The Anti-christ must be seen as those things most prominent in society which give rise to misunderstanding. In this respect the antichrist can never be said to be one specific thing, although clues always seem to point to measurement (the assertion that THIS is intrinsically evil, and that THAT is intrinsically good) as being the source of all misunderstanding. Essentially, one should never eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which means that all things are intrinsically are sacred, and that the belief in absolute evil or absolute good is itself the root of all misunderstanding. The one thing in our society that gives rise to misunderstanding is money.



In the story of Jesus, the 12 disciples should be seen as the 12 tribes of Israel united in a common cause, and where the Judas Iscariot character is actually money itself. Conjecture on this point could lead to many interpretations, but the important point to the story of Jesus is that it was money that betrayed him by corrupting the disciples, or maybe by corrupting the followers of Jesus’s teachings…. It had certainly corrupted the Pharisees and the Romans, and in the end the overall message is that the desire for wealth or recompense is what corrupts us all. This is why arranging contract fees before services or goods are exchanged are fundamental to Jewish society (and also why non-Jews unfortunately hold anti-semitic beliefs that Jews are greedy), in the sense that Jews never become slaves to the money. Islam also has very clear guidelines based in Islamic morality and Law (Shariah) about the ethics of making money out of people. In the west, the problem is that business tries to circumvent the law at all possible stages, and is not governed by codes of conduct based in morality, but rather does the bare minimum to conform to the law. This is why capitalism (a term which essentially means “to capitalise on previous gains”) is in such a state. Everything is about profit, and people feel enslaved to the notions of capitalistic excess. The misunderstanding that money is what will allow us our happiness is precisely the misunderstanding that ensures we will never be happy no matter how much money we have. Money when we don’t have it is a measurement of our own suffering…. When we do have it, it becomes a measurement of the suffering of others in the sense that our money could alleviate their suffering, but because society demands that our measurement of success is measured largely by our economic success, we are led to believe that we should not share the wealth. In doing this…. The less fortunate in the world misunderstand things even more, and the breakdown of society’s values is ensured. Money itself is not intrinsically evil, but it leads us to think and act in such a variety of detrimental ways that we cannot see past it (and I’m talking on a government level here Mr G W Bush… who won’t do anything to harm the US economy… not even on green issues).


The anti-christ is misunderstanding. Sin literally means “to miss the mark” or “to misunderstand.” Nothing more.

What do people think most gives rise to misunderstanding in this world???

My Top 5 is:

• Money
• Religious Politics
• War
• Lack of respect for women’s rights
• Ignorance of modern society

DG

[dustin_archibald]

Although I agree that money does cause great harm in the world I disagree that it is the root of all suffering/misunderstanding. Money, is just a manifestation of the fundamental nature of all living things.

All living things obey one fundamental command: SURVIVE! Take the human race for example:

Money:
Money enables us to survive. It lets us buy food, clothing, and shelter; all the things we need to survive. The more money we accumulate the more prepared we are to survive (ie: we can buy more things to aid in our survival).

Land:
Historically, the only reason to own land was to ensure that one could keep using the land for growing food or hunting on, without the threat of someone else coming along and stealing those means of survival from you. Now those reasons have expanded to resources like oil and mining. The fundamental reason is the same though, the more land you have, the better resources you have to survive.

When this SURVIVE! command is gone there is no conflict.

The challenge is then how to balance our own survival dynamic that those of other people and living things.

If you were to look at it from a human point of view Jesus overcame his SURVIVE! command (or maybe he didn't have/need one to begin with) and allowed himself to be sacrificed for the rest of humanity.

Now, to clarify, if Christ is UNDERSTANDING then the anti-Christ is MISUNDERSTANDING. If we follow from my example above that would mean that the anti-Christ is an entity that 100% obeys it's SURVIVE command. It would kill and steal without remorse.

[davidgow77]

Survival is not the driving force behind humanity.... no human in the history of time has ever survived. The real issue for humanity is that people should do whatever they understand to be the right thing to do from their own perspective and from the perspective of the society in which they live. Yes, longevity of life is desirable.... but anyone who sees their life as merely survival is deluded on the grounds that they will, beyond all doubt, die at some point, and that it is preferable to die for what you believe in rather than to die because you simply failed to survive. The survival principle, in this sense, is what gives rise to negative behaviour within society becasue people will act at a detriment to others to ensure their own economic survival, or the survival of their own quality of life. Living in a western society, I have to say that there are not many threats to my immediate survivial, and that as long as I strive to understand further the society in which I live, then this survival is not likely to be threatened by any new unseen quantity.

Hitler was a proponent of survival of the fittest, as was Stalin, Napoleon, Mussolini, Chilean Junta, and pretty much any other regime that used the survival tag to justify and authorise the killing of the weak facets of society. And just say that my survival was threatened.... I still wouldn't see myself as a survivor.... I'd see myself as a fighter... and I would fight to the death, basically because fighting for what you believe in transcends any notion of survival.

On this point, I will finish by saying that the survival instinct was someting that came out of Darwin's evolutionary theory, but in the light of humanity, it must be applied to the survival of ideas and theories. This is how Newton has survived, how Einstein has survived, how Darwin has survived. All are dead, but all survive.

[SinJin]

I hate when people say money can't buy happieness, because it really can. In just about any instance or example, having money can help you out more than not having money. Say you have a terminal disease - money can pay for treatment, research, travel... or perhaps just make you more comfortable as you die. Say you've lost your one true love - if you're rich you can travel the world over, not having to worry about going to work, and find another true love (out of 6 billion people there's sure to be another.) The only thing money can't buy- a dinosaur! At least not yet...

[davidgow77]

The point I am trying to make about money, and I do agree that SinJin's views are accurate in terms of the current state of society, is that you must consider also the suffering involved where people have terminal illness, where cures/treatments are available but where money is a barrier to treatment. If you have, like we do in western society, a gross disparity of wealth distribution, then money propagates and procrastinates suffering simply by being unavailable to the people who often need it most. I am not an anti-capitalist by any stretch of the imagination, but I do believe that true capitalism is a system of working where society as a whole capitalises on the gains made by society as a collective. In the modern capitalist state, the gains are often the sole preserve of those who already have the most money, who control access to funding, who control access to the networks that allow business to take place, and who are not concerned with much else other that measurable economic success. This type of capitalism is counter-productive to the general wellbeing of society, and essentially means that we are all at the behest of an economy which rewards those who are willing to take advantage of others for economic gain. In this respect, money is a highly corruptive element in modern society, and those who don't have it, who may work exremely hard at their jobs but are not recompensed because the market dictates that their skills are not to be rewarded, are perceived as less important and less valuable members of society. This is wrong.... their is no point in having advances in medicene, treatment therapies, social advances and standards of living unless society can find better ways of making these advances available to wider communities quicker than it currently happens. AIDS in Africa could have been tackled 10 years ago if the treatments had been made more widely available by drug companies, and could be brought under control in the large western drug companies allowed their medicines to be manufactured generically by the countries that need them. The reality at the moment is that, because the large drug companies are trying to see at a premium rate to bolster their R&D budgets, thousands die everyday from preventable/treatable conditions. The ONLY reason for this is money. Corporations, in this respect have become unacceptabley self-serving... they use basic scientific advances from university laboratories in order to develop drugs with massive potential markets, and then the over-price the durgs which creates a niche-market open to only those who can afford it. This gives them a product with a long shelf life, and allows them to plan for market expansions by maintaining an over inflated price. Effectively, this is known as controliing demand and sychronising supply, when they actually have the capacity to supply the entire market.

If you take money out of the equation, companies like GlaxoSmithkline and Lilly by making more of their drugs available to a mass market could easily stop alot of inhumane suffering in Africa, Asia, and even in America and Europe. However, because these companies are not concerned with corporate social responsibility issues to the extent that they could really make a differance, they are just money-making entities, no better that tobacco companies or beer brewers. If you're just in it for the money, it doesn't matter what you do....you're a whore for the coin.


DG

[dustin_archibald]

Originally Posted by davidgow77 Survival is not the driving force behind humanity

Survival is the driving force behind humanity. It may be that nothing lives forever but that doesn't mean living things don't try to live as long as they can. Survival is why humans developed communal living, hunting and gathering societies, and money. Money is just another manifestation of this survival command. What came before money? Accumulation of land and livestock. What came before accumulation of land and livestock? Pretty looking baubles used to trade for food. And so on down the line. In time money, as we think of it now, will also fade away.

Originally Posted by davidgow77 I am not an anti-capitalist by any stretch of the imagination, but I do believe that true capitalism is a system of working where society as a whole capitalises on the gains made by society as a collective.

I think what you are refering to is called socialism, perhaps even communism. That being said, capitalism is always evolving. Maybe in time people will be able to achieve socialist values without sacrificing democratic right.

Originally Posted by davidgow72 If you take money out of the equation, companies like GlaxoSmithkline and Lilly by making more of their drugs available to a mass market could easily stop alot of inhumane suffering in Africa, Asia, and even in America and Europe. However, because these companies are not concerned with corporate social responsibility issues to the extent that they could really make a differance, they are just money-making entities, no better that tobacco companies or beer brewers.

Taking money out of the equation is not a simple thing to do. If these companies just give their product away there are serious consequences for them. Their investors may pull their financial support, they won't be able to pay for the expenses they incurred creating the product, they open the door for even more people expecting free product, etc. If they continued to give their product away their employees could suffer wage cutbacks or even loss of jobs, they could operate at a profit loss, their company could effectively go under. These are real concerns of 'big business'.

Do these concerns justify their lack of social conscience? I would have to say no. Each person has a choice and each of these companies are run by people. As such each individual either working for the company or guiding it must take it upon themselves to effect this type of change.

Originally Posted by davidgow77 If you're just in it for the money, it doesn't matter what you do....you're a whore for the coin.

I agree

[davidgow77]

Thats just the problem here though... people's survival is not under threat, but the survival of the companies they work for is constantly being tested. It results in the company being the raison d'etre for people's actions, whereas I think companies should exist to facilitate what people want to achieve, not what the company, over certain time periods, asserts is necessary for its own survival.


And I still have to disagree with you on the survival arguement. I would happily die defending my principles if they came under threat, and I know alot of other people would. If someone took away my right to freedom of speech, or my right to a fair trial, or my human rights, I would attack the people responsible, and I wouldn't really care if I died in the process. Survival, I just feel, is a concept that attempts to show that we are no different from animals, and I cannot share that view. I'm not saying my life in the great scheme of things is more valuable than a gorillas, but I certainly am saying that we are more intelligent by a considerable stretch, and that this intelligence imbibes in us all reasons for living that transcend and negate mere notions of primitive survival.

DG

[AntonioLao]

the Antichrist is the person or entity who will prevent us, by all means possible, from finding the TOE. Here, the TOE is the same as the final absolute truth and absolute purpose of our existence.

[dustin_archibald]

Originally Posted by davidgow77 It results in the company being the raison d'etre for people's actions, whereas I think companies should exist to facilitate what people want to achieve, not what the company, over certain time periods, asserts is necessary for its own survival.

While I agree that should be the case, it clearly isn't. The issue lies with the people in control. They view the viability of their company as an extension of their own viability. If the company fails their chances of surviving decrease.

Originally Posted by davidgow77 If someone took away my right to freedom of speech, or my right to a fair trial, or my human rights, I would attack the people responsible, and I wouldn't really care if I died in the process.

Why were these concepts created? It wasn't through altruistic elightenment but through the realization that these ideals make survival easier.

From a survival point of view, not you personally, willing to die for ones ideals is an aberrated survival skill. It's basically saying, "That which helps me survive is being threatend. If that means of survival is taken away I will be unable to survive. Thus, I will do whatever it takes to ensure that means is not taken away."

However, I believe this highlights one major difference between humans and other living things: choice. Non-human organisms are puppets to the survival command; it says jump; they jump. Humans on the other hand can choose to override the command.

For example, take the idea of self-defense. A noble ideal is the belief that you shouldn't hurt another person but what happens when we are attacked? We defend ourselves, often at the cost of the other person's well being. A person who is able to override the survival command and holds the aforementioned ideal would not even defend themselves since doing so would risk injuring the other person.

[SinJin]

Originally Posted by dustin_archibald However, I believe this highlights one major difference between humans and other living things: choice. Non-human organisms are puppets to the survival command; it says jump; they jump. Humans on the other hand can choose to override the command. For example, take the idea of self-defense. A noble ideal is the belief that you shouldn't hurt another person but what happens when we are attacked? We defend ourselves, often at the cost of the other person's well being. A person who is able to override the survival command and holds the aforementioned ideal would not even defend themselves since doing so would risk injuring the other person.

I think the question to this is whether humans have something "extra" that other living organisms don't have. Do humans have some sort of free will over their lives that, say, a chicken or a dust mite or a tree don't have? And if so, what is this extra thing humans have? Is it a soul? Or perhaps some "freewill force" science over looked? Personally I don't think humans have anything extra, and are still relying on survival just as much as any other living creature. It just looks like we have something extra because our lives are so much more complicated that it does look like something extra.

In your example, when someone does not strike back in defense in order to save their lives and chances of survival, you say it is based on the noble idea of not hurting others. Why not hurt others? Because of that old creed "Treat others as you would like to be treated." Humans are self conscious and know that if everyone is nice to everyone else, violence will lower and the chances of survival will raise. In your example that person's survival instinct was overridden by something else, because they lived their entire lives free from violence and therefore hesitated to hit someone. Other living creatures can also have their survival instincts overridden. Not much can stop a plant from trying to reach sunlight, but think of a starving dog trying to reach a food dish. After a while the pain will become so terrible that discomfort may stop the dog from trying. In a human it's even more complex, more emotions and memories that come into play. But I think it's still the same concept.

Also, what's this "reasons for living that transcend and negate mere notions of primitive survival" (quoted by davidgow) all about? The quest for knowledge is definately a good thing. To find a TOE would be amazing. But what else is it ultimately going to get us other than survival. What other benefits are there from having the knowledge of how the universe works and came into existence? A greater concept of how things work, of better technology, better abilities... but to do what with? To clean up Earth? To move to Mars? To leave our solar system? It's still survival. Even if there are in deed other reasons for life, and humans evolve to a point where we understand and embrace these other reasons, none of them would be possible if we weren't able to survive. In fact, the universe can't last forever, since eveyone agrees infinities aren't possible in the physical world, so there will never be a point when we will stop striving to survive, unless we figure out how to leave this universe...