14 Spiritual Conflict Is The Mother of Good Politics

[Exegesisme]

14 Spiritual Conflict Is The Mother of Good Politics, Political Philosophy for Human Future

By Exegesisme

1 human civilization can only developed from good politics, evil politics should be deconstructed and then reconstituting in history and thought, only after that can make contribution to human civilization.

2 spiritual conflict is the core of bible, and makes good politics. Traditionally, good politics is not without violence, but with limited violence of good reason, and achieves good stage with limited violence.

3 spiritual conflict is through reflection and speech in form of well organized spiritual debate, refines and creates new spiritual value from old ones. New spiritual value opens the door of future, and new human civilization grows around new spiritual value.

4 spiritual conflict is the form of good righteous non-idol worship, is the way to receive the grace of god. Religious violence is sure to be a form of idol worship. Any violence of religious reason is equal to worshiping idol, and no grace of god to idol worship. The winner and audience of good spiritual conflict should provide compassion and console to the loser of good spiritual conflict.

5 if you believe you are good and righteous, but be treated unjustly, fight your spiritual war. Done every preparation to avoid any violence, you will win your spiritual war. Even if possible to lose, but you will gain compassion and console in this situation, and you might also be possible to see a new you growing from the lose of your old one.

​

Edited November 19, 2015 by Exegesisme

[Scott Mayers]

You seem fixated on numbers on everything you post. Is there a reason for your compulsion?

Oh, wait... I just noticed your signature regarding "private tutoring of math". But how do you propose religious ideology has anything to do with math? I certainly would not have my kid being sent to you for math in your apparent neglect to differentiate these ideas. Perhaps you should define yourself as a Religious tutor that uses 'math' in your particular philosophy. But don't paint yourself as a mathematics tutor or you are purposely intending deception.

Math is NOT emotive. You can't use your human emotions to define a study that relates numbers regardless of human feelings (like 'good' or 'evil') to your religious/spiritual ideology. Do you believe in 'good' or 'evil' numbers too? This WAS a common belief among many ancients only due to confusion of understanding reality prior to further investigation. In ancient times, words had appeared to be magical because they seemed to differentiate how we are as opposed to other animals. So many thought that "In the beginning was the Word". But it was likely originally a means by our ancient ancestors that since authority was commanded by words, whatever had 'caused' reality would be as to a command in what we now call "laws". There 'gods' were neutral and only meant "the unknown factor or source". The idea of the latter emotive assignment of "good" to this entity, was a human idea. The very root of the term, "God" was their literal transference to assign this source as "good". That is, the term, "God" actually meant "good", not the other way around. This is why the Old Testament's Genesis kept repeating that for all this "source" [YWYH -> Je-Ovah -> literally, "the ovum or egg" for a word meaning any "source"] merely assigned a default value that appealed to what we value life as being a 'good' thing rather than nothing at all.

Numbers were also used then in sync with their phonetic alphabets. Thus "A" might be used to also mean '1', "B" might be used to represent '2', etc. Only later had many who were awed at the symbols upon things like stone (ancient even by their standards), made some interpret that the very permanence of such ruins must have been of the original creators of their present reality at the time. Some also confused that since the symbols relating to their phonetic alphabet were also used as counts (numbers), they presumed that their "sources" must have had a magical meaning to associate a phonetic symbol to a number. Why would a symbol like "A" also be associated with meaning a '1' when those symbols appeared arbitrary UNLESS they had some 'meaning'? Thus Numerology evolved as a religious belief that there was some correlation between numbers and human history or their use in words.

You appear to be a numerologist in the same light. So my question to you is how do you relate anything you speak of here about human matters to numbers? I'm not asking you whether numbers matter. I am asking you how you seem to think that numbers have some magical relationship to things like politics or other human social affairs other than as mere non-emotional/non-spiritual concepts. You are appearing to impose significance of our accidental history of this world's assignments of symbols of numbers to the actual meanings of them regardless of our history.

[Exegesisme]

Here you showed your skeptic passion of your own imagination, nothing is related directly to my account.

Although your question is out the topic of this thread, I still try to give you an answer.

I use numbers for the clearance and efficiency of ​my expression, as simple as this. No compulsion, no numerology.

However, from eye of human civilization and modern science, words including numbers are really powerful. The power of words and numbers are true and real, rather than magical. Can you imagine a human civilization without words and numbers?

In the book John, verse 1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God".

Just on this meaning, I promote spiritual conflicts. I believe this is the goodest way for human being to confront terrorism with religious reason and all other human issues. I wish you can get my meaning.

Here I refine the key concepts for you. 1 role of good politics, 2 example of good politics, 3 new spiritual value, source and role, 4 confronting idol worship, 5 value of personal spiritual war. And 5 in 1, power of words.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Exegesisme

[Scott Mayers]

By the titles you favor though, I get the impression which reminds me of the multitude of pop-psychology, new age, or motivational garb promoting things in steps. The (X-number) steps to improve your life, the (X) keys to success, How you can lose 100 pounds in 30 days, etc...

This 'sells' or appeals to those who MAY lack a skill in actual critical thinking or who wants an easy solution to some problem. But I find this hints at those who like lists and wants to follow or be followed.

Before even attempting any of this, let me ask you what you even think is "good" or "evil"? Are these marked in the universe as absolutes somewhere? ...by something (like a god)? ...by nature? You can't simply assume we all agree to these terms and why you need to define what you mean up front.

Note that the John verse is a Christianized reinterpretation of origins from Judaism. And Judaism also received their sources from Egypt and other stories. Writing on paper or inscribing in stone were like wonders of the ancient times as it was to many in even many tribal cultures up to the last few centuries. It was like interpreting advanced scientific math for many today. How, did they ask, does this capacity to place marks on paper or stone seem to effectively transfer ideas with such clarity by those scribes or readers who could replicate another person's ideas? And to even those of the 1500 B.C. Egyptians, the Pyramids and writings of the past were from an equally distant ancient time as they are to us now! That is, the pyramids and surviving stone scripts or writings were ancient to those like King Tut or Akenaten. These were the days that inspired the old testament and are also the era to which paper (or papyrus) writing began in. Thus, the very records of the ancients came down to them in symbols or orally passed down stories. While words are certainly powerful, they misinterpreted much of what was likely intended as a means to communicate secular (non-religious) ideas down through the use of stories that 'cartooned' the original meanings in entertaining ways to help them remember.

Thus, I don't consider numbers and words as trivial in the least. What I DO think is the problem is to interpret the evolution of words (including those regarding number) as somehow transcending some clear truth of history based on our contemporary interpretation of them today. The ancients were just as likely as 'secular' minded then as many are today when these sources were first recorded. But what has survived would have been too simplified because the average person back then did not read nor write. So, much of the words or symbols were over-simplified and also severely generalized to appeal to the masses with an intentional means to both be interpreted broadly and to entertain.

To your (1) above,

1 human civilization can only developed from good politics, evil politics should be deconstructed and then reconstituting in history and thought, only after that can make contribution to human civilization.

Human civilization is neither 'good' nor 'evil' other than your perception that these qualities exist in nature itself. But if you've studied history, you'd also see that we go through stages as well as cycles where what is considered relatively 'good' in one era becomes 'evil' in another. We also lose the history of the defeated as many new generations believed in destroying the old records in disgust of their own then present interpretation of history. Thus, for example, the Old Testament treats things like Palestine as the "promised land". Yet, if you look and read contextually and consider the times, the actual "promised land" to those of the writers of what came down to us as "Genesis" likely favored Egypt (the land of 'ham' -> Abraham means "father to 'Ham" when he arrived as opposed to Abram as "father before it" [likely from the north or (A)syrria]).

The point of this example is to show that what we assume was one history cannot be so certain. I also noticed that the focus of Genesis, for example, was to demonstrate the error of these people who took presence in Egypt with apparent 'good' intent only to have caused 'bad' things upon the people there. "Good" and "evil" are thus flipped on its end. The original Assyrians (Hebrew/Jews) who generally 'conquered' Egypt that was heightened as the reign of Akenaten, was intended to be 'good' but imposed a closed and fixed interpretation of truth to which caused the uproar against that leadership and the eventual expulsion from there. Palestine was only the last refuge and remnants of that age as a reconsidered prize of a "promised land" because of their recognized error (or defeat) in trying to conquer the Egyptians.

This relates to your belief in advancing civilization through some apparent 'good' means often defeats itself in practice. We are still not any more 'good' as a society than the Assyrians who thought that their 'god' (God of Abram/Abraham) was the arbiter of "goodness". And so the cycle continues. [ironically under the latest banner of the (As)Syrians today through ISIS]

2 spiritual conflict is the core of bible, and makes good politics. Traditionally, good politics is not without violence, but with limited violence of good reason, and achieves good stage with limited violence.

Again, this is merely your interpretation and I personally believe that it has missed the mark of the original lessons of even the bible in its likely original intent. Many in that day were somewhat Multicultural in that as travelers in the Middle East, they had to respect other's 'gods' or ancestral leaders, etc. When Joseph (or others?) heard a 'voice' from the heavens (or likely authority through people) commanding him, he asked, "who (or which) god are you" to which he received the response, "I am who I am" in a sarcastic way to say it is not important. The term "YWYH" was a mere way of saying this or to emphasize that it lacked any 'supreme' significance over any other. This term was likely more localized as "I, source" or "I am the egg" [Ye Ovah/ovum or Je ovah in reference to life we think of coming from that oval-shaped thing like the sun as to an egg of many animals.] The story was likely symbolic and merely tried to communicate to its listeners that this source was not owned by any culture. Yet the mistake was that this was improperly interpreted to mean by these biblical characters that they were destined to dictate that only one source was 'true'.

Historically, though lost in time, this was probably Akenaten (= a kin or the same as to the shape of the source or aten, meaning the sun). When the Assyrians took on Egypt, Genesis explained that the family fortuned through Isaac had loaned to Egypt in bad times what was previously gifted to Isaac in a previous time from the Egyptians who welcomed them. This backfired as the loans were backed by promises to relieve the average Egyptians in desperation of their ownership. They rebelled and expelled this government represented by its "Moses" (= leader = Akenaten) and why in Tut's reign this whole society threw them out. But it was relatively calm and respectful initially. Akenaten's people had relocated their capital (literally) to the desert for what was one generation (40 years).

Agree or disagree, the 'spiritual' conflict was about the conflict of interpreting what is 'good' or 'evil' in some fixed and certain way. THIS was the error to which was likely intended to be passed down when written to what eventually became the remnants of those earlier 'wanderers' that coexisted among the settled in the whole of the middle east.

3 spiritual conflict is through reflection and speech in form of well organized spiritual debate, refines and creates new spiritual value from old ones. New spiritual value opens the door of future, and new human civilization grows around new spiritual value.

This is fine on its surface. At least what I'm saying here may contribute in kind.

4 spiritual conflict is the form of good righteous non-idol worship, is the way to receive the grace of god. Religious violence is sure to be a form of idol worship. Any violence of religious reason is equal to worshiping idol, and no grace of god to idol worship. The winner and audience of good spiritual conflict should provide compassion and console to the loser of good spiritual conflict.

Here is where you make another error that was likely understood with more secular roots to ancient peoples. When Moses' character, represented by the expulsion of the Assyrian/northern migrants from Egypt through Akenaten (or caricature of his likeness), had been forced from Egypt altogether, they likely took with them remnants of the almost destroyed remains of Akenaten's reign (an obelisk? or set of stone dictates or commandments of his), they carried this in an amphibious boat/sled or "Ark" to which represented the moses' commandments. To maintain the loyalty of these people and their return to 'wandering' (= non-land ownership), they resisted the symbolism which represented the very 'ownership' markers of such land -- the idols.

Idols back then were merely mapped markers of tribal associations that had a matching idol buried in plots of fixed properties. This was a means to assure which tribe or individual 'owned' which plot of land. It acted as a proof or signature to the claim. Civilization (settling) was still relatively new to which both coexisted with the transient lifestyle but also caused problems because of it. A tribe would often lead the original transient life of hunting and gathering during most of the year but only return to the lands they held seasonally as society was being formed. As such, there was a 'conservative' feel to the tribal wanderers that became more and more distinct from those people who settled into towns and villages with more permanence.

Much of the 'wanderers' were rejects of the very people who settled. Like the clash of civilized Europeans to the North American tribal lifestyles, these were irreconcilable unless one or the other lifestyle was preferred over the other. The 'wanderers' became the "Jew" (which likely derived from the same idea. Like a wadi, where the rains are plentiful, these dry creeks fill up with water an draw in crowds until they dry up again just as one who wander's like the old tribal lifestyles.)

The abandonment of the idols were more likely a demarcation of the ancient wanderer against the strict formality of claiming and settling land, not simply about any 'gods' they represent. They represented 'gods' only in the interpretation of these as symbolic reminders of their rooted tribes. And so by abandoning them was a form of agreement to despise what they represented as legitimate claims to land ownership. It has only come down to us as improperly suggesting an abandonment of 'gods' as we understand them. Also, in a symbolic way too, it delegitimizes the formalized function of settled civilization that these idols represented. They were of the very "fixed" idea of what is 'true' or legitimate in kind to what one might think of is one 'true' God. While it is now perverted to make the ancient wanderers (Jews) appear as devout to some particular god, it is just as likely that they fostered the very abandonment to which their last generation had thought to equally imposed upon the Egyptian masses prior by trying to make them conform to one specific 'god'.

It's funny how the lessons get flipped through time. But this only proves once again how we as society never seem to settle on what is supposedly 'good' or 'true'.

5 if you believe you are good and righteous, but be treated unjustly, fight your spiritual war. Done every preparation to avoid any violence, you will win your spiritual war. Even if possible to lose, but you will gain compassion and console in this situation, and you might also be possible to see a new you growing from the lose of your old one.

The 'violence' is often just as hard not to realize comes in the form of the apparent passivity of those who think they are 'good'. This again was the lesson of Genesis. They 'thought' they were being helpful in trying to 'save' the Egyptians in the turmoil of economic disaster by loaning them what they needed. But it turned out to require those they were 'helping' to relieve themselves of the property to which they felt they had a historical link to. Thus, the Egyptians felt they were not being 'helped' but rather exploited, similar to what again occurred in Germany in more recent times. The 'aboriginal' settled populations in times of desperation are forced to make severe sacrifices to those they believed were foreign new-comers. While you might think this is simply the fault of nature or to the aboriginal population, the same can be said of the wanders of Egypt who then later reclaimed Palestine in their own belief of aboriginality (ironically, the present state of Israel does this in distinctly the same way). We all continue this cycle of claiming stake to something whether it be 'truth' or 'real estate' until the nature or our environment of politics steals these from the last generations of people through concentrated authoritative hands. Then as the masses of impoverished grow, they too rebel and get interpreted as terrorists who then desperately fight in extreme ways. These non-owning peoples are no different than the ancient wanderers who get denied their means of survival. They either have to fight, lay down and die, or to go elsewhere to find new settlement...often in places that they again treat them as foreigners attempting to conquer them.

Does this at least inspire you in any way? Don't take my interpretation as literal though. I might repeat, "I am only who I am" too. I mean that I could be mistaken and not authoritative on this. I am no god. But I'm sure if this writing survives in another thousand years, someone who might come across this will likely misinterpret this as coming from one too.

[Exegesisme]

As a tone of following discussion, I like to tell you some of your information is very important. Thank you for your attention and serious attitude.

Before even attempting any of this, let me ask you what you even think is "good" or "evil"? Are these marked in the universe as absolutes somewhere? ...by something (like a god)? ...by nature?

Good and evil are two opposite values, their meanings according to bible the book genesis, god knows first, human learns to know.

You can't simply assume we all agree to these terms and why you need to define what you mean up front.​

I agree.
​

Note that the John verse is a Christianized reinterpretation of origins from Judaism. And Judaism also received their sources from Egypt and other stories.​

You may be true at about 10% degree.
​

How, did they ask, does this capacity to place marks on paper or stone seem to effectively transfer ideas with such clarity by those scribes or readers who could replicate another person's ideas?​​

There is a line of super nature, the science community knows, but can not prove.

While words are certainly powerful, they misinterpreted much of what was likely intended as a means to communicate secular (non-religious) ideas down through the use of stories that 'cartooned' the original meanings in entertaining ways to help them remember.​​

Entertaining ways are also important in the area of emotions at sometimes.

What I DO think is the problem is to interpret the evolution of words (including those regarding number) as somehow transcending some clear truth of history based on our contemporary interpretation of them today.​
​

Here is on the key issue. Did you mean some clear facts of history by your expression "some clear truth of history"? I believe the evolution of the words along the way of the Word.

So, much of the words or symbols were over-simplified and also severely generalized to appeal to the masses with an intentional means to both be interpreted broadly and to entertain.
​

As theoretical mathematics?

Human civilization is neither 'good' nor 'evil' other than your perception that these qualities exist in nature itself.​
"Good" and "evil" are thus flipped on its end.
This relates to your belief in advancing civilization through some apparent 'good' means often defeats itself in practice. We are still not any more 'good' as a society than the Assyrians who thought that their 'god' (God of Abram/Abraham) was the arbiter of "goodness". And so the cycle continues.
​

As good and evil exist in nature, then they do not exist in human civilization?
As good and evil are flipped on their ends, we are very hard to fix them, then we should give up our efforts?

Again, this is merely your interpretation and I personally believe that it has missed the mark of the original lessons of even the bible in its likely original intent.
Agree or disagree, the 'spiritual' conflict was about the conflict of interpreting what is 'good' or 'evil' in some fixed and certain way.
THIS was the error to which was likely intended to be passed down when written to what eventually became the remnants of those earlier 'wanderers' that coexisted among the settled in the whole of the middle east.
​

I try to taste the whole tone of the bible, not only the earlier wanderers. Don't forget book revelation 21:6, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End."

This is fine on its surface. At least what I'm saying here may contribute in kind.​

To maintain the loyalty of these people and their return to 'wandering' (= non-land ownership), they resisted the symbolism which represented the very 'ownership' markers of such land -- the idols.
The abandonment of the idols were more likely a demarcation of the ancient wanderer against the strict formality of claiming and settling land, not simply about any 'gods' they represent.
It's funny how the lessons get flipped through time. But this only proves once again how we as society never seem to settle on what is supposedly 'good' or 'true'.
​

Would you try to touch the deep beginning with the up quote?
The information in down quote is very important, which means faith should be useful, and the Jews is the people who first understood worshiping idol is worse more than useful.

We all continue this cycle of claiming stake to something whether it be 'truth' or 'real estate' until the nature or our environment of politics steals these from the last generations of people through concentrated authoritative hands. Then as the masses of impoverished grow, they too rebel and get interpreted as terrorists who then desperately fight in extreme ways. ​

Here is very complex, where lay the reason I try to feel good politics from evil politics, at the same time deconstruct the reason of terrorism.

I might repeat, "I am only who I am" too. I mean that I could be mistaken and not authoritative on this. I am no god. But I'm sure if this writing survives in another thousand years, someone who might come across this will likely misinterpret this as coming from one too.
​

You can not say "I am only who I am", for you are limited and in change, you should account yourself in certain way certain situation. Your explanation for you is acceptable, for the expression is unacceptable. Do you mean you do not worship god by your expression "I am no god"? Your following claim is too arrogant on your account above.

One more question, your expression: I might repeat, "I am only who I am" too. Where did you say it other than here?

Edited November 20, 2015 by Exegesisme