Tuesday, January 3, 2012

Sociology Notes (Progressive)

by SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori on Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 11:30pm
Why learn Sociology? I wish to study the evolution of human society and culture. I find the matter of which morals are the most utilized among different societies, past and contemporary, and the ethics to which these societies conform or personally build.

-provides understanding of ourselves and the people around us
-examines the social world, facts, and forces (these variables affect our socio-environment and society)
-affecting factors: new and evolving technology, employment patterns, education, health, economic services, political philosophies and policies

Exercise question: What did I think Sociology was about prior to studying the subject? I think Sociology concerns the evolution of human society and culture depending on affecting factors and variables such as physical environment, social environment, morals, social ethics, ect.

Response to Roger Scruton: His response seems to have more truth than negativity. Societies and their variables are perpetual as long as the Human exists; Societies change, either progressing or digressing in different ways, but the strange outcome of one society could produce questions to why that society had ended. Another society could strive and progress on strange and questionable ideas and matters that a different society would question.

-Why do you think some people – including
politicians and journalists – might feel threatened
by a subject which encourages the questioning of
‘human institutions and human realities’?
 I think the politicians and journalists want to be the only resource for information to people so they can impose their perspectives to produce a mass perspective to which people would conform. People with individual perspectives will have potential for producing change or progression.

-What common-sense assumptions do you have
about (a) yourself; (b) your country and community;
(c) your family?

(A) You should define common-sense. I believe common-sense is a combination of common perceptions and observations adapted by people within their environment, and instincts defined by biology and genetics. What common-sense assumptions do I have? I assume from "common-sense" that I can support analysis of situations and encounters with past observations and adaptive perceptions producing an analytical comprehension (or rather, comprehensive analysis) to be able to act with a fair cognition or develop and produce perspectives (the latter goal is the perspective that is not supported by mere assumptions).
(B) I assume from certain observations in the past that many people of my country and community develop most of their perspectives with basis of the media's perspective, possibly regarding bias. The media can be defined as articles in a newspaper, journalists, television news, television shows and commercials, ect. The media shares a story and sometimes a perspective with the story. Many people will then produce their assumptions from the story that they visually perceived, and they will then produce a perspective. Many people of the latter spoken will share or impose their perspectives that are supported by assumptions from different events.
(C) I believe, or assume rather, that my family (or most) believes in the idea of human progression and prosperity. Do not perceive this prosperity in the sense concerning immoral hedonism, but rather accomplishment of self for the benefit of themselves as well as others, producing a brilliant contribution to society. My cousin Katie travels for her occupation, my brother is a prosperous business man, my other brother has fought for freedom and is still progressing, my sister has put her dedication in education and family, my father is a leader and teacher, and my mother helps and aids my path for a better future. My family pushes ideas of progression and moral values such as education and family. The matter of which I have spoken is but a few examples of assumptions supported by perceived observations.

[To be continued]


Who are My Enemies?

by SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori on Sunday, December 4, 2011 at 10:41pm
I wonder if I have enemies. I will consider those with a closed-mind, selfish perspective, and physical, mental, and violent hostility to be my enemy. You are my enemy if you cannot build any sort of respect for people and their differences, believing any antagonism that you perceive (assumptions, rumors, media, gossip) against that person. I consider this closed-minded belligerence to be hostile and immature, and if you have an adaptive mind, your ignorance will be feared.

Who is an example? The Kim Jung Family can be an example. The Wesboro cult is an example. You are my enemy if you hate others for having different beliefs without understanding those people. You may not see your cruelty or belligerence, but God and fellow people do; it is only a matter of time before your own realization.

Those of you that are immoral and anti-diplomatic will someday realize what you have done.

(Note: Do not mind the use of 'You'. I am describing my immoral enemies.)


Progressing Maturity

by SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori on Sunday, December 4, 2011 at 11:00pm
I cherish reasonable diplomacy. I despise hostility of any form. I can tolerate open-mindedness with a solid foundation; I can hardly tolerate closed-minded belligerence. I fear for the emotional and psychological dangers for others; I am an Air Force Leader and Follower. I pray for your kindness; I will express kindness and understanding toward you. I am an American Airman.


Washington Part One

by SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori on Monday, December 5, 2011 at 12:31am
"...Washington has been pushed to the back burner in
school systems across the country. His portrait has
disappeared from classroom walls, and history textbooks
now have as little as 10 percent of the coverage
of Washington that they possessed just 40 years ago.
That’s why author David McCullough has bemoaned
that we are “raising a generation of historically illiterate
➣ George Washington’s Birthday, once one of the most
important and successful holidays of the year, has all
but vanished. Seniors frequently tell me about the
George Washington’s Birthday parades they viewed
as children and the school assemblies that featured
skits about Washington’s honesty and goodness.
Washington was a unifying figure for American families,
not just the nation as a whole. But Presidents’
Day has allowed the grain to fall aside, leaving us
with nothing but the chaff. If our government leaders
who traded George Washington’s Birthday for
Presidents’ Day thought for a second that meaningful
discussions about presidential leadership would take
place, they were wildly off target. Instead, we have
been forced to watch ridiculous costumed versions of
George Washington and Abraham Lincoln hawking
new cars and appliance sales during a three-day
shopping extravaganza.

We should know what our founding fathers have done for us. Let us allow schools to teach the morals, values, and actions of our founding fathers. The truth should be taught.


"Morality is not Republican? Wow."

by SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori on Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 1:15am
This is the [written, Geoffrey Kabaservice] plot for 'Rule and Ruin', available on Amazon. The book is not anti-Republican, but it will expose the need for progressive Republicans, which also describes the 'traditional' Republican. I think there is a difference between a Republican and a conservative extremist. What is that difference? The conservative will claim 'morality' to be 'Liberal' or 'Democrat'. What do I mean? I have compassion for fellow humans, regardless of their differences. I like to research and develop a foundation for my perspectives, rather than believe what I am told or what I assume. What of the Republican? The traditional Republican is a thinker, and they will put thought and analysis into issues before making judgement. They will understand that others will have differences, whether they are Republican or not. This is why I am glad that Palin dropped out with hopes that Romney will one day run for president with his knowledge of Economics. He is not solely involved with social and religious issues just to attract specific voters.

I do not know much about M. Romney because I have yet to fully observe his views. I will vote for him if his views and actions are ethical. I will not vote for someone because of their political title because that is wrong, ignorant, and closed-minded. Any extremist can claim they are running "Republican" or "Democrat", so it would be most logical to learn of their beliefs, actions, and goals before wasting a vote.

I am not Republican. I am not Democrat. I have not fully explored the morality and ideology of either party. You should not call yourself either if you do not know the ideology. The latter is like calling yourself a goalie for an American football team, or claiming to believe in a deity as an Atheist.

I do not care if this article makes you angry. That is the point of a different perspective. You will either analyze my perspective deeply if you are somewhat open-minded, or you will fully disregard everything that I have stated, remaining ignorant in an infuriating and closed-minded manner.


As the 2012 elections approach, the Republican Party is rocketing rightward away from the center of public opinion. Republicans in Congress threaten to shut down the government and force a U.S. debt default. Tea Party activists mount primary challenges against Republican officeholders who appear to exhibit too much pragmatism or independence. Moderation and compromise are dirty words in the Republican presidential debates. The GOP, it seems, has suddenly become a party of ideological purity.

Except this development is not new at all. In Rule and Ruin, Geoffrey Kabaservice reveals that the moderate Republicans' downfall began not with the rise of the Tea Party but about the time of President Dwight Eisenhower's farewell address. Even in the 1960s, when left-wing radicalism and right-wing backlash commanded headlines, Republican moderates and progressives formed a powerful movement, supporting pro-civil rights politicians like Nelson Rockefeller and William Scranton, battling big-government liberals and conservative extremists alike. But the Republican civil war ended with the overthrow of the moderate ideas, heroes, and causes that had comprised the core of the GOP since its formation. In hindsight, it is today's conservatives who are "Republicans in Name Only."

Writing with passionate sympathy for a bygone tradition of moderation, Kabaservice recaptures a time when fiscal restraint was matched with social engagement; when a cohort of leading Republicans opposed the Vietnam war; when George Romney--father of Mitt Romney--conducted a nationwide tour of American poverty, from Appalachia to Watts, calling on society to "listen to the voices from the ghetto." Rule and Ruin is an epic, deeply researched history that reorients our understanding of our political past and present.

Today, moderates are marginalized in the GOP and progressives are all but nonexistent. In this insightful and elegantly argued book, Kabaservice contends that their decline has left Republicans less capable of governing responsibly, with dire consequences for all Americans.


Dear, Love

by SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori on Saturday, December 10, 2011 at 10:14pm
Dear Love,
How should I know you do not deceive me?
I could learn your eyes and speak of your heart,
but what of my heart?
My eyes burn.
I plead you to avoid the executioner should he judge you,
your guilt and sadness will be enough judgement.
Do not cry to me unless you truly love me,
even with human nature, you could have defied all deceit...
no matter how pleasing the temptation.
I feel your flames within my mind.
My eyes water.
My eyes will then steam. My mind is branded. I have reason, and I walk in the Spirit.
We have defined tragedy. Romeo and Juliet hath failed.
I cry because of your heart working against your mind. You have failed yourself.
My heart will accept you if you still love me. My mind will love you if you never deceive me since your sin.
I have not felt my Lord's pain,
but because of you...
I deserve the latter more than you.

This is a poem about the man in 'Melancholia'.


The Biblical Definition of the Mind

by SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori on Sunday, December 11, 2011 at 4:57pm
This note does not define the whole mind. This note should make an impact for Christians.

Read this sequence: Romans 12: 2 -> John 8: 32 -> Romans 1: 32 -> Gal 5 -> Romans 2: 14-16 -> Romans 13: 8-14

Do not believe God to be a spontaneous, magical, and a simple being. I plead you, as a Christian, to think of God as complex, omnipotent, and the highest intelligence, and creator thereof.


Rick Perry Positions

by SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori on Saturday, December 17, 2011 at 4:00pm
"Perry also wants to grant work visas to undocumented immigrants."
-Is this a good thing? This seems to be a good thing. I hope it helps people.
"Perry is opposed to the DREAM Act"
-Is this a bad thing? I think it is a bad thing, but I have not seen the DREAM Act in work; therefore, I do not know the good vs bad effects of the DREAM Act.

"Perry opposes the legal recognition of same-sex marriages, and supported the 2005 ballot proposition which amended the Texas constitution by defining marriage as "only a union between a man and a woman" and prohibiting the state from creating or recognizing "any legal status identical or similar to marriage".[15] In 2011, after New York legalized same-sex marriage, Perry stated that it was their right to do so under the principle of states' rights delineated in the 10th Amendment.[16] A spokesman later reiterated Perry's support for a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, saying that position was not inconsistent since an amendment would require approval by three-fourths of the states.[17]

In his first book, On My Honor, published in 2008, Perry drew a parallel between homosexuality and alcoholism, writing that he is “no expert on the ‘nature versus nurture’ debate,” but that gays should simply choose abstinence.[18] In 2002, Perry described the Texas same-sex anti-sodomy law as "appropriate".[19] The United States Supreme Court's landmark civil rights decision in Lawrence v. Texas struck down the statute Perry referred to the following year for violating the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution."
-I am slightly neutral. I have not studied marriage. The prejudice Perry has for homosexuals is disgusting. The prejudice shown for gays serving in the military by Perry [Refer to his campaign ad] is intolerable.

"In October 2011, Perry put forwards a flat tax proposal that would allow taxpayers to choose either their tax rate under existing law or a flat 20% rate. The plan would also eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits and inheritances. Asked if his tax plan would help wealthy taxpayers, Perry said he was not concerned about that because a lower tax rate would encourage greater investment and job creation by the wealthy"

I theorize that this trend among powerful Republicans, keeping the "rich richer", is either unseen from Conservative eyes, or rather averted.
More to come later...


Ron Paul Research

by SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori on Saturday, December 24, 2011 at 4:00pm
I hear, from my surroundings, support for Ron Paul, from my fellow co-workers. I have decided to do some research.

Ron Paul on Income Tax, Part One
He would completely eliminate the income tax by shrinking the size and scope of government to what he considers its Constitutional limits, noting that he has never voted to approve an unbalanced budget; he has observed that even scaling back spending to 2000 levels eliminates the need for the 42% of the budget accounted for by individual income tax receipts.

What is income tax; how is income tax defined
An income tax is a tax levied on the income of individuals or businesses (corporations or other legal entities). Various income tax systems exist, with varying degrees of tax incidence. Income taxation can be progressive, proportional, or regressive. When the tax is levied on the income of companies, it is often called a corporate tax, corporate income tax, or profit tax. Individual income taxes often tax the total income of the individual (with some deductions permitted), while corporate income taxes often tax net income (the difference between gross receipts, expenses, and additional write-offs). Various systems define income differently, and often allow notional reductions of income (such as a reduction based on number of children supported


A small income tax history
In 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The United States Supreme Court in its ruling Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. stated that the amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prevented the courts from taking the power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belongs. In fiscal year 1918, annual internal revenue collections for the first time passed the billion-dollar mark, rising to $5.4 billion by 1920. With the advent of World War II, employment increased, as did tax collections—to $7.3 billion. The withholding tax on wages was introduced in 1943 and was instrumental in increasing the number of taxpayers to 60 million and tax collections to $43 billion by 1945.

The Sixteenth Amendment

2011 Update, Ron Paul on Income Tax, Part Two
Rather than taxing personal income, which he says assumes that the government owns individuals' lives and labor, he prefers the federal government to be funded through excise taxes and/or uniform, non-protectionist tariffs.[84] However, during the 2011 CPAC conference, he said he would support a flat income tax of 10 % at 19:23 of that speech.[97] A citizen would be able to opt out of all government involvement if they simply pay a 10 % income tax.

Economics: Principle and Policy [5th Edition]
Progressive, Proportional, and Regressive Taxes
Economists classify taxes as progressive, proportional, or regressive. Under a progressive tax, the fraction of income paid in taxes rises as a person's income increases...proportional tax, this fraction is constant... regressive tax, fraction of income paid to the tax collector declines as income rises. Since the fraction of income paid in taxes is called the average tax rate, these definitions can be reformulated as in the margin...the average tax rate is less interesting than the margical tax rate, which is the fraction of each additional dollar that is paid to the tax collector. The reason, as we will see, is that the marginal tax rate, not the average tax rate, most directly affects economic incentives.

How do you perceive this information? Does Ron Paul seem to desire to increase personal and payroll tax, while decreaseing CORPORATE TAX?  I say, "..not necessarily."  I think if he wants to support even a smaller government on excise taxes, he must be in imagination isle, which is probably why he is reconsidering this idea, and adopting a flat rate income tax.  The GOP would most likely disagree in a heartbeat, but I think that it would not hurt to increase corporate tax and decrease personal and payroll taxes until there is a balanced support for both the  government and the people. I need to further my research on the damage RON PAUL will do to this country ECONOMICALLY, and how he will manipulate the TAX SYSTEM.



My Riddle

by SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori on Saturday, December 24, 2011 at 5:20pm

one corporation works at 'X' number of buildings
it's 20xx, and the CEO head wants 'Y' number of custodians for each building
custodians are the lowest paid to maintain the corporate budget
20xx, and 'Y' custodians has been satisfied for every building
"Z", which is the number of other positions, has been satisfied or exceeded
Question: Can the government force that corporation (and others) to create jobs?


Calvinism Analysis

by SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori on Friday, December 30, 2011 at 5:29pm
I am analyzing articles for and against Calvinist ideas. Here is the first-http://www.thomastaylorministries.org/article_calvinism_total_depravity.htm
My words in BOLD
I do not know Thomas Taylor's methods of ministry, but his article makes some interesting points.
(http://www.reformed.org/calvinism) [Total Depravity]
"Total Depravity is probably the most misunderstood tenet of Calvinism. When Calvinists speak of humans as "totally depraved," they are making an extensive, rather than an intensive statement. The effect of the fall upon man is that sin has extended to every part of his personality -- his thinking, his emotions, and his will. Not necessarily that he is intensely sinful, but that sin has extended to his entire being.
The unregenerate (unsaved) man is dead in his sins (Romans 5:12). Without the power of the Holy Spirit, the ral man is blind and deaf to the message of the gospel (Mark 4:11f). This is why Total Depravity has also been called "Total Inability." The man without a knowledge of God will never come to this knowledge without God's making him alive through Christ (Ephesians 2:1-5). "
Romans 5: 11-13
11And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
 12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
 13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
*"in his sin" compared to "by sin"= two contrasted meanings

Mark 4: 10-12
10And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
 11And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
 12That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
*"blind and deaf to the message of the gospel" compared to Mark 4: 11-12 = two contrasting perspectives

Ephesians 2
 1And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
 2Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
 3Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
 4But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
 5Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
*Ephesians 2: 1-5 compared to  "The man without a knowledge of God will never come to this knowledge without God's making him alive through Christ..." = How did you come up with that conclusion through those verses?

More to come


Somewhat of a Romance Poem

by SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori on Sunday, November 27, 2011 at 6:52pm
Dear lady, you may wonder,
why do I not stare or gaze.
I have modest eyes;
I have more respect for women than many.
I would feel rather uncomfortable,
finding myself lost in a perpetual space of admiration for modest beauty.
Do not fret or falter;
your beauty is a mere reminder for the hope I contain for the future,
whether tomorrow, next week, or next month,
romance, or love,
my future and will is good.

Saturday, November 19, 2011

Update 2011 Summer-Autumn

"I believe that no two individuals are exactly alike chemically any more than structurally."
-Archibald Garrod
English Physician

Read the article without personal assumptions, inferences, or opinions.
The argument should seem moral and socially ethical.
Now, pretend he is Liberal [non-Socialist, non-Communist].
You may have reversed the perspective that you have formed around the article if you are a right-wing Conservative.
Now, pretend he is Conservative [non-Facsist, non-Totalitarian].
Would the article influence your Conservative perspectives? Would you view him as a Moderate or Independant if you are a Liberal?
A wise female once said, "Check youself, before you wreck yourself."

I believe there is something suspicious about the people of the 99% movement. They have some good ideas, but so far, I agree that student loans are an unnecessary form of debt. Does a caveat exist? I have read one's testimony concerning a 100K debt in student loans, but three degrees, and yet that person claims to be struggling.
I believe there is something suspicious about a Protestant church providing shelter for people to which opposing views may exist. I have been told the possibility of the Occupy movement to be a "Socialist" movement. I am veritably hesitant on the action of supporting the Occupy movement. They have ideas to which I can agree, but there will be opposing ideas to which I will challenge.
Read the article, please.

(Trading morals for money)

I plead that if one who lives in America, employed and healthily living, should not complain of hunger; A citizen in North Korea may be deprived of a sustainable diet. One who lives in America, employed and healthily living, should, at the least, have more respect for the military; Our soldiers do not directly rob us of our food. One who lives in America should, at the least, appreciate where we live; You will not be shot by your own government for crossing the Canadian or Mexican border, sent to a military prison camp, or tortured until you are a vegetable. One who lives in America, faithful to a deity, should be thankful; You will not be convicted or punished.

North Korea is one of the most isolated countries with rampant repression. The next time you complain about hunger, think of those people who are or will be deprived of their next meal.

"Concerning how society and it's individual humans react in accordance with the actions of others, I believe the golden rule is a universal ethic."

I cannot seem to figure out if this is a legal sentence, concerning the rules and supposed mechanics of grammar.

"I believe the golden rule is a universal ethic concerning the matter of how society and it's individual humans react in accordance with the actions of others."

I have reviewed this sentence, and it seems that I have confused the philosophy of pure vs practical. I'll have to review.

I have only read a small amount of Immanuel Kant, but I have managed to digest a small amount of knowledge concerning pure and practical morals and philosophies. At this time, I do not remember whether or not "pure" morals gave definition to universal morals that seem to be somewhat of a default within different societies (communities, groups, cultures, ect.)

The golden rule had existed before Jesus had taught this ethic to his followers, but this matter does NOT necessarily mean that the golden rule was a mere "practical" ethic that a supposed few philosophers had thought of at different convenient times. Concerning how society and it's individual humans react in accordance with the actions of others, I believe the golden rule is a universal ethic. Since Jesus had established His covenant as taught in the New Testament, He has teachings focusing on treatment of your fellow man [and woman], not being one with prejudice, and human compassion and charity. Whether or not one views Him as God or human philosopher, The New Testament makes obvious the different universal social ethics that are pure [and metaphysical] and may be the most beneficial for societies [communities, groups, cultures, populations, ect.] to follow.

If I were to volunteer at a homeless shelter or orphanage, and an Evangelical (for sake of example) calls my actions "Christian" duty or "Christian "work", I would perceive their words as an offense to my God, and myself as well. If that person believes God created everything, then that person would agree that God created and produced pure morals and ethics, whether genetic or metaphysical (or even spiritual). By describing my actions as "Christian" (with an intent to limit to the latter term and description), that person is either limiting morals to one faith, or denying that God produced pure morals and ethics, which in-turn would deny God's complexity in the creation of genetics (if pure morals are to be genetic), or God's creation of that which is spiritual, which also limits the actions of the Holy Spirit.

My First Christian Debate with an Atheist

by SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori on Saturday, September 3, 2011 at 10:42am
Note: It's more of a sharing of ideas than a debate.

  • SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori
    Hello Michael, how much of the New Testament have you read? Can you define you perspective of "world-view"? Can you reason why rational Christians have to deny science and logic in order to believe in God, much less any deity? The morals, ...ethics, and virtues defined in the Old Testament replace law and rules, with the exception of our belief in the Holy Spirit embedded through our faith in contrast to another who may only rely on practical ethics or classical philosophy. I could post an argument of emotional euphoria, or even circular logic to support my faith, but that would only insult my God. Even if Sam Harris, a great philosophical and educated atheist, would claim your article to be bland. My advice would be to study Immanuel Kant's definition of pure vs practical morals and ethics, and to at least study the Bible before posting poorly-supported assumptions.See More
    Yesterday at 6:32pm · LikeUnlike

  • SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori I know, I mentioned Sam Harris. I don't agree with all of his writings, but he is a fascinating author
    Yesterday at 6:35pm · LikeUnlike

  • SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori Ah, Ben, I have to know; do you believe God can make 2+2=5, or keep it at 2+2=4?
    Yesterday at 6:37pm · LikeUnlike · 1 personLoading...

  • SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori ‎*..morals, ethics, and virtues defined in the *New Testament* (major typo)
    23 hours ago · LikeUnlike

  • Michael R Fairburn Steffan, I can't understand why otherwise intelligent people would suspend their normal judgement and rationality in an area for which there is absolutely no evidence?
    23 hours ago · LikeUnlike

  • SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori
    You are correct, I have NO rational or logical argument for a faith-based perspective. Faith in a deity is nearly taboo, and would never be proven. Since we are the only planet proven to have intelligent life i.e the plant and animal kingdo...m, included with the intelligent and cognitive human race, supported with other scientific evidences and theories, I find it spiritually fulfilling to believe in something more because of that which is unproven that we find veritably curious.

    The moral structure in the New Testament to which I was referring combines a social compassion with order, rather than chaos. I find the corruption of Christian churches to be unfortunate. The latter is possible with the Buddhist. You could observe the Buddhist who lives morally with philosophical mind and compassionate towards others, and you could observe the Buddhist that is strictly religious, metaphorically locked in a tower.See More23 hours ago · LikeUnlike

  • Michael R Fairburn I have great respect for the Buddhist worldview, except where it transitions into a deistic belief. Buddhism was never meant to be a deistic belief system and the Buddha has been deified by mankind, just like every other god.
    23 hours ago · LikeUnlike

  • SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori
    If one is intelligent and rational, I would claim one does not think in a black-white mentality like a child. A black-white example would be a Christian directly blaming God for the positive or the negative. "God gave us a truck driver!" or... "God sent down this food for this feast!" or "God sent us supplies!". There are Christians who can tell the direct from the indirect. "Because of God's predestination, and development of human will and potential, a truck driver has accepted our request for aid!" or, "These ethical humans had the heart to send us food, thank God for his will and creation!"See More
    23 hours ago · LikeUnlike

  • Michael R Fairburn But Steffan, in my experience, Christians take a literal interpretation of the Bible except where it doesn't suit them. Take, for example, New Earth Creationists - despite overwhelming scientific evidence about the age of the earth, these people continue to believe that their god created the Earth with 'inbuilt age' - now if that isn't a suspension of rsationality I don't know whsat is!
    23 hours ago · LikeUnlike

  • SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori
    I cannot answer to why an intelligent person would choose a faith and deity, but I am sure that person could argue with another from hell and back with why they have chosen their beliefs. Research the smartest .000001 percent of people who ...have ever lived, and tell me which ones chose to be faithful to a deity, and which ones did not. Galileo and Newton were Christians, but they contradicted their church. That can say many things.See More
    23 hours ago · LikeUnlike

  • Michael R Fairburn Galileo and Newton were Christians as a product of their times. The vast majority of modern day scientists are atheistic or agnostic.
    23 hours ago · LikeUnlike

  • SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori
    Concerning Creationists, they have (to my current knowledge) little evidence concerning what God had done BEFORE and during Genesis. Also, the idea of intelligent design is an idea that in itself, is hard to fathom, and nearly unbelievable,... since we know the existence of genes, adaptation, environmental variables, evolution, ect. I would slap the next Christian who claims God will spontaneously heal a random amputee, though possible, would change my perception and perspective on the spotSee More
    23 hours ago · LikeUnlike

  • SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori I would assume from different studies that Galileo and Newton were not merely conforming to a social norm, but rather expanding a perspective of Christianity and Biblical interpretation beyond a church that denied science, denying or insulting their own God in the process.
    23 hours ago · LikeUnlike

  • SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori Grammar error: the church denied science, insulting God in the process
    23 hours ago · LikeUnlike

  • Michael R Fairburn But that's half the problem Steffan. Christians believe that their god can do anything, and their Bible backs up this claim. Unfortunately, they count the positives and ignore the negatives, especially regarding prayer, despite negatives outweighing the positives by so much. I can get similar results praying to an empty milk bottle as a Christian can get praying to their god.
    22 hours ago · LikeUnlike

  • Michael R Fairburn No Steffan, you've missed the point. Galileo and Newton were products of their time. They (and just about everyone else) were members of the church because not to be was full of social stigma. You just have to look at the contortions that Galileo had to go through when he published his theorum to understand why he, adn almost everyone else, was requried to believe in god.
    22 hours ago · LikeUnlike

  • Mike Collins
    Ah, yes! I can't possibly skip the opportunity to debate with intelligent people... it's against my nature.

    "Merely" cosmic dust?
    I never thought I'd hear the word "merely" used to describe something as fascinating as millions of stars ex...ploding to create our existence.
    In a universe so huge comprehension of it is virtually impossible, millions and billions of these stars are exploding every second. The fact that we're actually made of these particles is a beautiful and awe inspiring fact.
    Much more beautiful and awe inspiring than a burning bush.
    Since you're familiar with Christopher Hitchens, you've probably heard this argument. At any rate, I'm interested to hear what your response is.
    Of all the species who have lived on this earth, 98% of them are extinct.
    Is this part of the plan? Is god so wasteful as to destroy billions of stars and almost all intelligent life on our own planet just so our species can be born in sin and be saved through a sadistic sacrifice of this god's own son?
    But then again, aren't you a "young Earth" christian?
    Also, I have to add... the new testament's brought the idea of "everlasting life" which is is quite totalitarian in nature, and, as such, only a slave would desire it to be true.See More22 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 1 personLoading...

  • SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori
    ‎"Is this part of the plan? Is god so wasteful as to destroy billions of stars and almost all intelligent life on our own planet just so our species can be born in sin and be saved through a sadistic sacrifice of this god's own son?"

    An op...inionated question is hard for me to answer perhaps directly, but I could try to respond. God did not necessarily destroy these forms of life, these forms of life destroyed itself; God is the indirect variable of their destruction. In my perception, although intelligent life dies at an exponential rate, I develop a perspective upon the survival of the fittest, which will continue to adapt, progress, and populate, and the definition in itself will change for each generation. I could state a possibility that overpopulation is just the fittest breeding weak links, which is either a sexual species breeding weak or needless offspring, or an asexual species cloning in the same environment, eventually dying from new dangers.
    if the Son of God had not been crucified, I am sure America would be more totalitarian than it is now, as with other countries with a Christian majority. Simply said, Jesus established a morals through faith and spirit structure for Christianity rather than the strict Jewish law. I know, many Christians from that time and up to recent are manipulating the Bible and people, but there still remains those people with integrity.
    "Also, I have to add... the new testament's brought the idea of "everlasting life" which is is quite totalitarian in nature, and, as such, only a slave would desire it to be true."
    For those who believe in Hell, this is paradise.See More21 hours ago · LikeUnlike

  • Mike Collins
    Your first paragraph makes you sound like a diest, whereas your second paragraph implies you believe in the bible.

    So which is it? Do you believe in a god that not only created everything, but also watches us as we sleep and constantly kee...ps a list of black marks against us?
    Or do you simply believe god who "got it all started."
    In other words, he triggered the big bang then disappeared?
    If you do believe in the god of the bible, how can you possibly believe in your "black and white" perspective? The bible makes it very clear that god meddles in all things. God can commit you of thoughtcrime, and, if he deems fit, send you to an eternity of suffering and pain.
    Wait... are you saying countries with a Christian majority are usually more totalitarian? Well, you'd probably be right, since that's how the religion is set up.
    Jesus's "morals" were nothing new... the Golden Rule was around long before Jesus came.
    All humans have morality ingrained in them from evolution, anyways... Just look at how other species act. Do other species rape and murder members of their own kind?
    If anything, human morality is lower than animal morality, since we have the ability to override these natural morals.
    Why would someone who believes in hell think everlasting life is paradise? Lol
    Neither is paradise. I don't know about you, but the idea of "forced happiness" FOREVER makes me sick to my stomach.See More8 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 1 personMichael R Fairburn likes this.

  • SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori
    The 'black/white perspective' is not my own, but rather one I would contradict. Jesus established a new covenant contrary to the old jewish law that kept the blacklist in which you were referring. With the new covenant, God is mostly concer...ned with one's faith and developed ethics, rather than the number of sins one commits. From my perception, I see that many Christians refuse to understand this, clinging to the sins they commit, forcing themselves to be more religious than God had intended. i'm not saying countries with a Christian majority are more totalitarian than they should be, but rather, if Christ had not established the new covenant taught in the NT, then countries would conform to old jewish law, denying any kind of progression. Even if morals were existant before Jesus, religious or not, those morals/ethics are still described as 'pure', as taught by Immanuel Kant. I can agree to morals and order being embedded in the genesis/genetics of generations, but human will, different philosophies, See More
    7 hours ago · LikeUnlike

  • SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori Perceptions, and social environment will be variables affecting what those morals will be, and how they will work. Whether there is order or chaos in a society, pure or practical morals will be the determining factor, as well as the possible symbiosis of the two. I have never heard of a moral animal, concerning instinct and survival.
    7 hours ago · LikeUnlike

  • Mike Collins
    Sorry – didn't mean you had the black and white perspective. I meant you DIDN'T have that perspective, which makes you sound like a diest.

    The New Testament disagrees with you on your second point. Here's what Jesus has to say about though...tcrime (Matt. 15 18-20):
    "But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man."
    God is still very concerned with the blacklist in the New Testament, as made apparent by the mentions of hell and "eternal hellfire."
    Ah... and here we come to the true evil of religion: blocking of progress.
    You may say old Jewish law blocked all progression (you may be right), but don't pretend the Christian religion is innocent of this.
    All religions block progress. All religions claim to answer the unanswerable questions by receiving divine guidance from a celestial being in the sky.
    If we already have all the answers (which religions claim to have), what's the point of progress in the first place?
    You've never heard of a moral animal? Surely you've heard of the species Homo Sapiens? ;)
    I've always thought morals to be more fluid, anyway. Of course you have the basic human instinct to not harm a fellow human (if we didn't have this instinct, we certainly wouldn't've made it this far!), but other aspects of morals seem to be subject to change based on current world views and our continually evolving mentalities.See More7 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 1 personLoading...

  • SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori
    I'm glad that all of us are making interesting points (though, Ben, you seem good with your faith, but you're arguments... not so much. don't take it personal.)

    Personally, I have to again, start a deeper study within the NT. I am fortunat...e to have greek translations so I have less chance of taking the Bible out of context.
    I need to learn how Jesus defined the 'heart'. Hopefully, His view of the heart may differ from the rational mind.
    Sam Harris wrote in "Letters to a Christian Nation" that MLK Jr. used non-violence influenced by Jadenism. Whether that is true or not, his work brought change. Still, it is very sad that Protestant Christianity (I think) was used to justify racism and prejudice against color. Bob Jones University states on their website that they were once racist because of social norms and ethos (they wouldn't admit blacks and recently lifted the ban on interracial dating).
    I have not studied many religions of the world, and neither have I studied Anthropology. But regardless of religion, there are those who have will to stand up and say, "I am going to research this anyway, and I will make a difference", metaphorically speaking.See More20 minutes ago · LikeUnlike

  • SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori Concerning the origin or start of the universe, would you possibly know S. Hawking's theory on the origin in which the universe began?

Sunday, August 28, 2011

Excerpt 20110828

[A stencil of a recorded sense following the cleaning of the female bathroom]

Being a male, when I sense a woman's blood through my perceptive smell, I display a physical reaction of disgust. I know little of what pheromones are, but through cognition, I can develop an adaptive comprehension through observations because of the symbiosis of visual perception and deductive comprehension, with such concluding that regardless of attraction to the pheromones of the opposite gender, the latter is overridden by disgust in relation to the veritably grotesque smell. I desire to first put a focus on the word "perception". I assume some people develop different perspectives of the word perception (though, not all people, I assume) as with any word, possibly limiting the word to defining visual senses alone, or, defining a collection of every physical human sense. With as many people as there are perspectives of such words, the varying definitions are limitless. My perspective of perception's definition is still adapting and still evolving. I think perception involves every physical human sense with influence of cognition as well as deductive comprehension. Cognition, which seems to be purely or practically adaptive, may be interchangeable with deductive comprehension.

Commentary for Excerpt 0828:
After reviewing what I had written, I had listed my terms for understanding and mental processing. If you critically think about my excerpt after reading it, you can figure that I mixed some of the terms. "Cognitive deduction", "Deductive Comprehension", "Adaptive Perception", ect, are of my own defining. For example, a college graduate may be in a situation or problem that they may recognize because of knowledge that they had comprehended in a previous class. Using deductive cognition, they process a solution because of their comprehension of the matter. In a varied, but similar situation, they can apply their adaptive perception in symbiosis with their comprehension to aid in a more beneficial cognitive deduction for either a short-term solution, or if more critical thought is applied, then a long-term solution is carried out for their problem.

Marriage Knowledge

If you contrast the conflict theory of marriage with today's gender progression, it seems that a marriage tends to be more equal when the relationship between husband and wife is no longer based on power and dominance. If one husband forces his wife to be a stay-at-home mom while he brings home the paycheck, the chances of divorce and separation are highly possible (not counting the variable of religious dominance/fundamentalism), which would be fortunate in my opinion. If another husband reasons that the wife is just as capable with potential as the male, the wife has the free will for career and education, providing for a egalitarian relationship that would flourish and reap the better benefit for a society that applies strong focus for the family. Through different perspectives, politically speaking, we do not need Conservative or Liberal dominance, but rather a continued mix. If there is Conservative dominance in America, the Marxist perspective of the family idea in America in conjunction through a capitalist economy will forever be accurate, forcing America to digress more rapidly than without Liberals. With an equal mix of Con/Lib, conflicting ideas will possibly breed new ideas and varying solutions for problems in our country. The family plays a more complex part in America than one may believe.

Christian Curiosity

To those that are Christian, are you a Christian who believes God can make 2+2 equal 5, or keeps 2+2 to equal 4?

Metal Ballet


After viewing a few classical ballet performances, I feel that there is not enough movement in sync with the music. I found this video. I have no clue as to if the dancer performed to the metal song that plays, or if the way he dances conforms to ballet rules. Regardless, I will call this great art.

Sharing Our Defenses?

Upon reading a few articles in DefenseNews, the fact that other countries want our technology concerning attack and defense seems frightening in the slightest. Australia wants to buy F-35's, Taiwan wants our F-16's, and Israel has a wishlist. Our Government needs to have a lesser concern with money, and a focus on budgets so we would not have to resort to selling destructive possibilities. If America can progress defensive technologies, then I am sure that other countries are progressing their tech, or have the potential thereof, in which we then have a chance of having the better defense. Although I think we should keep our own defenses, sharing or training, or maybe even establishing more bases for foreign training may also help. Personally, I think if we were to openly conform to what Israel wants, that action may be a catalyst for another war in which we will be involved.