Pete

That was one of the reasons for a lockdown. The more people the virus spreads too the more likely there would be more mutations. The more mutations the more the vaccine will need tweeking and the longer we have the virus. That is why I think anti maskers are criminal. They are risking themselves and others in the process.

Yes. During this epidemic Johnson and others have been throwing billions of money and contracts to private individuals who have sponsored the tory party. He has also held secret meetings with US companies whilst denying he is privatizing it. Johnson just lies and carries on. They also replaced the head of NHS England with the wife of the chancellor. She has no previous experience or knowledge of health care. She even went on TV saying no one could have known viruses mutate. Yet, everyone in health knows that.

We are not much better in the UK. We have homeless sleeping on the streets and food banks and a government declaring that it is a choice. I wish they could be made to change places. For now we have a health service but sadly that is being sold to US companies and others by a government wanting to make a quick billion for themselves. Johnson is no better than Trump.

They need people who can afford their prices. Many cannot and so they die.

Especially knowing that if governments made the right decisions and acted quickly, many would not be suffering. It breaks my heart. Michael Rosen, A UK/Jewish journalist/Author/ nice person, showed an article on facebook from the Daily Telegraph paper, which was talking about the positive side of covid in that it was wiping out the elderly and sick from being a burden on the economy. I am sure that has a lot to do with this crisis. Trump and Johnson have been a disaster. (Before any resident Bible bashing/Trump supporter gets involved. I do not want to know)

It can be painful caring for people who are suff or struggling. When we emphasise we take on some of that hurt. We therefore need to look after ourselves.

I mention as a matter of human self care and not about promoting some aged scripture or religion. We are human and we have needs. If we do not look after our personal needs then we will fail at the emotionally hard things in life such as caring for others. I speak as someone who was a nurse for 46 years. Those who don't look after their needs do not last long in the job. They burnout quickly. There has to be something for the carer as there is need of the cared for.

A certain amount of pleasing yourself is necessary for health. I have met carers who feel guilty in enjoying life whilst those they care for cannot. However, it is important. If you do not look after your own needs then your ability to care will break down. It is about looking after ones own needs so they can continue to care. It is important.

Mankind are individuals and also our very survival is based on being part of a community. We need the joining with others for protection, health socialisation; and production of the things we need. Therefore being happy is also required to be with others for that happiness and for it to be sustained their happiness too. A community that works for each other is more secure than one that does not. Therefore I propose happiness to be social as well as individual.

The exercises did help at time. Trouble is my back is a lot worse now and limits what I do. My bones are getting old and degenerating.

He just recommended so exercises for my back pain. I have not seen him for a while.. Well actually 5 years.

I had a friend who did all the exercises. I still do not know why china banned it.

Point of note. The Quakers in the US range from liberal to fundamentalist churches. The fundamentalists are not so open minded.

It is also to note Stalin had wanted to train as a priest before being involved in politics. You can guess where he got many of his ideas from.

I know this is not easy but communism is not communism.. After the Russian revolution there was mass starvation. 17 differing countries including the US and Britain tried to invade it. In the rural areas the peasant farmers still wanted to maintain their control on food prices. Stalin who was rejected by Lenin and the Bolsheviks worked as the secretary. After Lenin's death he pretended he and Lenin were best buddies and took control and ran Russia like a single capitalist factory but instead of the millionaires taking the profits the party did. This was the same with Mao. It was Stalin who put up the statues. Lenin had said previously he did not want this and they only collect pigeons. In both Russia and China there was no rule by the people. Both had dictators. They traded as one big factory and became state capitalist. It was the dictators who tried to repress religion because it was a channel for the discontented. Lenin view was to just ignore the religions and to not give them power over the politics, believing without power they would slowly fade away. Stalin and Mao went out of their to have mass persecutions of the religious to silence them. This was to stop the religious challenging them. So atheism was used as a tool rather than a state religion.

Interesting for me is the religious society of friends in the UK. No creed and no ministers. They demand no set of beliefs from you.. Except many are pacifists. They meet in silence unless someone is moved to speak. Everyone shares in the funding of the building and duties. The Clerk of the meeting can only be Clerk for two years and then they collectively decide on another. They get strongly involved is social concerns. They do marriages and everyone signs the certificate. Again in Silence with both parties present. There is no distinction between sexes including LGTB+ Members. Religious definitely but also heavily philosophical.

As long as it cares for people and our fellow life on this planet I am in. The issue I have is if a philosophy is strongly held, organised, and popular it becomes a religion. One of the reasons I do not like organised religion. It starts to restrain other opinions. The acceptance of someone being an atheist is one of those religious restrictions. I get sick of newly elected politicians demonstrating their religious faith in church. I mean what is wrong with someone being elected as an atheist or agnostic.

What philosophy are you referring too?

What good does religion bring at all is a good question. In the right hand it can bring people together to improve themselves and their community and on the left hand it educates a bunch of annoying bigots that are full of prejudice. I think Spong belongs to the right hand. That said I do not wish either.

I am sure. He however does. I can live with that. Live and let is okay by me but I do not like those who live and make you live their way too.

The only good that I can see is that rather than the know it all attitude associated with many branches of christianity he has met most religions half way including agnostic, atheism, Judaism, and others, without seeking conflict. He even speaks highly of Richard Dawkins. (Much to the upset of more fundamental groups). He was among the first to perform gay marriage. Even his own church leaders have struggled with his forward looking beliefs. Some have refused to discuss things with him. For him to be christian is to be best human being he is capable. We can find holes in his belief structures but his motives have been admirable as a humanist all be it in the religious sense.

I am not preaching his view to you. I just think he is the closest to an agnostic theist I know. The main view of the tradition of christianity has changed through the years. It has changed from Jewish, to gnostic, to church of Rome, prodestant reformation, and all its later splinters since.

He also does not believe Jesus died to forgive sin. He died as demonstration of his willingness to give the whole of himself for others as a show of god's love for everyone. He does not believe in him being a sacrifice of any sort. i used to follow this argument but this is also a human projection on an unknowable god. It is also missing the point of why is there so much suffering in the world if there is a loving god and not all man made. Like most of religion there are so many holes in the stance.

I would say the main difference between his view and atheism is he believes there is a god, but not one we can understand. He thinks people have projected human attributes on to their view of god. i.e. An angry person sees an angry god and a judgemental person sees a judgemental god. ect. He does not believe god is knowable in a human sense. There he has suspended knowing god but believes god and life is about love and life. I know there are lots of holes in that stance but it is where he stands.

https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=249144579914428&id=100044566624215&set=a.214170743411812&source=48 He is hated by fundamentalists and one tried to shoot him.