| Forum für den Meinungsaustausch|
ich denke, das könnte dich interessieren.
10.12.2002 (20:22 Uhr) Motz
I no longer celebrate pagan rituals like the Festival of Santa Claus. Dead or plastic trees with glitter on them represent the extreme of the pagan idolatry.
> I no longer celebrate pagan rituals like the Festival of
> Santa Claus. Dead or plastic trees with glitter on them
> represent the extreme of the pagan idolatry.
- and what about the presents?
> > I no longer celebrate pagan rituals like the Festival of
> > Santa Claus. Dead or plastic trees with glitter on them
> > represent the extreme of the pagan idolatry.
> - and what about the presents?
Well, it is difficult not to accept anything..
I personally told my family that I have everything I need and I appreciate their kindness, but I don't want any presents at Christmas.
Of course, I received much help and support (financial) from them before. That was MY PRESENT for that I was VERY thankful.
In my opinion presents are ok, a symbol of good feelings towards you, but NOT at a special time, as a habit or as a tradition, business whatever. I try to make present whenever I FEEL that I want to give a present to one of my friends, relatives or to my parents.
Only giving stuff, because "you have to" is not ok, for me.
In my opinion the festival of celebrating Christ and his birth has become BIG business. It is not anymore associated (in common) with thoughts about his original message (Christ) but with overeating, present-'trade' and drinking.
Isn't it a fact, that people act nicer in these period of the year than any other? "Because it's Christmas.." Why don't we act like it was Christmas all year?
> > > I no longer celebrate pagan rituals like the Festival of
> > > Santa Claus. Dead or plastic trees with glitter on them
> > > represent the extreme of the pagan idolatry.
> > - and what about the presents?
> Well, it is difficult not to accept anything..
> I personally told my family that I have everything I need
> and I appreciate their kindness, but I don't want any
> presents at Christmas.
> Of course, I received much help and support (financial)
> from them before. That was MY PRESENT for that I was VERY
> In my opinion presents are ok, a symbol of good feelings
> towards you, but NOT at a special time, as a habit or as
> a tradition, business whatever. I try to make present
> whenever I FEEL that I want to give a present to one of
> my friends, relatives or to my parents.
> Only giving stuff, because "you have to" is not ok, for
> In my opinion the festival of celebrating Christ and his
> birth has become BIG business. It is not anymore
> associated (in common) with thoughts about his original
> message (Christ) but with overeating, present-'trade' and
> Isn't it a fact, that people act nicer in these period of
> the year than any other? "Because it's Christmas.." Why
> don't we act like it was Christmas all year?
but, you know, most suicides happen in december. Because people tend to feel more alone and helpless and, well, sad. After all, you tend to celebrate christmas with your family and friends. so i guess it wouldn't be the best if we acted like it was christmas all year.
and about: Only giving stuff, because "you have to" ...it takes two to tango and let's be honest...presents are always nice, whether you like the person or don't like them. or maybe I'm just spoiled. whatever
> but, you know, most suicides happen in december. Because
> people tend to feel more alone and helpless and, well,
> sad. After all, you tend to celebrate christmas with your
> family and friends. so i guess it wouldn't be the best if
> we acted like it was christmas all year.
> and about: Only giving stuff, because "you have to" ...it
> takes two to tango and let's be honest...presents are
> always nice, whether you like the person or don't like
> them. or maybe I'm just spoiled. whatever
Of course, maybe most suicide happen in december.. Could be a favorite month for such souls. Doesn't mean that there is any connection with this festival. by the way, with "acting like it was christmas all year" i meant being more helpful, friendly and nice to people, confess your love to them, however you express your feelings toward others... It seems to me that especially at xmas time EVERYBODY seems to be friendly only because it is "christmas". Hey, people could be nice to you and me all day, right?
And, yes, presents are always nice no matter you like the person or not. absolutely true. company's discovered this fact and persuade you to buy stuff by sending you litte pencils or other more or less useless accessoires...
I personally would not refuse an honest gift or something I could need, but I refuse this BIG BUSINESS associated with certain events or persons. Hey, if there wouldn't be christmas, then some shrewd businessman would convince people to celebrate spring, or mother's day or something else.
Today I thought about the impact of not celebrating xmas. If a million or more people would agree not to celebrate xmas and thus not buying any presents, a whole economy would feel the loss. In these days most of the money is made by companys selling more or less useless stuff to neurotic people, who are searching for presents for their `beloved ones`.
In this forum I often read about questions how to `fight` against `the system`, that it seems almost impossible, that ONE alone has no influence whatsoever etc.
What if people demonstrate their power and do not buy any more or less useless stuff only to participate in a common `tradition`? President Bush made it illegal for dock workers to strike (that implies that for the economy it is crucial that dock worker do their job) -(YOU told me that)-. But what if people decide not to take any action in xmas time? Wouldn`t it be devastating for the economy? Would it not be an appropriate demonstration of the power of `the masses`?
Today, I`ll will carry out Tom`s advice and become an observer of the whole happening...
The problem is not Xmass (or any other festival)itself, but people who, like you noticed, behave like neurotics.
Arabs, buddhists and many other people do not celebrate Xmass. Even if the Festival of Santa Claus could become out of fashion, establishment would lead the flock to celebrate other things, such as Spring, New Year, Mother's Day and other seemingly innocent annual occasions. The more innocent - the better so that objections are minimized.
You are correct that if enough people refused to celebrate imposed occasions and purchased only what they needed, the so-called "economy" would experience major trouble.
There would be no market for useless items to begin with, if people begun to revise what they really needed. And this would be a MAJOR step in a positive direction. Its consequences would be far reaching on the planetary scale. As you know, "economy" is market-driven. Can you guess what would happen if the "market" became more intelligent and begun to define Real Needs such as a hydrogen car for example?
*laughs* You will NEVER get rid of cars running on gasoline; not because of the people: because of the elite few who make so much money with oil. Do you really think `populace pressure` will change this ?
I can assure you that no sane businessman will ever produce a gasoline car if people choose not to buy it.
Businessmen are not stupid. They will never invest in anything that cannot be sold for profit. Hence, buyers have a real power, but they are unable/unwilling to use it.
Do you tell people that you love them only during christmas? To be honest with you, I never tell people how I feel about them. My friends and my family knows, because they know me.
about buying presents....do you really think that all of a sudden people will stop buying things for special occasions? even is...let's say 1/8 of all buyers decided to stop buying presents at christmas....it wouldn't change a thing.
I know that arabs don't celebrate xmas, but they've got other holidays (my friend's muslim)
You have a different opinion. I finished a commercial school and learned that selling things to many people is crucial for the survival of a company. Even if only 1/8 of a certain amount of customers would buy nothing, that still would be 1/8. And that is a certain amount. What is sure about that, that even one 1/8 of sales loss (which could be growing) is a loss of money. Management of a company then has to decide what to do. No businessman would ever produce something, that cannot be sold.
still, if other people bought it, business men would have a certain income of money. and money's money. because: things could be worse.
but i do respect your opinion
> still, if other people bought it, business men would have
> a certain income of money. and money's money. because:
> things could be worse.
> but i do respect your opinion
Thank you for your kind words.
Not long ago I heard a very interesting interview concerning multinational companies. British Petroleum for example has more economic power than Argentina. The heads of multinationals are not elected and not limited by a say 6 year "term of service" unlike governments for example. Multinationals can operate in secret and silently, undisturbed by media and others who might get insight in their actions.
There are certain things everybody knows. Often not governments are leading the country but unions of these multinationals, using the leaders of governments as their puppets.
They destroy the idea of free markets, because they can use their own outlets in other countries to avoid exchange rates, import and export duties etc.
Multinationals with enough influence slow down the appliance of new technologies. Have you ever wondered why our cars are petroleum driven for more than 60 years? Do you really believe that no more efficient technology is available that is even cheaper than the one used now?
Media who's duty it would be to unveil such mismanagement is not even gawking. They might be even controlled by those multinationals.
You get the point.
I'm not here to critizise anything. I only want to enhance my context and bring certain things to my concious attention. Everybody who has an opinion is welcome to share it with me. I appriciate that very much. I find this topic very interesting because I don't believe anymore in a perfect world as it is often promoted.
If everybody knows a detail of something, we could put it together to a greater picture.
I think your point of view is indeed very interesting. But somehow I can't believe that multinationals use the leaders of the government. Because after all, the president has been elected by the people.
Of course, it's a different story in countries like Argentina (if you only think about the country's history).
and maybe media can't report about it because there's nothing to report about.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to critisize you, but why exactly do you think there is a conspiracy going on?
> Don't get me wrong, I don't want to critisize you, but
> why exactly do you think there is a conspiracy going on?
Of course, there is nothing to worry about.
Please consider, though, who sponsered phenomenal amounts of money in propaganda campaigns for elected presidents. You cannot really elect somebody if you do not know him, right? Many of the former presidents of various countries receive great amount of money, because they promise to work in a certain lobby's interest. Don't you agree?
I say that there are many companies who only make profit when they deceive people. Please consider our health sector. Would you say that anybody involved in health business made any profit or had any business whatsoever if people were healthy? Or if they presented permanent CURES for diseases?
If you are in doubt about this medical issue, please surf to a renommated doctor's homepage for more detailed information: www.mercola.com
Back to conspiracy: I definetely do not say, that there is a conspiracy going on, because if it were, I would not know anything about it. It would be kept in secret. The things I talk about are those which are obvious. At least to me. I only collected data and created some links between them. Finally I made some kind of conclusion. For me.
Perhaps all these things are really hard to see if no sufficient contrast is given. Why I got interested in these kinds of topics is because in my school we learnt about it. About the sweet side of economy. I was supposed to recite answers. Nobody liked me to ask questions.
Once my teacher was talking about science and development. That a government is interested in developing and supporting new sciences and technologies to improve lifestyle of its society. At this point a certain question arouse in my mind: "What if the government itself would have NO interest whatsoever in supporting a certain technology, because it would rather do harm than help. Have you ever considered why we drive our cars with gasoline for more than 80 years now? I personally do not think that there is NO other, cheaper, more economical solution available.
Think of replacing gasoline motors with some other kind of technology (hydrogen for example). Why would a government definately not be interested in introducing such a technology. Think of oil prices. Taxes. Not even considering the power and influence of those gigantic oil companies...
I think we live in a world where certain things are wanted to come to a standstill. In order to maintain "stability".
If I recall correctly, in Kenia they have developed a packaging material which is made out of weed. It it purely natural and 100% recyclable. But the company do not want it to introduce it in worldmarket because they fear that somebody might overtake them and cut the project.
You get the point.
But if you're for example communist and you want to work for the communist party, what's so wrong about that? and if you are elected as president, well, that's fine. Of course you'd want to achieve what your party stands for, hm?
But you simply can't cure some diseases. Cancer, for instance. Or AIDS. Some people respond to chemo therapy, others don't. It's tragic and may be unfair but that's how it is. Billions are spent on medical research every year.
But we, the people, elected the people in the government. So it doesn't matter if a government is or isn't interested in supporting certain developments. As long as the people like to support it, the government has to fall into line.
Think about Marx' theory, he wanted to overthrow the government for "stability". I believe, that there will be a new image of "stability" every few years. Maybe we'll once be able to drive a car without gasoline. But we're obviously not ready for that yet.
> But if you're for example communist and you want to work
> for the communist party, what's so wrong about that? and
> if you are elected as president, well, that's fine. Of
> course you'd want to achieve what your party stands for,
Imagine your country of choice as a boat.
Every boat must have its captain, but to run well it requires skill and a spirit of cooperation among the sailors, as well as their respect for their captain.
If, as well as being knowledgeable, experienced and quick thinking, the captain is also fair and honest, the chances are great that his crew will do its best by him. It is, ultimately, the intrinsic worth of the captain - regardless of his political or religious leanings - that will determine the effectiveness of his operation.
Imagine, for example, that a captain had to be elected by his crew, more for reasons of politics than for his skill in navigation and his cool-handedness in times of danger. To imagine the situation better, let?s suppose we are watching an actual election. We are standing on a leading dock where 150 crew members are assembled with three candidates for command of a ship. The first is a democrat, the second, a communist, and the third a conservative. Among the crew members, there are 60 with communist leanings, 50 democrats and 40 conservatives. Now, I am going to show you that this affair cannot be conducted appropriately.
The communist candidate is obliged to make certain promises to the democrats and conservatives if he wants to win; because he is only ?guaranteed? 60 of the votes. He must convince at least 16 men from the other parties that it is in their interests to elect him. But will he be able to keep the promises he makes? And, of course, the same applies to the other two candidates.
When one or the other of these captains is at sea, he will always find that a significant number of his crew are fundamentally opposed to his having command, so there is always a significant risk of mutiny.
Of course, this is not the method by which a captain achieves his command - fortunately. I merely wished to illustrate the dangers that are inherent in electing leaders on the basis of political bias rather than for their ability to lead people, honestly, in appropriate directions.
While on the subject, I must emphasise another point. When our ?captain-elect? is at sea, he is the one and only leader of the vessel, whereas, when a party leader is elected as head of state, he is immediately confronted with a ?Leader of the Opposition?. From the very beginning of his leadership, whether his decisions are good or bad, he will be systematically criticised by an opposing party bent on his demise. How can a country be properly governed under such a system?
I thought that would interest you. Further details ->
> But you simply can't cure some diseases. Cancer, for
> instance. Or AIDS. Some people respond to chemo therapy,
> others don't. It's tragic and may be unfair but that's
> how it is. Billions are spent on medical research every
If you are interested in this topic, may I kindly draw your attention to the following literature: Deepak Chopra - Quantum Healing and Tom J. Chalko - The Joy of Perfect Health. These are very interesting books, I learnt much from them. For me it was kind of obvious that the mental state of a person with a certain "incurable" disease is crucial to its healing. I know that, because my father suffered from bone-mark cancer 6 years ago. Please don't take me wrong, but I must say that somehow I believe that his disease was deserved and that he took part in this particular disease process. I think it would be very important for my father to know the reasons of his disease.
4 years ago he recovered from it, through means of chemo-therapy but still is not healthy anyway. He aged substantially. And his behaviour, which I believe was supposed to be changed by him, because of his disease (it function as a kind of reminder), is the same old anyway. I always 'knew' that he is not gonna die. But somehow I think that it would have been better for him to search for alternative methods of healing instead of interacting with certain disease mechanism (by means of chemo-therapy) and so ignoring the true reasons for his sickness.
The thing that I am afraid of is that he is going to be sick again, if he continues to behave in the same old manner...
> But we, the people, elected the people in the government.
> So it doesn't matter if a government is or isn't
> interested in supporting certain developments. As long as
> the people like to support it, the government has to fall
> into line.
> Think about Marx' theory, he wanted to overthrow the
> government for "stability". I believe, that there will be
> a new image of "stability" every few years. Maybe we'll
> once be able to drive a car without gasoline. But we're
> obviously not ready for that yet.
I totally agree with that. I must say, that if there is no demand there is no supply. Products are only sold because somebody is buying them. Why are they buying them? I think, because they have a need for it. Why does anyone has a need for anything? I think, because it is either a quite natural need (like food, water, clothes, etc) or it has been arisen through the means of advertisement, public opinion, etc. I am sure, that you know that.
In the past I read a lot about sustainable development. As I recall this whole thing is about using resources in the most efficient way, without wasting any. In my opinion this an individual effort. When I was in America (California) a year ago, the first thing I was told, that these "stupid environmentalists" do not let the state build another nuclear power plant. It was at the time the "Californian Energy Crisis" took place. When we got to our host-family I wondered why they never turned of the light off by night at the base level of their house. Why their house was unreachable by means of public transportation. No trains, no buses, no trams, only highways. Why they ate with disposable dishes and cutlery when they had a dishwasher. I was really surprised, because this is quite unusual in Europe.
I'm sorry that your father has been sick. I believe that it isn't easy for family members to probably have to face the death of somebody they love.
Just out of curiosity: Have you turned to any religious beliefs? Maybe this will help you to overcome your fear.
What I wanted to say: Have you ever heard of John Locke? What he said about the right of resistance? I'm pretty sure you'd be interested in it.
Have you turned to any religious
> beliefs? Maybe this will help you to overcome your fear.
If you mean that seriously, please explain how in particular any religious belief can help me in overcoming my fear?
> What I wanted to say: Have you ever heard of John Locke?
> What he said about the right of resistance? I'm pretty
> sure you'd be interested in it.
I will try to find some information about that! thanks!
> So long,
07.02.2003 (12:38 Uhr) Unbekannt
> Have you turned to any religious
> > beliefs? Maybe this will help you to overcome your fear.
> If you mean that seriously, please explain how in
> particular any religious belief can help me in overcoming
> my fear?
For example, if you're afraid of something and then you start praying, it can help you a great deal. When I have to get over something, I always take my siddur and start praying. And I always feel better afterwards. But that doesn't mean that everybody feels the same way afterwards.
There is a wonderful prayer. If you want me to, I can post it.
> There is a wonderful prayer. If you want me to, I can
> post it.
> Feel good
Well, I am very curious!
08.02.2003 (18:22 Uhr) Unbekannt
Unhurt us, G'd, then we are unhurt. Help us, then we are helped. It is you all our hymnes of praise glorify. Recuperate us from maladies, ease our pain and heal our wounds. Because you are G'd, you unhurt and you have mercy, you are faithful.
Praised be you, Eternal. You heal maladies.
There are several more prayers, each one has a different function.
Thank you for your prayer. Excuse my direct question, is it because of your religion that you must not write or even pronounce the name of the creator?
You are excused. ;-)Exactely. I'm very religious, not everybody handles it the way I do.
Dies ist ein Beitrag aus dem Forum "Motzl's Forum". Die Überschrift des Forums ist "Forum für den Meinungsaustausch".
Komplette Diskussion aufklappen | Inhaltsverzeichnis Forum Motzl's Forum | Forenübersicht | plaudern.de-Homepage