What do you think is the most important lesson mankind has to learn?
When we reflect upon mankind’s evolution, we can come to the conclusion that a society that doesn’t live in harmony is bound to destroy itself: technology not only continually makes everything become more sophisticated – and today we have weapons of mass-destruction -, but also continually enables a smaller percentage of the world population to appropriate a larger percentage of all resources, thus increasing the tension between different groups of people and between people and the environment.
Since our survival depends on how we react to this threat, this conclusion is, without any doubt, the most important lesson mankind has to learn. Nuclear weapons and the climate’s change make that we cannot afford to ignore this reality much longer.
Is mankind indeed close to its self-destruction?
Assuming that to avoid self-destruction, we only have to pollute less, and not let it come to a nuclear war, is unrealistic. We should neither ignore that living in harmony with the environment and living in harmony with the others are interrelated, nor that our struggle for the resources continually creates more tension between different groups of people, and between people and their environment. We can compare our situation with a pressure cooker that doesn’t have an escape valve. How can we expect it never to explode when we continually increase the heat?
Can mankind’s self-destruction be avoided?
Of course it can be avoided. To do so we only have to establish harmony. This means that we have to discover why we have conflicts with the other people and with the environment and then do something about it. Those who believe harmony on earth is impossible, assume that some people are good and others are evil, and that nothing can be done about it. However, there may be a reason why people are evil or behave evilly, as nobody has managed to demonstrate the opposite.
Why do philosophers and scientists ignore this reality?
Many philosophers and scientists have warned against the consequences of either a nuclear war or the climate’ change. They have not come to the conclusion that a society that doesn’t live in harmony is bound to destroy itself because they have not reflected enough on harmony: they are either unaware of the fact that living in harmony with the other people and living in harmony with the environment are interrelated, or consider this impossible, because they assume that there will always be good and bad people. However, this assumption ignores the principle of cause and effect: the idea that each cause has its effects and each effect its causes.
When one assumes that harmony is impossible, the idea that a society that doesn’t live in harmony is bound to destroy itself entails that mankind’s self-destruction is inevitable. And since a problem that seems to have no solution causes a lot stress, as a defense mechanism, we tend to ignore it.
Does Genesis, the first book of the Bible, recognize this reality?
The most important important idea of the Bible is that our ancestors once lived in harmony (paradise) because it offers people an ideal for the future. Genesis also says that ten generations after putting an end to harmony, a great catastrophe occurred – the great flood –and only a few people survived. Therefore, it recognizes the fact that a society that doesn’t live in harmony is eventually bound to destroy itself.
Why do theologians ignore the essence of the Bible?
Since theologians ignore that a society that doesn’t live in harmony is bound to destroy itself, they also ignore that the Bible recognizes this reality, and this is in fact its main message. Theologians who have warned against the end of the world have seen this as a punishment for mankind’s behavior instead of seeing mankind’s self-destruction as the ultimate consequence for not living in harmony.
Can the Bible help us avoid mankind’s self-destruction?
The Bible can definitely help to avoid mankind’s self-destruction: with Genesis saying that mankind put an en to harmony by eating a forbidden fruit, asking why we have the conflict with the others and with the environment is the same as asking what the forbidden fruit refers to. To discover the nature of the forbidden fruit, it makes a lot of sense to recognize that Genesis associates harmony with a vegetarian diet, since God prescribed a diet to Adam and Eve that did not include animal produce.
What can we learn from this important lesson?
The idea that a society that doesn’t live in harmony is bound to destroy itself invites us to reflect upon many different subjects from a completely new perspective and thus encourages us to formulate many questions. Wisdom not only comes from processing information right – seeing how new information affects all previous information –, but also from asking the right questions, since that eventually leads to a better comprehension of ourselves and the world we live in.
Some of those questions are:
WARNING: READ ONLY FURTHER WHEN YOU HAVE TIME FOR SERIOUS REFLECTIONS!
A SOCIETY THAT DOESN’T LIVE IN HARMONY IS BOUND TO DESTROY ITSELF.
-How does this new conclusion affect our view on mankind’s evolution?
-Has mankind ever lived in harmony?
-Has mankind ever known an advanced civilization that almost completely destroyed itself?
-Can an advanced civilization survive when only a few people survive a huge catastrophe?
-Did the author of Genesis perhaps find proof of a civilization that once lived in harmony and, after putting an end to it, almost completely destroyed itself?
-Is asking what caused the BigBang not similar as asking who created God?
-Is wondering about the origin of the universe not similar as asking what came first: the chicken or the egg?
-Why do we assume there was a beginning?
-Can everything that exists today not have existed already in the past, since everything that will ever exist already exists in the universe of ideas?
-How does this new conclusion affect our view on extraterrestrial life?
-Is the most important question regarding extraterrestrial life not whether such communities live in harmony?
-When the inhabitants of another planet live in harmony, will they not see us as a menace?
-When the inhabitants of another planet do not live in harmony, should we not see them as a menace?
-Will we not eat extraterrestrials when they look like the other creatures we feed on?
-Will extraterrestrials not eat us when we look like the other creatures they feed on?
-Will we not enslave extraterrestrials – use them as cheap labour – when they are less intelligent?
-Will extraterrestrials not enslave us – use us as cheap labour – when we are less intelligent?
-Does respecting all creatures not make a lot more sense now?
-Was planet earth perhaps started as a correction camp for people who were unable to live in harmony?
-How does this new conclusion affect our view on science?
-Does this not demonstrate that, instead of bringing us salvation, science is taking us closer to self-destruction?
-Does this not demonstrate that we must stop idolizing science?
-How can scientists ignore a reality while an old work of religion recognizes it?
-How can scientists consider that a book, that recognizes the most important lesson that mankind has to learn, is full of myths?
-Does the fact that scientists ignore what awaits a society that doesn’t live in harmony not demonstrate how little they understand about the nature of the universe (how everything in the universe interacts)?
-Can we understand the nature of the universe when we ignore the principle of cause and effect (that every cause has its effects and every effect has its causes)?
-Is it not worrying that people, who ignore what awaits a society that doesn’t live in harmony, mark our material evolution?
-Since scientists ignore what awaits a society that doesn’t live in harmony, must we not take responsibility for the future?
-How does this new conclusion affect our view on philosophy?
-Does this new conclusion not show us that we are all in the same boat, and that when that boat sinks, we all perish?
-Does this new conclusion not show us that rich and poor, believers and non-believers, good peole and bad people, all share the same fate?
-Does this new conclusion not show us that we can no longer afford to care only about our own fate, but must also care about that of all the others?
-Is it not amazing that philosophers ignore a reality that an old work of religion recognizes?
-How can philosophers consider that a book, that recognizes the most important lesson that mankind has to learn, is full of myths?
-Does the fact that philosophers ignore what awaits a society that doesn’t live in harmony not demonstrate how little they understand about the nature of the universe?
-Does the fact that our brightest minds ignore what awaits a society that doesn’t live in harmony not demonstrate that there is something wrong with how we process information?
-If our survival depends on mankind’s survival, must we not do everything possible to avoid mankind’s self-destruction.
-How does this new conclusion affect our view on the Bible?
-Does this not demonstrate that both believers and non-believers ignore something very important about the Bible?
-How did the author of Genesis come to the conclusion that a society that doesn’t live in harmony is bound to destroy itself?
-Did the author of Genesis perhaps discover that his ancestors once lived in harmony and, after putting an end to it, almost completely destroyed themselves?
-Was the Bible perhaps created to avoid mankind’s future self-destruction?
-Can we perhaps find in the Bible how to avoid mankind’s self-destruction?
-How do we explain that the Bible holds a secret that our brightests minds have ignored?
-Is it possible that what both believers and non-believers think the Bible says, is not what it really says, so that science only contradicts a particular interpretation of that book?
-Is it not so that when we assume that Adam and Eve refer only to the first people that put an end to harmony, instead of being the first people on earth, science no longer contradicts Genesis?
-Does this reality that Genesis acknowledges not confirm that calling a book ‘sacred’ originally meant to recognize it holds secrets and that ‘religion’ originally referred to reading a book many times in order to discover its secrets?
-Does also the fact that the first five books of the Bible were written in old Hebrew, which just as the first alphabet only recognized consonants, not demonstrate that it indeed hold secrets?
-Does the fact that the Greek words ‘genesis’ and ‘gnosis’ hold the same combination of consonants not mean that we can associate the first book of the Bible (about the origin of mankind and the universe) with sacred wisdom?
-Is assuming that a sacred book holds secrets not very different than assuming that everything it says is true?
-Is it not because a sacred book is assumed to say the truth, that people either accept or reject it?
-Does it not make sense to question all information, including that in a sacred book?
-Does it not make sense to see how a sacred book can help us reflect upon reality?
-Was the Bible perhaps created to reveal its secrets now that we find ourselves close to self-destruction?
-Is it possible to create a mystery that will reveal its secrets at a particular time in mankind’s evolution?
-Is the idea that mankind must try to restory harmony not at the origin of all monotheist religions?
-How can religious authorities ignore the most important lesson mankind has to learn, when the Bible, a book they have studied so thoroughly, recognizes this reality?
-Does the fact, that religious authorities ignore the most important lesson mankind has to learn, not demonstrate how little they understand about the Bible?
-How can people, who ignore the essence of the Bible, claim to know how to interpret this book?
-How can people, who ignore that a society that doesn’t live in harmony is bound to destroy itself, claim to understand God (how everything in the universe interacts)?
-Can we understand God when we ignore the principle of cause and effect?
-Can we understand God when we associate God with a capricious ruler or father who says one day one thing and another something very different?
-Do agnostists and atheists perhaps only reject how believers interprete God?
-How can people who ignore that a society that doesn’t live in harmony is bound to destroy itself, and therefore we are all in the same boat, tell others how to behave?
-Is the golden rule – do not do to others what is hateful to yourself – not all we need to know about how to behave?
-Do the Ten Commandments not refer to the golden rule by summing up what we find hateful?
-Does karma not refer to the consequences of doing to others what is hateful to oneself?
-Does the golden rule not also entail that it how one obtains what one longs for is important, and the objective therefore never justifies the means?
-Have religious authorities not often caused a lot of harm to society by preaching against the golden rule?
-¿Did Moses, by demanding the death of people who disobeyed the Ten Commandments, not disobey the Ten Commandments himself?
-Was Moses not a descendant of Levi (both through his father and his mother) and did Jacob (Levi’s father and grandson of Abraham) not warn against this particular tribe?
-Does the fact that religious authorities ignore that we are all in the same boat – rich and poor, good and evil, believers and non-believers – not demonstrate how wrong they are about our society?
-Should we not demand of all religions and philosophies that they recognize the golden rule?
-How does this new conclusion affect our view on the Messiah?
Can we understand the nature of the Messiah (the person who will restore harmony on earth) when we ignore that a society that doesn’t live in harmony is bound to destroy itself?
-Is it not now, that we find ourselves close to self-destruction, that we need the Messiah?
-Will the Messiah restore harmony by revealing why we have conflicts with others and the environment?
-How can Christians assume that Jesus was the Messiah when he did not restore harmony?
-Since Jews believe harmony on earth is possible, and Jesus was a Jew, must we not investigate what made Christians assume this is impossible?
-Will perhaps Jesus’s second arrival restore harmony on earth?
-Do we not associate Jesus’ second arrival with the end of days and with a revelation?
-Was it because the first Christians believed in reincarnation, and assumed that Jesus’ second arrival would restore harmony, that they considered him the Messiah?
-If Jesus was a descendant of Abraham following a strict male lineage, can we not expect of Jesus’ second coming to be that as well?
-If Jesus had children, may we today not all be descendants of him?
-How does this new conclusion affect our view on the forbidden fruit?
-If Genesis says that eating the forbidden fruit made God expell us from paradise, does it not suggest that doing so put an end to harmony?
-Is asking why we have conflicts with the other people and with the environment not the same as asking what the forbidden fruit refers to?
-Is it perhaps because we assume that God can forbid something for no reason, that today we still don’t know what the forbidden fruit exactly refers to?
-Does it make sense to forbid something without explaining why it is forbidden?
-Does it make sense to blame mankind because of the forbidden fruit, like religious authorities do, without explaining what it exactly refers to?
-Do we perhaps still suffer the consequences of what our ancestors did, because we continue eating the forbidden fruit?
-Is it not amazing that people assume the Bible says the forbidden fruit refers to an apple when that book doesn’t say so at all?
-Is associating the forbidden fruit with an apple (there is nothing wrong with eating apples) perhaps a reason for ignoring that God may have had a reason to forbid a particular fruit?
-Was it perhaps after artists represented the forbidden fruit as an apple, that people began associating the forbidden fruit with that particular fruit?
-Does living in harmony not require learning everything there is to learn from our experiences, in order to avoid making the same mistakes over and over again?
-Does living in harmony not require recognizing all the consecuences of our behaviour?
-Did eating the forbidden fruit perhaps damage our perception of reality?
-To discover what the forbidden fruit refers to, must we not investigate what substances alter our perception of reality?
-Does the description of the forbidden fruit not seem to refer to the Arbutus Unedo (strawberry tree) which has fruits that contain alcohol?
-Do drugs not alter our perception of reality, by making us focus more on certain aspects, while we ignore others?
-Do drugs not make us focus on short time consequences while we ignore long time consequences?
-Do drugs not make us focus so much on what we long for that we no longer care how we obtain what we long for?
-Is it perhaps because of drugs that people began ignoring the golden rule?
-Did eating the forbidden fruit perhaps start a chainreaction of events which led society always further and further away from harmony?
-Do victims of abuse not suffer traumas which alter their perception of reality?
-Can we expect to recover a good perception of reality by staying away from drugs when traumas still alter our perception of reality?
-Are drugs not medicine and does it not make sense to ask what makes us sick instead of taking them?
-Did Mohamed discover what the forbidden fruit referred to and was that why he forbade alcohol?
-When we investigate what the forbidden fruit refers to, must we not recognize that Genesis associates paradise (harmony) with a vegetarian diet?
-Was it perhaps because of staying away from the forbidden fruit that people managed to stay away from eating other creatures?
-Is it not relevant that Genesis associates the end of harmony with a change in people’s diet?
-Were the first Christians not vegetarians who stayed away from alcohol (Acts14:21)?