Posted on Jan 14th, 2008
by 
Jordan
What do you believe spirit is made of? Specifically, what atomic-level elements from the periodic table are responsible for spirit? I'm referring not to the drink, but the human spirit as described in religious books. And if you don't believe spirit is composed of elements like hydrogen and oxygen, then what do you believe it is made of? I'm guessing that spirit is made of air (oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen). But, I could be wrong.
Tagged with:
spirit,
chemicals,
elements,
periodic,
table,
science,
religion,
religious,
holy,
bible,
book,
question,
god,
jesus,
meditation
Posted on Dec 23rd, 2007
by Jordan
Here is a post I made on a pod:
This is great. My true passion is dialogue about peace. My intial post was the public version, and when I am in dialogue with particular individuals, I try to be much less competetive, and more understanding and cooperative. Afterall, it's about peace among all people, not just my own recognition. I've thought about these things for myself without reading or hearing it from other people. In response to you David, it is very complicated and I sort of want to have some sort of organization to the line of thought.
First of all I need to say that I thank you David for your work in the military. Whether or not you have killed people, you are a man that is working to protect America and Americans. I am not against having state sponsored militaries. I understand that the way things are right now in the world, people need to do all they can to protect themselves from other people who intentionally and aggressively try to harm and kill them and others. Thank you David. Thank you America.
Let me step back a little from this post and say that I wish we could have an instant message (IM) dialogue, and then post it here. I think it's more real and efficient than sending emails and posts in the traditional way.
One of my favorite lead in questions regarding peace is: Do you think it is okay to intentionally kill other people sometimes?
Here is where things get complicated. Why? Because I tend to think globally instead of nationally. Most of us respond to the question about killing in this way: Yes, it is okay to kill sometimes because we need to protect ourselves and others from killing and harming us. Unless we kill the aggressors, then we will die. Okay. Let me do my best to explain. I ask the question not just of Americans. I ask the question of all people. I ask that question even to terrorists. Here is a senario. If all people don't agree with killing others, then there is nobody to kill in order to protect ouselves. If you answer YES, it's okay to kill others sometimes, then there is another person sitting behind an AK-47 on the other side of the world that will say that there is a guy wearing an American military uniform that believes it's okay to kill me, so I should kill him first.
This is not coming out as clear as I wanted to write about it. I'll try to simplify it. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If you don't think it's okay to kill people sometimes, then other people won't think it's okay to kill you (in theory). Regardless our of cultural, economic, political, and religious differences, if all people can answer NO, to the killing question, then nobody is targeted to die. We can have dialogue to settle differences and cooperate with others.
Well, I'm not sure if that last paragraph made sense, but I think my next idea will be more understandable. Why do people kill? They think that if they kill, then they will be protecting themselves and others. Protect and defend is the key. Here is the reason why I stand behind David and the military. They can only defend with the tools and training they have been given. They aren't necessarily paid to think of different ways to defend people without killing. They are trained with an assault rifle and told that the way to defend is to kill or capture the enemy. That's about it in a nutshell.
If you have the tools to defend without killing, would you still choose to kill? I think most of us, whether in the military or not, would answer, NO. So, why don't we have the method to defend without killing? Because we don't want to. For some reason, we (people) want to inflict pain and suffering on others because we want to get revenge. We want to see others suffering in pain. Why? That's a whole other story I can talk about later. So, David and everyone reading, here is the next question:
If you had the technology to defend yourself and others without killing, would you still keep open the option to kill other people sometimes? Yes or no?
Tagged with:
kill,
peace,
life,
death,
military,
techology,
gun,
government,
america,
americans,
terrorist,
idea,
war,
violence,
defend,
protect
government
October 2008 
Access: Public