Transactional Analysis versus ethics that are said to be transactional.

In my past, there was a trend in psychology called "Transactional Analysis." It was about dividing the self into the roles of parent, adult and child to analyze human interaction. A topic of discussion in the liberal UCC Church where I grew up. I remember someone saying that he thought TA was replacing the Bible in discussions.

Today's talk is about past ethics being replaced with choices being "Transactional." Donald Trump the master of transactional deals. This is something totally different. I'd say this has been brought on more by many conservative Christians and others who voted for Trump.

According to an AI search I did, "When people say things are becoming transactional, they mean that human connections, daily interactions, and social expectations are increasingly treated like business deals, trades, or contracts rather than acts of care."

I say it is the ethics of things like dividing up the world into spheres of influence versus international cooperation. It is ideas such as "might makes right" and "the winner keeps the spoils;" more like the old ethics of the conquering Roman Empire.

As for writings in the Bible, those are among many things discussed and debated in liberal, open minded environments. Compassion, charity, love, conquest, rules, drama; you name it. Thinking of those writings as rigid laws is problematic. Unlike the laws of physics, which seem iron clad, ethical ideas offer lots of opportunity for civil discussion.

In liberal circles, compassion, charity and love tend to get more emphasis.

Was pressure from Israel a big reason for Trump to start the war with Iran?

Tucker Carlson is now critical of Trump; especially the war on Iran. A war largely driven by the government of Israel according to Carlson in an interview on NPR.

In my own thoughts, Carlson has been an advocate of conservative agendas and agendas can go too far. Trump has stumbled into the war in Iran, which in some ways does not suprise me. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is also a hardliner, religious conservative along with the leaders of Iran. Hardline, religious conservatives.

I even think it could be true that creation of the state of Isreal, in reaction to the German atrocities in World War II, was likely a mistake. I have heard that hindsight can be better than forsight.

Still, Israel's recent scorched earth reaction against the Palistinians in Gaza is a reaction out of fear and concern for safety after the brutal Hamas attack on Isreali civilians on October 7 2023. Violence begets violence.

I am hoping for at least a slightly more liberal leadership, in Israel, after the upcoming election there. Also hoping for more liberal members of Congress to better put guardrails on our president, after the US elections in November.

The people and the nations that exist on earth are realities that we still have to work with, or maybe work around. Change seems to best come incrementally.

I also think part of Trump's war against Iran was his desire to help the civilian protesters, who were rising up against that brutal regime at that time. The war was not a good strategy.

At this point, it seems like Saudi Arabia is benefiting from higher priced oil now being pushed, by the US military, through the Persian Gulf at higher prices.

Oil dependency still plays a big part in recent wars, including George Bush's first war against Iraq in 1990; Operation Desert Shield. This was partially waged to protect stability of oil supply out of the gulf for the global economy. There was that dispute over sideways drilling and so forth between Kuwait and Iraq. We and many other nations got involved when Iraq invaded Kuwait.

President Carter warned us of the possibility of major wars in the Persian Gulf clear back in the 1970s when world dependency, on that oil, was a big issue. Remember his speech about that thin line of oil tankers stretching halfway around the world?

Back then, the Vietnam War and even the Red Scare and the Cold War was starting to fade into history.

Is pride sinful? The sinful concept is more likely arrogance.

Some religious people think of pride as being a sin. I got to thinking that people get the concepts of pride and arrogance mixed up. Some of my conversations with AI indicate that other writers have similar thinking.

Arrogance, the thinking you're better than others, looking down on others is more the concept that is problematic.

Definitions of words can vary over time and when translated between languages, such as from ancient scriptural writings until today.

Self righteousness can be related to arrogance. Someone who refuses to consider another opinion often thinking they are always right is self righteous.

Humbleness is more a virtue. Scientists often admit that an old theory they had was wrong when tested against better evidence. There's the term "back to the drawing board."

As for the name of the pride parades, the word pride may seem "in your face" to some people, but it is different than arrogance.

Other words that relate to the concept are acceptance and gratitude. There is acceptance that one is okay and one's life has been okay.

Another concept that seems lacking in modern society is gratitude. Having gratitude for what we have and acceptance of who we are can bring peace of mind.

Could conservative religions be leading the world to declining population due to more deaths instead of fewer births?

Conservative religious values, that have contributed to the rise of the Republican Party, are also leading to more deaths of children and adults around the world. They were talking about the cuts to USAID in Canadian radio today. The US has made big cuts, but other countries, including Canada and European countries, are making cuts as well. This, to conserve money, speaking of conservative.

I've often thought that the world may soon be entering an era of declining population which could also conserve the environment. Still, this is more painful than less conservative values would be.

More generosity could help budgets, due to increasing prosperity for US and Canadian farmers. US farmers are among the first to feel Elon Musk's act of tossing USAID into the woodchipper, as he once put it. The woodchipper also cuts programs to deal with birth control which would be a less painful way to deal with the overwhelming numbers of people in need.

Ironic if people who call themselves right to lifers are backing this.

Much of the increase in deaths is due to lack of medical care around the world. Food, fuel and fertilizer shortages will add to the problems. More money is being spent, around the world, on military budgets. NATO countries are being asked to ramp up military spending and they are responding due to increasing threats, or at least perceived increasing threats, around the world.

The silver lining, in all of this, is that public opinions do change. They swing back and forth like pendulums. Even religion doesn't always have to be a force pushing politics to conservatism.

Lessons against close mindedness and oil dependency.

Like beligerant bullies playing in a sandbox, both the leaders of Iran and USA have gridlocked the Gulf of Hormuz with 20% of world's oil supply. A lesson against being closed minded and beligerant. Also a lesson against world dependency on fossil fuels.

Seems like neither US or Iran can back down now without loosing what they have invested in this conflict so far. They are both backed into corners with billions of dollars worth of paint.

The choice between dogmatic religion and atheism is bleak. Liberal, open minded religion seems more palatable.

The choice between the dictatorial god of fundamentalists and no soul or spiritual dimension of atheism is a stark and bleak world, in my opinion. I prefer liberal religious organizations that don't dictate what people believe. There can still be, at least a hope, that there is more to life than just the chemical reactions we are made out of. Beyond clear evidence, from science, what is possible and what one wants to believe is anyone's guess.

Religion can be a space for creativity and people often say, "today's science fiction can become tomorrow's science."

It's true that even scientists don't always stick, unquestioningly, to a rigid set of beliefs. Science follows evidence, but scientific ideas change as our understanding of evidence changes. Science evolves.

I think people may have evolved with survival instincts that program us to avoid death and to seek things like meaning and comfort. If these hopes are removed, our society and psychology seems to suffer. On the otherhand unquestioned beliefs in things without scientific evidence can be a problem as well.

I think liberal churches provide more of a balance between rigid fantasies and total lack of what we loosely refer to as "soul."

Churches are not necessary, but they are one source of community as well. It seems like we are evolved to seek community as well.

While I am not in a church, I often go to events held in church buildings.

I grew up in the United Church of Christ, a liberal denomination.

The summer after my freshman year in college, I went back to a discussion in the church of my childhood. It was a "talk back to the minister" event.

In the discussion, I brought up an idea that there was a difference between faith and belief.

I said most people think of faith as an unchanging belief, but I redefined faith as a less tangible connection between the universe, or something we call god, and ourselves. I thought of faith as being a transcendent reality beyond just the words of a belief.

This philosophy professor, named Dr. Bundy at Washington State University, was also in that discussion. He was very impressed with my contribution to the discussion; especially at my young age. My mom was in that discussion as well and was beaming with pride. I remember walking out of that discussion on cloud 9.

Some of those ideas, about transcendence, probably came from learning Transcendental Meditation during high school.

In Pullman, and across the nation, there was a fad in the early 1970s to learn Transcendental Meditation. Posters of the Maharishi were all over the WSU campus.

I decided to try it.

Discussions about these types of things were very welcome in the church I grew up in.

Since then, I have not kept up the twice a day practice of meditation however.

Right to life politics brings death.

In the name of right to life, Christian nationalists have brought us the politics of more death. Huge cuts in USAID and now a poorly planned war. A true irony.

Not all religious people are right wing nationalists, but Christian nationalists dominate the Trump Administration these days.

Authoritarian religions reduce population through killing and starvation, but there are nicer alternatives.

Several years ago, I wrote that a worldwide turn toward authoritarian religious values could lead to a higher deathrate and possibly a large reduction in human population. A way to reduce overpopulation. This due, not to birth control or alternative lifestyles, but more wars and famine; an irony to the concept of valuing life.

It does seem like we are on the road toward that, but I still hold the hope that opinions can change and the world can change course. This "mass die-off" scenario can still be only one of many possible futures. We could still have a brighter future, depending on how things are managed. Even religious values don't have to be authoritarian. They can embrace innovation, open mindedness and diversity.

I have quite a few friends that are atheist, but here is what I say to them.

I think I would be depressed if I totally ruled out any possibility of something beyond the limited material experience that we have before death. Nothing, beyond this short life, is also in the rehlm of possibility even though it is a depressing thought.

I don't think religion is an exact science. Even what's considered scientific understanding, itself, changes. It's not fixed for all time. New evidence can change what, in the past, has been thought of as scientific fact. Beyond scientific evidence is anyone's guess. There is room for creative thinking.

The church I grew up in doesn't really have an unquestioned dogma. Some people, including a few atheists, go to churches, like the one I grew up in, as it's just another community center. I don't attend a church now, but I do visit churches for community events as well as a lot of speculative discussions.

There is a lot of momentum in churches as community gathering spaces. That alone can be a pragmatic reason that some atheists can value regardless of whether there is a spiritual dimension to life, or not.

Compassionate religion needs more publicity than hateful religion.

We need to hear the more compassionate and loving side of religion. Good to hear what Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico, from Texas, is saying.

Fundamentalist religious believers going to war over their differences while many people are caught in the middle.

We seem to be in an era where fundamentalist religious believers are going to war over their differences while lots of people are caught in the middle.

I prefer open mindedness and diversity.

Going to war for the Christians while starving the people.

A recent editorial in New York Times discusses Trump's possible plan to use military force in Nigeria for protecting Christians from attacks in religious fighting. Muslims are attacking Christians, but Christians are also attacking Muslims. The editorial says that far more Nigerians are dying from Trump and Republican cuts to USAID; than in the rivalry. Also USAID costs less than another military intervention.

It is also said that some of the rivalry, in Nigeria, relates to Muslim Fulani herders who have conflicts with settled Christian farmers. Makes me think of the old tune from the movie Oklahoma about how the farmer and the cowman should be friends. In my own thinking, not found in the editorial, is the issue of population growth. Nigeria's population is among the fastest growing of world nations. Nigeria has far less land than USA so conflict over land use is likely. We even have that here.

I also think about the US churches, such as a branch of the Anglican Church, that has broken away from the western Anglican church due to the western church being more accepting of gay people. Religious prejudice against alternative lifestyles that are less apt to engage in procreation is one of the things that causes more death and suffering around the world.

Elon Musk foolishly supported and now gets burned by the MAGA cult.

Much of the MAGA world is having to eat it's own vicious medicine. I'm not surprised that there would be a falling out between Elon Musk and Trump.

Fire brand Steve Bannon, a media personality and former Trump aid, has also entered the fight. Without our government's checks and balances, Trump could, conceivably, seize, Musk's Space X company on national security grounds; as Bannon suggests. It's likely the courts would try to stop this, however; remember Trump's bullying of Harvard.

Space X has been a very important defense and space contractor. It's been the only reliable US provider for human space flight. Without it, astronauts would have no way to get back and forth from the International Space Station; except for riding on Russia's Soyuz capsules.

The US and Russia are no longer on friendly terms either, but scientists, on the Space Station, can still work together. If scientists can work together, why can't anyone else?

Religious fanatics, politicians, media stars and much of the public engages in nasty feuds. The volume of these feuds has been in high gear as folks like Trump, Musk and Bannon keep blathering.

I remember having quite a bit of respect for Musk with his reusable rockets, but more recently, it seems like he has bought the MAGA bug and gone off the rails; his Space X company still functioning thanks to calmer minded technical staff.

Maybe, if real scientists had more say in world affairs, we would be in much better shape.

Missed opportunities for meaningful dialog at Cal Anderson Park in Seattle.

In the news I read about an event and two protests in Seattle that went totally different directions than my thinking. The event was at Cal Anderson Park on Capital Hill. It was a religious rally related to the pro life movement, so I hear.

Counter protesters were pro transsexual and LGBTQ. My response to so called "pro life" is to point out the irony of pro lifers who support Republican policies of sending migrants back to dangerous countries and possibly kicking people off Medicaid. Wouldn't those policies be a threat to life?

The religious group is also, I'd guess, not friendly to us LGBTQ folks.

The religious folks sponsoring that event later held a protest at Seattle City Hall as they were upset with a message from the liberal mayor and the way the city handled the whole thing. There were arrests at both protests.

Disruptive and angry protests from either side are counterproductive. It's just people shouting past one another. Much of the protests were likely peaceful, but disruptive behavior soured the whole deal.

I still keep seeing the irony of folks saying they believe in the sanctity of life while livelihoods and healthcare are threatened for many.

Seen on the reader board at the church near where I live.

When the right to life begins at conception and ends at birth.

Seems like Republican thinking cares more about the lives of the unborn than the lives of children and adults already born.

The 8 billion+ people already on this planet is a lot of people. This has lead to immigration around the world as folks seek safer and better places to live. There is lots of pushback against immigration.

Now cutbacks in USAID are in the news as well as possible cutbacks in Medicaid funding for those in need.

Trump's cutback on USAID is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Picture of a local billboard about protecting life with some graffiti against government regulating women's bodies.

My message is somewhat different. I notice the irony about protecting life while sending an over supply of undocumented children and adults out of USA and potentially into harms way.

I took video, instead of still, because I noticed angle of sun and brisk wind made billboard look like it was on fire.

Some thoughts of mine about different churches.

Catholic church tends to believe that life begins at conception and should be valued throughout an entire lifetime, regardless of nationality. Catholics tend to support compassion and charity.

Conservative Protestant's are divided. Some tend to support charity while others support the politics of "holding on to your money." I think Bernie Frank once said, about the Christian Right that, "the right to life begins at conception and ends at birth."

Liberal churches, such as of my own upbringing, United Church of Christ, tend to support local choice in the reproductive matter. Not necessarily fans of abortion, but understanding that the complexity of these situations are difficult to dictate from afar; such as from the halls of Congress.

Liberal Christians tend to support compassion and sanctuary for people who face difficult situations in their lives.

Is belief in climate change and or belief in God just a hoax?

Some people feel that climate change is a hoax. Other people might feel that belief in something like a god is a hoax.

The objective truth stands separate from our own perceptions of what each of us think is the truth.

Poem by me. The Trump Comeback.

Is it the second coming of Donald Trump?

Some evangelicals think he’s anointed by God.

Then there is another meaning of the word come, or do I mean cum as in the stormy waters of Stormy Daniels?

How many evangelicals will stay on that ship or will they fall off to the ocean of soul searching?

Some hang on tight because of traditional marriage and commitment to money and power.

Glad I can still write this in USA, but who knows what the future could bring.

I couldn’t write stuff like this in the Christian nation of Russia, now at war with it’s former colony Ukraine.

I couldn’t write this in Afghanistan or Iran, noted for their hatred of “difference” and their war on women.

Scientific discussion can include speculation. Religious ideas can be part of the discussion as speculation.

I believe some ideas, thought of as religious or supernatural, can have validity as speculation. In science, there are many lines of thought that are speculation; for instance String Theory in cosmology. Scientists often speculate about big ideas beyond what's considered more proven fact.

String Theory, Quantum Gravity and other ideas, on the frontiers of physics and cosmology, are fodder for educated discussion. There may be a time in the future when more clear evidence becomes available bringing some these ideas into the realm of more fact, or on the other hand, these ideas might be discarded. In the past ideas that societies had about the earth being flat have been discarded, for the most part.

Speculation about big questions such as what brought the universe into existence, the meaning of life, whether there is any intent or design to the universe beyond us and even speculation about an afterlife, is all fodder for good discussion.

There is still a lot that we don't know. I think religion makes a mistake when speculations about these things are thought of as being proven fact. Speculation does have a place in real science, but speculation shouldn't be confused with more proven fact.

Thousands of years ago, many societies thought it was a fact that the earth was flat. This was based on the evidence one sees just standing on the level ground. We could have stuck to those so called facts, or we could speculate and explore the possibilities of things beyond that worldview.