Search Results: what does he mean when he says

If karma is there to make us feel pain, and people use the belief in karma/god to minimize emotional pain, then that necessitates karma to cause even more chaos in the physical world in order to finally force us to feel that original pain.

Christians are the same. Belief in salvation is used to silence the heart.

You can answer even if you believe that the collective unconscious is confined in the brain as a set of DNA programmed archetypes. I think the two screenshots below prove otherwise. But it does not imply any prepackaged schools of thought, for example, does not prove any "simulation", nor any kamaloca.

The message of religion appears to be that in order to end the suffering of one part, we must sacrifice another part. That is how karma needs to be extinguished, I agree. But mainstream religion has the parts switched:

I say suffer in your heart silently and karma will cease causing you physical and mental torment.

Religion says do these actions physically, avoid negative emotions, and hope for relief after death (or somehow feel pain without a body..)

If you always focus on the explanation of how it happened or say "it's in god's hands" to avoid feeling agony, then obviously no amount of pain will resolve your karma causing it.

Jesus said that to follow him has nothing to do with symbolizing or naming his name or using forgiveness to bypass the suffering, "disregard your own father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, and your own life..." means be heartbroken at every single cope and distortion subconsciously committed especially by our family because we are raised to believe that our parents' flaws are not to be upset about. Most harm in the world is unintentional and still we must feel the ache, deleted from excusing, no matter how excusable.

I approve of the constitutional republic created by the Founding Fathers and developed through the Constitution and its amendments. I support preserving its basic framework: separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism, Congress, the presidency, an independent judiciary, elections, individual rights, and the constitutional amendment process.

That does not mean I believe the system is perfect or that every institution, law, court ruling, or politician should be beyond criticism. Reform is possible within the constitutional system the Founders created.

What I strongly oppose is replacing that system altogether.

That is one reason I oppose the Democratic Socialists of America. The DSA’s current program says it is fighting to “draft a new constitution” and “create a democratic socialist republic.”

I do not want America transformed into a democratic socialist republic under a new constitutional order. I want to preserve the constitutional republic we already have and resolve our political disagreements through the institutions and amendment procedures it provides.

So I’m curious where everyone else stands: Do you fundamentally approve of our current constitutional system, or would you prefer that it eventually be replaced with a different political order?