Recent reflections and opinions on the Abrahamic religions. (Muslims, bible, Israel)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again, the most powerful thing is not brute force but powerful ideas.
Powerful ideas = ideas that create power/wealth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
It just has to coax people to see their own rational self-interest such that they eventually let go of bad ideas and embrace sustainable and good ones.
Don't you find it strange to use the term "good" alongside "self-interest"(IE selfishness)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
Yes it's a lost cause in terms of the zero to thirty years left to me on this earth. I won't see it realized. But I can move it along.
I think you have a naive and idealistic view of the world. I'm a cynical Machiavellian/Utilitarian/Darwinian. Maybe this quote from George Orwell will help you(this entire essay is worth reading if you haven't).
"Throughout recorded time, and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age, there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle, and the Low. They have been subdivided in many ways, they have borne countless different names, and their relative numbers, as well as their attitude toward one another, have varied from to age to age; but the essential structure of society has never altered. Even after enormous upheavals and seemingly irrevocable changes, the same pattern has always reasserted itself, just as a gyroscope will always return to equilibrium, however far it is pushed one way or the other.
The aims of these three groups are entirely irreconcilable. The aim of the High is to remain where they are. The aim of the Middle is to change places with the High. The aim of the Low, when they have an aim -- for it is an abiding characteristic of the Low that they are too much crushed by drudgery to be more than intermittently conscious of anything outside their daily lives -- is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal. Thus throughout history a struggle which is the same in its main outlines recurs over and over again. For long periods the High seem to be securely in power, but sooner or later there always comes a moment when they lose either their belief in themselves, or their capacity to govern efficiently or both. They are then overthrown by the Middle, who enlist the Low on their side by pretending to them that they are fighting for liberty and justice. As soon as they have reached their objective, the Middle thrust the Low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves become the High. Presently a new Middle group splits off from one of the other groups, or from both of them, and the struggle begins over again. Of the three groups, only the Low are never even temporarily successful in achieving their aims. It would be an exaggeration to say that throughout history there has been no progress of a material kind. Even today, in a period of decline, the average human being is physically better off than he was a few centuries ago. But no advance in wealth, no softening of manners, no reform or revolution has ever brought human equality a millimeter nearer. From the point of view of the Low, no historic change has ever meant much more than a change in the name of their masters.
By the late nineteenth century the recurrences of this pattern had become obvious to many observers. There then arose schools of thinkers who interpreted history as a cyclical process and claimed to show that inequality was the unalterable law of human life. This doctrine, of course, had always had its adherents, but in the manner in which it was now put forward there was a significant change. In the past the need for a hierarchical form of society had been the doctrine specifically of the High. It had been preached by kings and aristocrats and by the priests, lawyers, and the like who were parasitical upon them, and it had generally been softened by promises of compensation in an imaginary world beyond the grave. The Middle, so long as it was struggling for power, had always made use of such terms as freedom, justice and fraternity. Now, however, the concept of human brotherhood began to be assailed by people who were not yet in positions of command, but merely hoped to be so before long. In the past the Middle had made revolutions under the banner of equality, and then had established a fresh tyranny as soon as the old ones were overthrown. The new Middle groups in effect proclaimed their tyranny beforehand. The new movements, of course, grew out of the old ones and tended to keep their names and pay lip-service to their ideology. But the purpose of all of them was to arrest progress and freeze history at a chosen moment. The familiar pendulum swing was to happen once more, and then stop. As usual, the High were to be turned out by the Middle, who would then become the High; but this time, by conscious strategy, the High would be able to maintain their position permanently."
PS: In retrospect, maybe I should have posted this thread in Politics. Regardless, all Abrahamic religions are trash, but Jewish and Islamic supremacism are especially garbage.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 11-29-2023 at 03:17 PM..
I'm not talking about Jews, I'm talking about Judaism. Judaism established the first nation-state in history. Israel is literally an ethno-state(on the "promised land") with laws dictated by god, where the people are presumably descended from Abraham.
Islam also established a "state" governed by laws(Sharia) dictated by god. The "state" is inseparable from both Islam and Judaism. The state is everything to them. Whereas Christianity was essentially a revolt against the state. A revolt against (human) authority.
1) No, they resent you for stealing land and mistreating the Palestinians.
2) Here are a couple letters/statements from Albert Einstein. Enjoy.
Christianity does want to convert people, yes. But Christianity is fundamentally an ascetic religion. It is opposed to wealth and power. The example for Christians is Jesus, who spent all his time railing against the rich and powerful. The meek will inherit the Earth. The first will be last and the last will be first. Etc.
As a Jew, you should understand that the Romans killed Jesus because he was rebelling against their authority(and encouraging others to do so). The story about "the Pharisees, taxes, and give unto Caesar" only came about because Jesus was obviously preaching resistance to Roman rule. And even that story doesn't make it clear whether Jesus' followers should pay their taxes.
As I said, Christianity only functions when its rulers aren't Christian. They just use Christianity as a means to create slaves(Christians are the ideal slaves).
Go read Karl Marx, On the Jewish Question. He discusses all of this in that essay. Although the essay can be best summarized with this line...
"The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because he has acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from him, money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews."
The Christians have become Jews. Look around you. The Evangelicals are Jews. The Mormons are Jews. All Jews except in name. It's why they worship Jews, believe themselves the heirs of Jews, believe god blesses those who support the Jews, etc.
It's all prosperity-gospel bull****. Which essentially promises wealth through faith. It is everything Jesus preached against and has nothing to do with actual Christianity. A total corruption by degenerate materialistic capitalists.
So your belief is that basically the Jews are the cause of every religion's problems. Whatever.
Israel is literally an ethno-state(on the "promised land") with laws dictated by god, where the people are presumably descended from Abraham.
It is not a theocracy, though the ultra-orthodox are trying to make it into one, or at least goad it into acting like one in certain matters. It was a relatively liberal western-style democracy until, US-style, it was overrun by right wing nut jobs and a Trump-like authoritarian ruler.
I will grant you though that there was always this subtext of the chosen people in the promised land, so it has always had less separation of church & state ... and indeed really an established national religion, even if too big a tent for the hard-liners.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Islam also established a "state" governed by laws(Sharia) dictated by god. The "state" is inseparable from both Islam and Judaism. The state is everything to them. Whereas Christianity was essentially a revolt against the state. A revolt against (human) authority.
IDK ... the NT teaches followers to be subject to those in authority, render to Casesar that which is Caesar's, emphasis on a spiritual kingdom that often made believers indifferent to the state, etc. Doesn't sound very revolutionary to me. Many states throughout history have been puppets of the church, others deeply influenced ... so it's not even a practical problem IMO unless the state begins to persecute Christians and that always fails to stamp out unwanted ideologies, but rather drives them underground.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Christianity does want to convert people, yes. But Christianity is fundamentally an ascetic religion. It is opposed to wealth and power. The example for Christians is Jesus, who spent all his time railing against the rich and powerful. The meek will inherit the Earth. The first will be last and the last will be first. Etc.
It professes an aversion to wealth but most often practices an embrace of it. The NT describes early believers living in a commune "holding all things in common" but Christians mostly are anti-communist. So there's the theory and the practice.
As for asceticism ... yes in the sense that they wrongly identify the problem with the world as "sin" and associate it with the physical and pine for the imagined perfection of a future non-corporeal existence (or at most in a completely refactored, incorruptible body) ... but mostly no in the sense of hair shirts and self-flagellation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
As a Jew, you should understand that the Romans killed Jesus because he was rebelling against their authority(and encouraging others to do so). The story about "the Pharisees, taxes, and give unto Caesar" only came about because Jesus was obviously preaching resistance to Roman rule. And even that story doesn't make it clear whether Jesus' followers should pay their taxes.
As the tale is told (and I don't believe it to be historical) he was misunderstood even by the Jews; he was preaching a spiritual kingdom and spiritual freedom, and besides, the Jews wanted a strong, warring vanquisher of oppressors, a liberator ... and instead got meek and mild "turn the other cheek" Jesus. If you want to parse some parts of the gospel narratives as historical, others as not, help yourself, but IMO, even if there was a discrete Jesus in history on which the gospels were "based", there was no miracle-working god-man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
The Christians have become Jews. Look around you. The Evangelicals are Jews. The Mormons are Jews. All Jews except in name. It's why they worship Jews, believe themselves the heirs of Jews, believe god blesses those who support the Jews, etc.
It's all prosperity-gospel bull****. Which essentially promises wealth through faith. It is everything Jesus preached against and has nothing to do with actual Christianity. A total corruption by degenerate materialistic capitalists.
Nah I think you have devolved into dangerous stereotypes here. I agree that most Christians don't live up to what Christ is said to have preached. But this is not some master Jewish conspiracy to corrupt Christianity, Mormonism and whatever else. It is just garden-variety human greed and cultural factors like, e.g., American exceptionalism, unbridled capitalism, manifest destiny ... I think you are tying things together in an unwarranted fashion.
The "prosperity gospel" is a persistent phenomenon in certain evangelical circles but it is hardly pervasive throughout Christianity. I think if you interviewed 100 ministers across many denominations you might get 2 or 3 who would claim that you can "name it and claim it". Maybe you are asserting that some watered-down variant of this prosperity gospel has infected the church but I think it's the other way around. The Prosperity Gospel simply is a grift that takes the most greedy impulses in people, amplifies them, perhaps riffs on some of the lower-level hypocrisy elsewhere in modern Christian practice, and then sells people empty promises. To my knowledge Judaism is not Patient Zero here.
Last edited by Mightyqueen801; 11-29-2023 at 07:20 PM..
Reason: Corrected quote
It is not a theocracy, though the ultra-orthodox are trying to make it into one, or at least goad it into acting like one in certain matters. It was a relatively liberal western-style democracy until, US-style, it was overrun by right wing nut jobs and a Trump-like authoritarian ruler.
I will grant you though that there was always this subtext of the chosen people in the promised land, so it has always had less separation of church & state ... and indeed really an established national religion, even if too big a tent for the hard-liners.
IDK ... the NT teaches followers to be subject to those in authority, render to Casesar that which is Caesar's, emphasis on a spiritual kingdom that often made believers indifferent to the state, etc. Doesn't sound very revolutionary to me. Many states throughout history have been puppets of the church, others deeply influenced ... so it's not even a practical problem IMO unless the state begins to persecute Christians and that always fails to stamp out unwanted ideologies, but rather drives them underground.
It professes an aversion to wealth but most often practices an embrace of it. The NT describes early believers living in a commune "holding all things in common" but Christians mostly are anti-communist. So there's the theory and the practice.
As for asceticism ... yes in the sense that they wrongly identify the problem with the world as "sin" and associate it with the physical and pine for the imagined perfection of a future non-corporeal existence (or at most in a completely refactored, incorruptible body) ... but mostly no in the sense of hair shirts and self-flagellation.
As the tale is told (and I don't believe it to be historical) he was misunderstood even by the Jews; he was preaching a spiritual kingdom and spiritual freedom, and besides, the Jews wanted a strong, warring vanquisher of oppressors, a liberator ... and instead got meek and mild "turn the other cheek" Jesus. If you want to parse some parts of the gospel narratives as historical, others as not, help yourself, but IMO, even if there was a discrete Jesus in history on which the gospels were "based", there was no miracle-working god-man.
Nah I think you have devolved into dangerous stereotypes here. I agree that most Christians don't live up to what Christ is said to have preached. But this is not some master Jewish conspiracy to corrupt Christianity, Mormonism and whatever else. It is just garden-variety human greed and cultural factors like, e.g., American exceptionalism, unbridled capitalism, manifest destiny ... I think you are tying things together in an unwarranted fashion.
The "prosperity gospel" is a persistent phenomenon in certain evangelical circles but it is hardly pervasive throughout Christianity. I think if you interviewed 100 ministers across many denominations you might get 2 or 3 who would claim that you can "name it and claim it". Maybe you are asserting that some watered-down variant of this prosperity gospel has infected the church but I think it's the other way around. The Prosperity Gospel simply is a grift that takes the most greedy impulses in people, amplifies them, perhaps riffs on some of the lower-level hypocrisy elsewhere in modern Christian practice, and then sells people empty promises. To my knowledge Judaism is not Patient Zero here.
Thank you for a pretty reasoned argument. Unfortunately, it will fall on deaf ears with that poster.
I see you’ve glossed over my issues with the more troubling aspects of your post. But those aside…
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
There is plenty about Zionism that can be discussed but this is not the thread.
I agree that this is not the place for a deep dive. I only brought it up because when it comes to Judaism, I didn’t know what else you could possibly be referring to after the destruction of the Second Temple when it comes to heart-stopping violence and hate. To be clear, I don’t believe that universally applies to Zionism or the Zionist movement (I’m pretty sure you disagree, but I’m just stating my position and am not trying to debate you on it here). But I recognize that some heart-stoppingly violent and hateful things have been done by Zionist extremists (some of them from a religious standpoint as well as or instead of an ethnic one), which I absolutely abhor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
I try to be objective when I post, so i do not bring any assumptions about the poster to whose post i respond.
I may fail and fail many times, but that is what I try to do for the health of my own mind.
I think you’re really talking about two different things, so I’ll address them one at a time.
I try to be fair when I post. That may call for objectivity or subjectivity (often, but not always, the latter applies to matters of religion and spirituality). And it’s important to recognize the difference between the two. Most things, especially when it comes to our thoughts and feelings and philosophies, are subjective in very large part. I don’t think everyone has to feel the same way about the same things, and there is a broad range of viewpoints that I consider acceptable, even if I might disagree with them. I consider some things objectively wrong, like murder and bigotry. But I understand that even those concepts are ultimately subjective. People draw their moral contours in different ways and, unfortunately, some draw few to no moral lines at all.
As for assumptions, I try to make reasonable inferences (which I’m good, but definitely not perfect at), and when I’m making a guess, however educated, I try to be upfront about it and take people at face value if and when they tell me I’m wrong. It’s as simple as that, really. When I’m right, great. When I’m wrong, that’s okay, too. Mental health doesn’t really enter the equation for me in part because, with all due respect, I don’t really think about you or any other posters here outside the context of this forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
As you indicate your age in many posts, I know you are younger than me, but I won’t hold that against you.
That I am. I don’t hold your age against you either and am privileged to have friends of all ages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
As for longevity of Hinduism, again you miss my point, deliberate or I dont know, because you consider yoursel very smart. The point is Islam and Chrstianity did not overwhelm the prevailing culture and to the extent Indians all converted and Hinduism died.
That’s my fault for poorly formatting my post. The portion to which I responded, “Okay,” was an acknowledgement of perfectly reasonable points that were not part of your previous post. In that prior post (and to an extent also this one) you seemed to extol Hinduism as exceptional in its endurance when it really isn’t based on its long-standing strength in numbers. That’s not to put Hinduism down in any way. I’m just saying Hinduism as a faith has not had to face the same adversity as other, much smaller sects.
I really don’t consider myself “very smart,” by the way. I’m plenty bright, but I’m not off-the-charts brilliant. I’m ~1 in 25, really, if IQ is any indicator.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
India is not temperate climate but it does not have the extreme winters when life can be a struggle against nature, or the dessert. Living is a little bit easier, small huts with thatched roofs can be serviceable. Lighter clothing is enough protection. No hunting and gathering is required so no big weapons except for wars. I am not speaking from any scholarship on the topic, just speculating from experience of growing up in a tropical land. I might ask Bard what it thinks.
It just seems like a silly limb to go out on because you don’t need me to tell you that India’s climate is as varied as its inhabitants, particularly depending on elevation and latitude.
I see you’ve glossed over my issues with the more troubling aspects of your post. But those aside…
I agree that this is not the place for a deep dive. I only brought it up because when it comes to Judaism, I didn’t know what else you could possibly be referring to after the destruction of the Second Temple when it comes to heart-stopping violence and hate. To be clear, I don’t believe that universally applies to Zionism or the Zionist movement (I’m pretty sure you disagree, but I’m just stating my position and am not trying to debate you on it here). But I recognize that some heart-stoppingly violent and hateful things have been done by Zionist extremists (some of them from a religious standpoint as well as or instead of an ethnic one), which I absolutely abhor.
I think you’re really talking about two different things, so I’ll address them one at a time.
I try to be fair when I post. That may call for objectivity or subjectivity (often, but not always, the latter applies to matters of religion and spirituality). And it’s important to recognize the difference between the two. Most things, especially when it comes to our thoughts and feelings and philosophies, are subjective in very large part. I don’t think everyone has to feel the same way about the same things, and there is a broad range of viewpoints that I consider acceptable, even if I might disagree with them. I consider some things objectively wrong, like murder and bigotry. But I understand that even those concepts are ultimately subjective. People draw their moral contours in different ways and, unfortunately, some draw few to no moral lines at all.
As for assumptions, I try to make reasonable inferences (which I’m good, but definitely not perfect at), and when I’m making a guess, however educated, I try to be upfront about it and take people at face value if and when they tell me I’m wrong. It’s as simple as that, really. When I’m right, great. When I’m wrong, that’s okay, too. Mental health doesn’t really enter the equation for me in part because, with all due respect, I don’t really think about you or any other posters here outside the context of this forum.
That I am. I don’t hold your age against you either and am privileged to have friends of all ages.
That’s my fault for poorly formatting my post. The portion to which I responded, “Okay,” was an acknowledgement of perfectly reasonable points that were not part of your previous post. In that prior post (and to an extent also this one) you seemed to extol Hinduism as exceptional in its endurance when it really isn’t based on its long-standing strength in numbers. That’s not to put Hinduism down in any way. I’m just saying Hinduism as a faith has not had to face the same adversity as other, much smaller sects.
I really don’t consider myself “very smart,” by the way. I’m plenty bright, but I’m not off-the-charts brilliant. I’m ~1 in 25, really, if IQ is any indicator.
It just seems like a silly limb to go out on because you don’t need me to tell you that India’s climate is as varied as its inhabitants, particularly depending on elevation and latitude.
While flattering it is not clear to me why you seem to be having this parallel conversation with me and about me and have not made a single response to the OP of this quite an interesting thread, of which you are very troubled with, naturally being Jewish.
Moderator cut: Personal remarks removed
Last edited by Mightyqueen801; 12-01-2023 at 01:52 PM..
Reason: Keep posts about the topic, not about the poster.
Powerful ideas subvert assumptions. For example it is far more powerful to persuade people to choose a better path than to force them to do things against their will. It is far more powerful to share excess wealth than to hoard it. It is far more powerful to empower people to pursue their dreams, to get them creatively contributing to society rather than being mindless sheeple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Don't you find it strange to use the term "good" alongside "self-interest"(IE selfishness)?
No. It isn't necessarily bad to recognize your rational self-interest. That isn't inherently synonymous with greed or lack of concern for others. For example it is not in my rational self interest to abuse alcohol or be a thief because those aren't sustainable strategies for coexisting effectively with others and contributing to our mutual thriving.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
I think you have a naive and idealistic view of the world. I'm a cynical Machiavellian/Utilitarian/Darwinian. Maybe this quote from George Orwell will help you(this entire essay is worth reading if you haven't).
PS: In retrospect, maybe I should have posted this thread in Politics. Regardless, all Abrahamic religions are trash, but Jewish and Islamic supremacism are especially garbage.
Idealists see what could / should / ought to be, and I plead guilty but I am also a realist. I don't see a better world as either an easy or even an ultimately sure thing (we could very well destroy ourselves for example). Also by way of example, I have mentioned elsewhere here when pacifists have posted, that I do not think you can avoid war in all situations, or that you even should -- not as the world is presently constituted anyway. Just wishing it away will not change that. It might lead to even more war by emboldening aggressors.
So I think my views are reasonably nuanced and make an attempt at balance.
I am also capable of cynicism, but I think you may be taking it to an extreme. Humans are full of conflicting impulses; I see no advantage in giving in to the worst of them when it is clear that it is possible to have more self control and discipline than that.
While flattering it is not clear to me why you seem to be having this parallel conversation with me and about me and have not made a single response to the OP of this quite an interesting thread, of which you are very troubled with, naturally being Jewish.
Don’t be flattered. This is a message board. People reply to one another’s posts. That applies to the OP as much as the responses to the OP. I actually did respond to some points in the OP, and the OP chose not to answer, which is fine because he may be a literal neo-Nazi.
Moderator cut: Responses to deleted quotes.
Last edited by Mightyqueen801; 12-01-2023 at 01:55 PM..
Reason: As noted
Or Elijah is correct, and you are implicitly supporting a neo-Nazi.
He is not the only one who noted this possibility, I appear to be the fourth.
It’s also bizarre because she has spoken out again Islamophobia in the past (albeit through barking up the wrong tree by claiming this is ubiquitous with atheists).
I don’t know if she’s spiraling down a dark hole or has found herself in yet another situation where she makes a misinformed statement but has to double down because she can’t admit when she’s wrong. Out of consideration for cb, I’ll leave that statement as rhetorical.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
