SPEAK THE TRUTH! And Redeem This World From Hell

[DaveFoster]

They literally are.



Lots of presidents were ethnonationalists. Wasn't it a rule that only land owning white men could vote.

There are differences between acquiescent ethnonationalism and active expansionism.

 

[Badger]

Tarmander, you ask many good questions. To properly answer them will take time, so if you can be patient, let me reply as I have time.
"This couldn't be further from the truth. The reason we have the term Judaeo-Christian is because all of Jesus's teachings were taken directly out of the old testament. The greatest teaching in both religions is to love your fellow man as yourself is straight out of Leviticus. The Koran by contrast calls for its followers to conquer the world and convert the unbelievers."
Scholars differ on what the OT means by "fellow man," whether just a fellow Israelite or all people. Even aside from this, there is no historical evidence at all that such a claim was made primary, emphatic and numero uno in Israeli religious consciousness, as it was in Jesus and in principle, Christianity. What was made and practiced as primary in the OT was adherence to the Law, the basis of which are the 10 Commandments.

What ancient Hebrews were expected to understand and apply about the commandments is given extensive elaboration in the length listing of rules, admonitions, and very specific legal requirements in places like Deuteronomy and other of the first five books of the OT. And all these Hebrew legal requirements was administered and enforced by a bureaucracy comprised of members of a hereditary priesthood, based on blood or family. The Christians universalized love beyond any tribal-ethnic requirements, especially St. Paul, and dropped these rules and regulation in those OT books as a requirement to be and remain a Christian. The Koran does call for conversion of believers, as does Christianity, but the Koran prohibits force in doing so. The fact Muslims have imposed force and/or hardships on non-Muslims under their control is an abuse which is hardly the Koran's fault.

"I suggest you do some research on the Jewish roots of the Gospel. Jesus was Jewish after all and throughout the Bible asks for his followers to obey the Torah and that he didn't come to create a new religion. Do you really think that God is so fickle that he would completely change his mind about his religion? Jesus is the promised Messiah to the world but what he taught has already been taught before."
I have a few Master's degrees, one in historical theology, which required 60+ graduate course credits, including course work in Princeton, plus a thesis and oral defense of it. Has the weight of a Ph.d, so I have kinda sorta studied "Jewish roots of Jesus," probably more than you, as my field was inter-testamental Judaism. What you are saying is partially true. But as scholars say, Jesus "revalorised" the OT when he said: "A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; even as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." Notice that word "new" there? If love of neighbor has so much weight in the Torah, as you assume, why did he say it was "new"? God did not change His mind, as you wrongly frame it to set up a straw man, he indeed added something new. Jesus' repeated condemnations of the Pharisees' nitpicky and oppressive and unloving manipulations of Jewish Law helped serve as something to contrast against in his uplifting love of neighbor and God as having top-most supreme value, and not exhaustively following rules and regulations, as was topmost for Jews. He even said "God is love." Nothing in OT Torah makes such a direct, baldly radical statement about God's essential nature.

True, Christianity in theory is not entirely new, there is indeed continuity with the Hebrew religion, which indeed was a vehicle of Divine Revelation, I would never deny that, putting on my purely theological hat, but Christianity is new in practice and some theory, as explained above. More than just a cold reboot but a new operating system, just as Windows 10 is continuous with say, Windows 3.1, but 10 is enough of a rewrite with so many new features as to be new in itself. Judaism was too corrupt and enfeebled at the time of Jesus, something Jesus himself constantly railed against in his accusations of hypocrisy directed towards most of the Pharisees. Hence the better parts of Judaism had to be placed in another platform and energized with something fundamentally new, if only in practice, to survive. As pointed out by a writer commenting about Jesus' parable of new wine in old winseskins, "new wine needs a new wineskin because as the new wine expands during the fermentation process, it stretches the wineskin. An old wineskin will burst under the pressure of new wine. These two parables illustrate the fact that you can't mix old religious rituals with new faith in Jesus."

I would add that any attempt at universalizing Judaism without adding a major new element such as love comes against deep, inherent limitations of Judaism. That is, from the time of Moses, Hebrew religion/Judaism was tribal, cultural and genetic. You see strong echoes of this among modern Jews when they talk about their "Jewishness" or say, "I don't practice Judaism, I'm a cultural Jew." Do Christians ever speak about their "Christianness," or Muslims speak of their "Muslimness"? Do Christians ever say, "I don't practice Christianity, I'm just a cultural Christian" No, never do they say this. Because these religions are not tribal, as is Judaism. Blood and genetics doesn't matter. But it does for Judaism, and they cannot separate out the tribal from the strictly religious - they are fused together in Judaism. Only way to universalize Judaism is to break away from this entirely by maximizing the priority of love above the Law, which is proprietary, so to say, only to those with the right tribal identity and blood, Jews. Unlike the Law, love is not proprietary just to Jews, it's available to everyone.

"You really think that only the Jews want to have their land as a religious state? After the break up of the Ottoman Empire the Arabs got far more land than what their numbers would justify and the Jews far less. Tiny little Israel was the result. The Arabs kicked out the vast majority of Jews from their lands as they ethnically cleansed their countries. Only Israel allows non coreligionists to be full citizens in their country and to serve in leadership roles in government. Do you really think Saudi Arabia or Iran or any of the Arab countries would allow their land to be shared with non-believers in an equal manner?"
Understood, but religionists in the Zionist government there insist with strident repetitiveness that "God gave the Jews Israel in perpetuity," and for them alone, as can be seen from certain passages in the OT, but whatever legal methods they have used in acquiring land there, that does not mean they have not - they have - perpetuated innumerable abuses and crimes on Palestinians and others, who they want to eliminate, on this very questionable religious dogma.

Some theologians persuasively argue the covenant with God makes it perpetual, unless the Israelite transgressions break the terms of the covenant, which other theologians say they have. There is a reason Jews endlessly refer to Israel as the holy Land. It's based on the earlier idea of the promised land, where Mose was to lead them, but did not, as he died before he could. This almost fanatical focus on sacred real estate - which is physical - is normative and fundamental for the Hebrews and Jews. There is nothing theologically equivalent among Christians and Muslims. The Saudis make no such claim about land they control, not even Mecca and Medina. For Jews, it is difficult to overstate the central, foundational and primal value of the land of Israel. Christians universalized the land of Israel as a metaphor for the Christian Church.

"The Arabs kicked out the vast majority of Jews from their lands as they ethnically cleansed their countries."
Excepting completely nutball Saudi Arabia, what other countries have done so? Iraq had many Jews for 2700 years, until end of British mandate. When the Arabs could see the aggressive drive for Zionism in Israel, they weren't keen anymore about keeping many of them in Iraq, perhaps for relatively understandable reasons, which are similar to the reasons for the fear of Germans in the US during WW1 and Japanese during WW2.

"Only Israel allows non coreligionists to be full citizens in their country and to serve in leadership roles in government. Do you really think Saudi Arabia or Iran or any of the Arab countries would allow their land to be shared with non-believers in an equal manner?"
Sure, excepting merely millions of Palestinians, who are not "full citizens," and who are the helots in the apartheid areas of "tiny little" Israel (or areas they control) that you neglected to mention. You are certainly in complete error on Jews in Iran. As one article in the UK put it, "Despite its often turbulent dealings with Israel, Iran has one of the world's largest and longest-established Jewish communities." Another article said life in Iran is better for Jews than in Europe, and another says Jews are safer in Iran than France. And Jews hold leadership and political positions in Iran.

This couldn't be further from the truth. The reason we have the term Judaeo-Christian is because all of Jesus's teachings were taken directly out of the old testament. The greatest teaching in both religions is to love your fellow man as yourself is straight out of Leviticus. The Koran by contrast calls for its followers to conquer the world and convert the unbelievers.

I suggest you do some research on the Jewish roots of the Gospel. Jesus was Jewish after all and throughout the Bible asks for his followers to obey the Torah and that he didn't come to create a new religion. Do you really think that God is so fickle that he would completely change his mind about his religion? Jesus is the promised Messiah to the world but what he taught has already been taught before.

You really think that only the Jews want to have their land as a religious state? After the break up of the Ottoman Empire the Arabs got far more land than what their numbers would justify and the Jews far less. Tiny little Israel was the result. The Arabs kicked out the vast majority of Jews from their lands as they ethnically cleansed their

countries. Only Israel allows non coreligionists to be full citizens in their country and to serve in leadership roles in government. Do you really think Saudi Arabia or Iran or any of the Arab countries would allow their land to be shared with non-believers in an equal manner?

 

[x-ray peat]

Scholars differ on what the OT means by "fellow man," whether just a fellow Israelite or all people. Even aside from this, there is no historical evidence at all that such a claim was made primary, emphatic and numero uno in Israeli religious consciousness, as it was in Jesus and in principle, Christianity. What was made and practiced as primary in the OT was adherence to the Law, the basis of which are the 10 Commandments.

What ancient Hebrews were expected to understand and apply about the commandments is given extensive elaboration in the length listing of rules, admonitions, and very specific legal requirements in places like Deuteronomy and other of the first five books of the OT. And all these Hebrew legal requirements was administered and enforced by a bureaucracy comprised of members of a hereditary priesthood, based on blood or family. The Christians universalized love beyond any tribal-ethnic requirements, especially St. Paul, and dropped these rules and regulation in those OT books as a requirement to be and remain a Christian.

It’s interesting that these so-called scholars never make that same claim of Jesus even though he uses these same exact words as in the OT. God doesn’t change. He is eternal and the meaning of that commandment is the same in both the Old and New Testaments. He makes this very clear just a few verses later.

But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. Leviticus 18:34.

The importance of the Golden Rule is repeated several times throughout the Talmud by many Rabbis including Rabbi Akiva, who along with Hillel are probably the most important Rabbis in Jewish history. GOLDEN RULE, THE - JewishEncyclopedia.com

"That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah the rest is the explanation; go and learn." Hillel The Elder as recorded in the Talmud.

As an aside, I always get a kick out of hearing the anti-Semites rail against the supposedly Satanic Talmud. Of course they have never bothered to read more than a handful of quotes taken out of context by Jew Haters. Not only are many of these quotes out of context or contradicted by other teachings but many of these quotes are just made up. I know because I researched them.

The Koran does call for conversion of believers, as does Christianity, but the Koran prohibits force in doing so. The fact Muslims have imposed force and/or hardships on non-Muslims under their control is an abuse which is hardly the Koran's fault.

Sorry, not true.
“When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks.” 47:4
“When your Lord revealed to the angels, ‘Truly I am with you. So, keep firm those who have believed. I will strike terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved. So, strike them at the necks and cut off their fingers.’” 8:12
“Oh you who believe, fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you and let them find harshness in you.” 9:123
“Muhammad is the apostle of Allah. Those who follow Him are merciful to one another but harsh to the disbeliever.” 48:29

I could go on and on. Any incitements to violence in the Old Testament where directed at specific tribes in Canaan at the time of the conquest and was primarily due to their common practices of demonic worship such as sacrificing their first born to Molech and other evil acts. It was punishment for specific sins against God, not an injunction to murder all non-believers. The New Testament of course also does not preach violence against innocent unbelievers for all time to come. Only Islam does that.
The Quran's Verses of Violence
10 Violent Koran Verses and the Terror They Spawned

I have a few Master's degrees, one in historical theology, which required 60+ graduate course credits, including course work in Princeton, plus a thesis and oral defense of it. Has the weight of a Ph.d, so I have kinda sorta studied "Jewish roots of Jesus," probably more than you, as my field was inter-testamental Judaism.

Well that seems awfully convenient. But assuming it is true, my preacher has often talked about the poverty of true Biblical knowledge in academia and the disdain for believers so I am not surprised that you think as you do. The politicization of the Schools of Divinity is expected given the liberal takeover of the rest of Academia.

As a believer in Christ, one of my hobbies is Biblical exegesis and apologetics . I have been at it a long time so I am not so sure that your appeal to greater authority is valid, but I’ll leave it to others to decide. Moreover like most people who move onto other pursuits after graduation, it is common to forget much of what was learned. And sorry but a Masters does not have the same weight as a PhD.

What you are saying is partially true. But as scholars say, Jesus "revalorised" the OT when he said: "A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; even as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." Notice that word "new" there? If love of neighbor has so much weight in the Torah, as you assume, why did he say it was "new"? God did not change His mind, as you wrongly frame it to set up a straw man, he indeed added something new. Jesus' repeated condemnations of the Pharisees' nitpicky and oppressive and unloving manipulations of Jewish Law helped serve as something to contrast against in his uplifting love of neighbor and God as having top-most supreme value, and not exhaustively following rules and regulations, as was topmost for Jews. He even said "God is love." Nothing in OT Torah makes such a direct, baldly radical statement about God's essential nature.

I already addressed this misunderstanding of the Jewish roots of the Golden Rule and its central importance to Judaism so won’t repeat it here. I will just add that your parsing of the words “new,” as if that is proof of anything by itself, is truly worthy of the Pharisees. God did not add anything “new” to this Commandment.

And btw, Jesus never said “God is Love.” That was said by his Apostle John in 1 John. Jesus would never say this as this necessarily limits God to one thing, and God as we know is infinite. He is love but he is much more than that. It is very similar to the New Age belief that says that God is nature. Also not true.

True, Christianity in theory is not entirely new, there is indeed continuity with the Hebrew religion, which indeed was a vehicle of Divine Revelation, I would never deny that, putting on my purely theological hat, but Christianity is new in practice and some theory, as explained above.

Well I’m glad you seem to have moved a little bit towards the light and away from your previous comment

I think the phrase "Judaeo-Christian," so beloved of our politicians, is an oxymoron, as the differences between Judaism and Christianity are much bigger than those between Islam and Christianity.

More than just a cold reboot but a new operating system, just as Windows 10 is continuous with say, Windows 3.1, but 10 is enough of a rewrite with so many new features as to be new in itself. Judaism was too corrupt and enfeebled at the time of Jesus, something Jesus himself constantly railed against in his accusations of hypocrisy directed towards most of the Pharisees. Hence the better parts of Judaism had to be placed in another platform and energized with something fundamentally new, if only in practice, to survive. As pointed out by a writer commenting about Jesus' parable of new wine in old winseskins, "new wine needs a new wineskin because as the new wine expands during the fermentation process, it stretches the wineskin. An old wineskin will burst under the pressure of new wine. These two parables illustrate the fact that you can't mix old religious rituals with new faith in Jesus."

You continue to make the same Straw man argument over and over, in unfairly comparing the Godly teachings of Jesus to the less than godly actions of the Pharisees. This of course only proves that we as humans are not worthy of any comparison to Jesus, much like we as humans are not worthy of God’s revelations on Sinai.

Why don’t you compare the teachings of Moses and the Prophets to the actions of the Church. I hate to break it to you but the sins of the Church and the blood on their hands throughout the centuries is far worse than any of the nitpicking about the law the Pharisees may have done. I suggest that you review Foxe’s Book of Martyrs to remind you of how many millions were killed for not bowing down to the Pope as the Vicar of Christ. I won’t even get into the Crusades or the hypocrisy of the Popes like Borgia and many others. The truth is that none of us can live up to the teachings of the Bible. That is where Christ’s sacrifice comes in.

I would add that any attempt at universalizing Judaism without adding a major new element such as love comes against deep, inherent limitations of Judaism. That is, from the time of Moses, Hebrew religion/Judaism was tribal, cultural and genetic. You see strong echoes of this among modern Jews when they talk about their "Jewishness" or say, "I don't practice Judaism, I'm a cultural Jew." Do Christians ever speak about their "Christianness," or Muslims speak of their "Muslimness"? Do Christians ever say, "I don't practice Christianity, I'm just a cultural Christian" No, never do they say this. Because these religions are not tribal, as is Judaism. Blood and genetics doesn't matter. But it does for Judaism, and they cannot separate out the tribal from the strictly religious - they are fused together in Judaism. Only way to universalize Judaism is to break away from this entirely by maximizing the priority of love above the Law, which is proprietary, so to say, only to those with the right tribal identity and blood, Jews. Unlike the Law, love is not proprietary just to Jews, it's available to everyone.

This is also a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be a Jew. In ancient times, both the ethnicity and the religion of the people were always the same. If you were Assyrian you believed in the Assyrian gods. If you were Phoenician you believed in the Phoenician Gods. The same was true for the Jews. Judaism is unlike Christianity and Islam because it is based on a shared ethnic heritage. It is both a people and a religion. They don’t proselytize but are very open to converts and are admonished in the Bible to treat the convert as one of their own. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Understood, but religionists in the Zionist government there insist with strident repetitiveness that "God gave the Jews Israel in perpetuity," and for them alone, as can be seen from certain passages in the OT, but whatever legal methods they have used in acquiring land there, that does not mean they have not - they have - perpetuated innumerable abuses and crimes on Palestinians and others, who they want to eliminate, on this very questionable religious dogma.
Some theologians persuasively argue the covenant with God makes it perpetual, unless the Israelite transgressions break the terms of the covenant, which other theologians say they have. There is a reason Jews endlessly refer to Israel as the holy Land. It's based on the earlier idea of the promised land, where Mose was to lead them, but did not, as he died before he could. This almost fanatical focus on sacred real estate - which is physical - is normative and fundamental for the Hebrews and Jews. There is nothing theologically equivalent among Christians and Muslims. The Saudis make no such claim about land they control, not even Mecca and Medina. For Jews, it is difficult to overstate the central, foundational and primal value of the land of Israel. Christians universalized the land of Israel as a metaphor for the Christian Church.

This is just more double standards and more untruths. Yes it’s unfortunate what is happening to the Palestinians but to only blame Israel for their situation completely ignores history. Just as in the partition of British India, it was necessary for Muslims living in the future Hindu lands to move to Pakistan as it was necessary for Hindus living in future Muslim lands to move to India. As mentioned, Jews were a significant presence throughout the Ottoman Empire and were actually the majority population of Jerusalem during the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Though the vast majority of Ottoman land was given to the Arabs, they refused to allow any other religious group to have a share. This is not only true for Israel but also true for the Kurds and many other ethnic groups now living under less than egalitarian Islamic rule.

The plight of the Palestinians is sad and needs to change but they have to bear responsibility for their situation as well. They continue to deny the right of Israel to exist and still maintain in their legal documents that Palestine must stretch to the sea, thereby destroying Israel. They also continue to reward suicide bombers and terrorists with pensions for their families as well as continually attack Israel with rockets from Gaza. If that was done to us by Mexico I doubt we would have tolerated it as long as Israel has.

I would also add that before the 1967 war and the capture of Jerusalem, the entire West bank was held by Jordan who annexed it in 1950. Talk about the theft of land. Moreover they did very little to help the people there and it wasn’t until Israeli rule that some semblance of development took place. Not one university existed under Jordanian rule whereas now there about two dozen started under Israel as just as one example.

As for the Jews having the solitary focus on “Sacred Real Estate” I would also argue that is not true. All of Islam, not just the Saudis, is far more fanatical about Mecca and Medina being sacred to them and Allah given. Jerusalem has also been long sought after by the Papacy as its Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and has launched wave after wave of bloody Crusades to capture it on behalf of God. But more importantly both Roman Catholicism and Islam teach that they are to rule over the entire world, not just a small strip of land in the desert. Most forget Roman Catholicism teaches that the Pope is the Sovereign of the entire world, regardless if you are Roman Catholic or not.

"The Arabs kicked out the vast majority of Jews from their lands as they ethnically cleansed their countries."

Excepting completely nutball Saudi Arabia, what other countries have done so? Iraq had many Jews for 2700 years, until end of British mandate. When the Arabs could see the aggressive drive for Zionism in Israel, they weren't keen anymore about keeping many of them in Iraq, perhaps for relatively understandable reasons, which are similar to the reasons for the fear of Germans in the US during WW1 and Japanese during WW2.

It wasn’t just nutball Saudi Arabia. Almost 900,000 Jews were forced to flee from Arab lands due to officially supported acts of violence and expropriation of their property. Nobody talks about this stolen land anymore, if ever.

Lyn Julius: Recognising the plight of Jewish refugees from Arab countries

“The exodus began 60 years ago when Arab states, hell-bent on crushing the new state of Israel militarily, also turned on their peaceful Jewish communities. Street violence killed over 150 Jews. Within 10 years, more than half the Jews had fled or been expelled, following discriminatory legislation , extortion, arrests, internment and executions. Those who remained became subjugated, political hostages of the Arab-Israeli conflict.”

Why Jews Fled the Arab Countries

Sure, excepting merely millions of Palestinians, who are not "full citizens," and who are the helots in the apartheid areas of "tiny little" Israel (or areas they control) that you neglected to mention. You are certainly in complete error on Jews in Iran. As one article in the UK put it, "Despite its often turbulent dealings with Israel, Iran has one of the world's largest and longest-established Jewish communities." Another article said life in Iran is better for Jews than in Europe, and another says Jews are safer in Iran than France. And Jews hold leadership and political positions in Iran.

As explained above the Palestinian question is sad but a lot more complicated than the modern media portrays it to be. As for Iran, I think you need to do a bit more research than one article. More generally it is written in the Koran that the non-believer is to be treated as a second class citizen and forced to pay a special tax if they don’t convert.
Iranian Persecution of Jews

 

[managing]

Its interesting in reading through some (but not all) of this thread, which has turned distinctly religious, that nobody seems to acknowledge religions as "opiates of the masses".

Yes, I realize I am quoting Marx. How long until somebody calls me a Marxist?

But tell people to leave their authoritarian regimes behind and they start debating religion . . .

Everybody can point a finger at somebody else as a false victim. Can anybody actually move away from their own oppression?

 

[Badger]

You persist in missing my point. The appearance of the most elevated principles and admonitions in holy books doesn't mean they are practiced and emphasized and made primary in the culture and/or time period they appeared. Also, what is peripheral in theory or practice in one religion may become primary in another, or vice versa. Law becomes secondary in Christian, while primary for Jewish. Love for neighbor (who is not from your tribe) is secondary in Judaism, primary in Christianity. New lessons, new curriculum. We're not talking about God changing, we're talking about human spiritual formation needs as changing. Hence, it does not mean the parent who told the 4 year he can't cross the street without his parent around who then tells the kid he can cross the street without a parent when he's say, 12, is changing. What you learn in college is built on top of what you learned in high school and so on. This is all so simple, I don't have the writing talent can't make it any easier for you to understand.

"It’s interesting that these so-called scholars never make that same claim of Jesus even though he uses these same exact words as in the OT. God doesn’t change. He is eternal and the meaning of that commandment is the same in both the Old and New Testaments. He makes this very clear just a few verses later.

But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. Leviticus 18:34.

The importance of the Golden Rule is repeated several times throughout the Talmud by many Rabbis including Rabbi Akiva, who along with Hillel are probably the most important Rabbis in Jewish history. GOLDEN RULE, THE - JewishEncyclopedia.com

"That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah the rest is the explanation; go and learn." Hillel The Elder as recorded in the Talmud.

As an aside, I always get a kick out of hearing the anti-Semites rail against the supposedly Satanic Talmud. Of course they have never bothered to read more than a handful of quotes taken out of context by Jew Haters. Not only are many of these quotes out of context or contradicted by other teachings but many of these quotes are just made up. I know because I researched them.

 

[Badger]

Inosofar as the aggressive practice of barbaric Marxism (what other kind is there?) has taken noxious root somewhere, say Cuba or Stalinist Russia, China, I'd say: Marxism is a religion of sorts, and, as such, another "opiate of the masses." And jeeze, I'm not even a bleepin' Marxist!

Its interesting in reading through some (but not all) of this thread, which has turned distinctly religious, that nobody seems to acknowledge religions as "opiates of the masses".

Yes, I realize I am quoting Marx. How long until somebody calls me a Marxist?

But tell people to leave their authoritarian regimes behind and they start debating religion . . .

Everybody can point a finger at somebody else as a false victim. Can anybody actually move away from their own oppression?

 

[x-ray peat]

You persist in missing my point. The appearance of the most elevated principles and admonitions in holy books doesn't mean they are practiced and emphasized and made primary in the culture and/or time period they appeared. Also, what is peripheral in theory or practice in one religion may become primary in another, or vice versa. Law becomes secondary in Christian, while primary for Jewish. Love for neighbor (who is not from your tribe) is secondary in Judaism, primary in Christianity. New lessons, new curriculum. We're not talking about God changing, we're talking about human spiritual formation needs as changing. Hence, it does not mean the parent who told the 4 year he can't cross the street without his parent around who then tells the kid he can cross the street without a parent when he's say, 12, is changing. What you learn in college is built on top of what you learned in high school and so on. This is all so simple, I don't have the writing talent can't make it any easier for you to understand.

No need for the rhetoric, I fully understand what you are saying. The problem is that you keep changing the goal posts with every round. The only reason I brought up the injunction to love thy neighbor as thyself is to show one example, of many, that demonstrate the common core set of beliefs shared by both Christianity and Judaism. This was in response to your claim that the term “Judaeo-Christianity is an oxymoron…and that the differences between Judaism and Christianity are much bigger than those between Islam and Christianity.” With that said I dont see the need to debate who believes it more. I agree that Christianity does stress this particular teaching more but as I showed, it is still a fundamental law of Judaism. Not so much in Islam.

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

Its interesting in reading through some (but not all) of this thread, which has turned distinctly religious, that nobody seems to acknowledge religions as "opiates of the masses".

Yes, I realize I am quoting Marx. How long until somebody calls me a Marxist?

But tell people to leave their authoritarian regimes behind and they start debating religion . . .

Everybody can point a finger at somebody else as a false victim. Can anybody actually move away from their own oppression?

Religion serves several purposes of which opiate is just one. It's also a software for the citizen drones, with different versions released at different times depending on necessity. Ceaser used jesus to quell revolt against rome the same way the cia used hippies and lsd to quell revolt against the state (opiate release). They also used christianity as an expansionist tool, control mechanism, and as a way to build wealth.

 

[Badger]

No one is arguing that there isn't plenty in Christianity that's pipelined straight from Judaism. What you keep missing is that qualities and ideas are dynamic and change in value or importance. It's the case before and especially when going from one religion to another. That's why there is this thing called "history" and "history of ideas." There would be none if ideas, interpretations of texts and doctrines, religious rites and initiations never changed and remained static.

Love as a religious virtue is quite plentiful in Islam, not something expressed just in words. If you visited some (not all) US mosques and Islamic countries and got to know ordinary people living there, it's easy to experience and observe. And they don't require seeing a tribal ID card before being nice to you.

No need for the rhetoric, I fully understand what you are saying. The problem is that you keep changing the goal posts with every round. The only reason I brought up the injunction to love thy neighbor as thyself is to show one example, of many, that demonstrate the common core set of beliefs shared by both Christianity and Judaism. This was in response to your claim that the term “Judaeo-Christianity is an oxymoron…and that the differences between Judaism and Christianity are much bigger than those between Islam and Christianity.” With that said I dont see the need to debate who believes it more. I agree that Christianity does stress this particular teaching more but as I showed, it is still a fundamental law of Judaism. Not so much in Islam.

 

[Badger]

Thanks for informing us on the bad side of religion. I mean, what would we do without you, because as you must think, so many of us are very ignorant about such things and there is a desperate lack of information on this topic. Religions have a good side - a very good side - your phenomenally black-pilled cynical list omits.

Religion gives hope and solace to people, it comforts them, answers the deepest of deep questions that perplex many, facilitates healing and directly heals the heart and soul and even body. Its architectures in churches and temples and holy sites provides beauty and rest and tranquility, and refuges from the world's insanity and ugliness, plus opportunities and spaces for meditation, for thinking creatively, for gaining inner strength, and for cultivating joy and happiness and spiritual or inner sweetness in one's life. Religion is designed to and often succeeds in inspiring the best in people, to heroism, to acts of great unselfishness and sacrifice on behalf of the weak, the needy the poor, the diseased and mortally ill, and those broken by life due to circumstances they had no control over. Religion has always supplied extraordinary individuals inspired by the religion to counter and fight and oppose Caesar and his minions, to build hospitals. And in countless numbers, religion has always provided good and reliable people - even saints - who exhibit noble and virtuous behaviors and ethics they convey to children to help them grow up well. Such people help their friends, family and neighbors get through their day and inspire them to become better people in their own right. And talking about it giving happiness, religion gives - for those willing to take on the necessary sacrifices and discipline - guidance, support and expertise for cultivating and acquiring in this world, not just the next, the deepest intimacy with the divinity (however it is defined by a religion) of transcendent consciousness and ineffable bliss and the highest of highs, a category of religious activity often called "mysticism." Whether you like it or not, all the above has been in place in varying degrees somewhere on the planet for the all of or the vast majority of human history, even though the entrenchment of secularism has greatly lessened the influence of religion especially in the last 50-100 years, a tiny blip of time compared to the balance of human history.

Despite all the innumerable abuses and harm perpetuated by religion or in the name of it throughout history, there can be absolutely no doubt this world would far, far, far more of an evil, black madhouse of immeasurable, horrific proportions that would make the worst dystopias in SF look like picnics by comparison. I hope you learn to like such a world because much more of it is coming as the the influence of religions wanes much further, which, I believe, it will.

(BTW, IMHO, Marx's greatest blunder as a social philosopher was his blindness to the value of religion in gaining and maintaining social cohesion and stability. But maybe he wasn't blind, as perhaps he anticipated his own ideas would be used to form a replacement of religion, Marxism would be a secular religion which could tolerate no other competition. Marxist religion/philosophy has nothing to tell you for solace and strength when you or a loved one is about to die.)

Religion serves several purposes of which opiate is just one. It's also a software for the citizen drones, with different versions released at different times depending on necessity. Ceaser used jesus to quell revolt against rome the same way the cia used hippies and lsd to quell revolt against the state (opiate release). They also used christianity as an expansionist tool, control mechanism, and as a way to build wealth.

 

[managing]

Inosofar as the aggressive practice of barbaric Marxism (what other kind is there?) has taken noxious root somewhere, say Cuba or Stalinist Russia, China, I'd say: Marxism is a religion of sorts, and, as such, another "opiate of the masses." And jeeze, I'm not even a bleepin' Marxist!

Yes, of course. Anything can become oppressive, authoritarian, and dogmatic. Even "Peatarianism".

But that is my point. The debate here has recently ranged across the Talmud, Bible, Koran, etc. But so much of the debate, erudite and informed though it may be, strikes me as flexing and positioning one's preferred dogma over the others.

You point out that Marxists do this flexing too, and some, I don't recall whom, have said it of Holocaust claims, Islam, and so on.

Quite true. But "you/they are not perfect either" is hardly a defense. It reduces the conversation to "whose system of oppression is best?".

Even abandoning religion is only a fraught baby step away from the most obvious and systematized forms of oppression. In fact, the more vigorously anything is rejected, the more that rejection establishes and dictates its own dogma. Atheism, for example, exists purely for the purpose of rejecting religion. Marxism exists for the purpose of rejecting capitalism.

Authoritarian, dogmatic, oppressive . . .

 

[managing]

Religion serves several purposes of which opiate is just one. It's also a software for the citizen drones, with different versions released at different times depending on necessity. Ceaser used jesus to quell revolt against rome the same way the cia used hippies and lsd to quell revolt against the state (opiate release). They also used christianity as an expansionist tool, control mechanism, and as a way to build wealth.

"Software" is a fascinating heuristic here.

I am picturing Cardinal Richelieu smiling and saying "There is an app for that!".

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

"Software" is a fascinating heuristic here.

I am picturing Cardinal Richelieu smiling and saying "There is an app for that!".

It really is. Christianity made americans hard working, productive citizens. It was used to conquer half the world. Religion is an operating system for humanity. You're indoctrinated so young there's never a choice whether you're going to believe it or not. The people at the top, be it pastors or cardinals don't really believe what they're saying. For every one that gets caught doing this or that there's a dozen that don't.

 

[managing]

Thanks for informing us on the bad side of religion. I mean, what would we do without you, because as you must think, so many of us are very ignorant about such things and there is a desperate lack of information on this topic. Religions have a good side - a very good side - your phenomenally black-pilled cynical list omits.

Religion gives hope and solace to people, it comforts them, answers the deepest of deep questions that perplex many, facilitates healing and directly heals the heart and soul and even body. Its architectures in churches and temples and holy sites provides beauty and rest and tranquility, and refuges from the world's insanity and ugliness, plus opportunities and spaces for meditation, for thinking creatively, for gaining inner strength, and for cultivating joy and happiness and spiritual or inner sweetness in one's life. Religion is designed to and often succeeds in inspiring the best in people, to heroism, to acts of great unselfishness and sacrifice on behalf of the weak, the needy the poor, the diseased and mortally ill, and those broken by life due to circumstances they had no control over. Religion has always supplied extraordinary individuals inspired by the religion to counter and fight and oppose Caesar and his minions, to build hospitals. And in countless numbers, religion has always provided good and reliable people - even saints - who exhibit noble and virtuous behaviors and ethics they convey to children to help them grow up well. Such people help their friends, family and neighbors get through their day and inspire them to become better people in their own right. And talking about it giving happiness, religion gives - for those willing to take on the necessary sacrifices and discipline - guidance, support and expertise for cultivating and acquiring in this world, not just the next, the deepest intimacy with the divinity (however it is defined by a religion) of transcendent consciousness and ineffable bliss and the highest of highs, a category of religious activity often called "mysticism." Whether you like it or not, all the above has been in place in varying degrees somewhere on the planet for the all of or the vast majority of human history, even though the entrenchment of secularism has greatly lessened the influence of religion especially in the last 50-100 years, a tiny blip of time compared to the balance of human history.

Despite all the innumerable abuses and harm perpetuated by religion or in the name of it throughout history, there can be absolutely no doubt this world would far, far, far more of an evil, black madhouse of immeasurable, horrific proportions that would make the worst dystopias in SF look like picnics by comparison. I hope you learn to like such a world because much more of it is coming as the the influence of religions wanes much further, which, I believe, it will.

(BTW, IMHO, Marx's greatest blunder as a social philosopher was his blindness to the value of religion in gaining and maintaining social cohesion and stability. But maybe he wasn't blind, as perhaps he anticipated his own ideas would be used to form a replacement of religion, Marxism would be a secular religion which could tolerate no other competition. Marxist religion/philosophy has nothing to tell you for solace and strength when you or a loved one is about to die.)

There is no doubt this first paragraph is true.

The second paragraph is debatable. From 35,000' religion(s) look just like other socio-political system. You could substitute words like "clan," "country", "troop," "ethnicity" for "religion" in your first paragraph. Its true that the depths to which religion can take this are sometimes the deepest. That in and of itself is not a recommendation in my book.

Inherent in your viewpoint seems to be the assumption that the virtues outweigh the negatives and that religion is the sole or primary source of "virtue" itself. I find great value in questioning these assumptions.

 

[managing]

It really is. Christianity made americans hard working, productive citizens. It was used to conquer half the world. Religion is an operating system for humanity. You're indoctrinated so young there's never a choice whether you're going to believe it or not. The people at the top, be it pastors or cardinals don't really believe what they're saying. For every one that gets caught doing this or that there's a dozen that don't.

I understand your cynicism entirely.

A couple of counterpoints. You are right about indoctrination. And a choice may not be given, but humans have a knack for making choices, even forbidden, hidden choices. Religion is eroding, certainly throughout the western and industrializing countries.

Also I do believe that there are plenty of well-intentioned and virtuous people at all levels of religion. They are not especially virtuous in relation to others, however. There are plenty of bad apples, fallen, and/or misguided people at all levels of all religions. That, combined with the presumption and pretense of virtue makes it particularly offensive, for sure. But my point is, just like any other identifying variable, there are the good, the bad, and the ugly.

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

I understand your cynicism entirely.

A couple of counterpoints. You are right about indoctrination. And a choice may not be given, but humans have a knack for making choices, even forbidden, hidden choices. Religion is eroding, certainly throughout the western and industrializing countries.

Also I do believe that there are plenty of well-intentioned and virtuous people at all levels of religion. They are not especially virtuous in relation to others, however. There are plenty of bad apples, fallen, and/or misguided people at all levels of all religions. That, combined with the presumption and pretense of virtue makes it particularly offensive, for sure. But my point is, just like any other identifying variable, there are the good, the bad, and the ugly.

The erosion of religion is not natural it's based off a calculated attack on christianity. It's no longer necessary. The west is meant to fall and christian morals, not to mention the community building aspects, might impede the fall of the west.

I agree that there are virtuous people everywhere and even in the church but that is a result of that individual being virtuous, not the religion.

I maintain that the judeo religions (Christianity, Catholicism, Islam) were and are control systems. I can't quite remember the title but I read a book they made that point so strongly thst i have believed it ever since.

Go to some poor south american village and give some lady praying to our lady of saint Guadalupe 10 million dollars. Actually make it 20 million because she'll probably donate half to the church. How much do yiu want to bet that her kida will be that much less religious?
Religion is correlated with poverty the same way heroin use is. And the first rule to dealing is don't get high on your own supply

Jesus said: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven"

Meanwhile:

 

[managing]

The erosion of religion is not natural it's based off a calculated attack on christianity. It's no longer necessary. The west is meant to fall and christian morals, not to mention the community building aspects, might impede the fall of the west.

I agree that there are virtuous people everywhere and even in the church but that is a result of that individual being virtuous, not the religion.

I maintain that the judeo religions (Christianity, Catholicism, Islam) were and are control systems. I can't quite remember the title but I read a book they made that point so strongly thst i have believed it ever since.

Go to some poor south american village and give some lady praying to our lady of saint Guadalupe 10 million dollars. Actually make it 20 million because she'll probably donate half to the church. How much do yiu want to bet that her kida will be that much less religious?
Religion is correlated with poverty the same way heroin use is. And the first rule to dealing is don't get high on your own supply

Jesus said: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven"

Meanwhile:

I think we are pretty much in agreement. Except can you explain "The West was meant to fall"?

 

[x-ray peat]

No one is arguing that there isn't plenty in Christianity that's pipelined straight from Judaism.

Not anymore, so that’s a plus.

Again my disagreement is with your statement that Christianity has more in common with Islam than with Judaism. I am puzzled that you keep bringing up one extraneous issue after another, especially since I don’t necessarily disagree with most of them.

I did also question some of your other statements about Islam and the Muslim world, but since you didn’t respond, I will assume that you changed your mind and that the above was the only sticking point left.

What you keep missing is that qualities and ideas are dynamic and change in value or importance. It's the case before and especially when going from one religion to another. That's why there is this thing called "history" and "history of ideas." There would be none if ideas, interpretations of texts and doctrines, religious rites and initiations never changed and remained static.

Love as a religious virtue is quite plentiful in Islam, not something expressed just in words. If you visited some (not all) US mosques and Islamic countries and got to know ordinary people living there, it's easy to experience and observe. And they don't require seeing a tribal ID card before being nice to you.

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

I think we are pretty much in agreement. Except can you explain "The West was meant to fall"?

Planned obsolescence applies to more than just iPhones. It applies to nations as well.

The U.S. is never paying off it's debt. It's going to collapse. Financially, economically, socially.

Western Europe will fall to the level of Eastern Europe...if they're lucky. But to be honest they don't seem so lucky. China is screwed.

I don't want to get into it here but mother earth is about to throw a b**** fit and it seems like no one expect the very rich is going to be prepared

 

[Badger]

You will without a doubt vehemently disagree, and I don't wish to see your head explode in saying the following, but regarding Islam, I also see it as a vehicle of divine revelation, just like Judaism and Christianity, so for me at least, it's not extraneous to bring up.

Just as Christianity takes from Judaism themes/doctrines that it emphasizes more, shifts other themes to places of lesser, little or no importance, while adding brand new elements, above all the idea of God as man, the monotheistic God-man (1), Islam does the same with Judaism and Christianity. Islam brings back God's transcendence - and that's prominent theme in Judaism, it restores the place of Law in its own context with sharia (thus bringing back another Jewish strength), and replaces the God-man identity of Jesus with the identity of a major prophet (2), something that could easily come out of Judaism. At the same time, Islam maintains and preserves God's immanence, a very major Christian focus, but in a new way, without the need for a priesthood to undertake the complex theological acrobatics (which cannot be done relying on the OT alone, they required the Greek philosophy for this) needed to makes sense of the enigmatic "mystery" of God and man as one in Jesus. Islam directs their believers to the Koran as both the location and conduit of Divine Revelation which any Muslim believer can access and personally draw on, without mediation of a priestly or ecclesiastical machinery (both problematic impediments, salvifically speaking, in Judaism and Christianity). Islam, by minimizing or radically reducing he role of priestly/ecclesiastical machinery, universalizes access to salvation to an even greater magnitude than Christianity. (3) The Koran in Islam is functionally equivalent to Jesus in Christianity, just as Jesus in Christianity is functionally equivalent to the Koran in Islam.

From all the above, it may become clear that Islam is a "correction," so to speak, of the imbalances and excesses that inevitably developed in Judaism and Christianity. It fuses the best from Judaism and Christianity in proper proportion and values those fused or connected elements to the proper degree. At least in principle, and sometimes in practice, as with the earliest Muslims, and especially among the Sufis since then.

If Judaism corrects and adds something new to paganism, and Christianity corrects and adds something new to Judaism, then, in this developmental scheme, Islam corrects and balances out and adds something new to paganism, Judaism and Christianity. A very different version of what Christians call "salvific history," eh?

(1) BTW, you are incorrect in saying the NT gets everything it has from the OT. No it doesn't. There's nothing in the OT that indicates God is or could be a human being. The NT - or the way it gets interpreted and understood by Christians even then and later - gets any such notions from the Greeks. Ordinary, pious Jews at an earlier time, a little more than two centuries before say, who had little or no contact with Greek ideas, would be in principle fine referring to him as a human messiah, but to say some blue-collar working-class carpenter called Jesus is God Himself, in entirety, walking around on the earth? No, relatively earlier pious Jews would have been shocked by that as blasphemy, it would have reverberated with abundant pagan resonances to their ears.

(2) And as we know, Muhammad for Muslims, unlike Jesus for Christians, is NOT a God-Man, he is strictly a human and a prophet, a messenger.

(3) Protestantism registers the "Muslim impulse," so to speak, within Christianity to increase salvific universalism by ditching that machinery, but it does so at the cost of watering down the coherence of the Christian message, and above all, at the cost of destroying the unity of the Christian community, which splinters and fragments into hundreds or thousands of little - and often warring - sects that absolutize a few facets from the whole of that message. Extreme imbalances and ever-increasing cumulative confusion comes in the wake of Protestant Christianity. Instead of taking the escape hatch from this into say, Islam, the western world has chosen to take the fork in the road of secularism, nihilism and Dostoyevskian "If there is no God, everything is permitted" political replacements for religion, such as Marxism or Nazism.

Not anymore, so that’s a plus.

Again my disagreement is with your statement that Christianity has more in common with Islam than with Judaism. I am puzzled that you keep bringing up one extraneous issue after another, especially since I don’t necessarily disagree with most of them.

I did also question some of your other statements about Islam and the Muslim world, but since you didn’t respond, I will assume that you changed your mind and that the above was the only sticking point left.