Christianity

[Harry Baird]

Right. Everyone's an 'expert'.

You seem to have inferred that Belinda's comments support your position. Unless it's me who's misinterpreting, they don't. She wrote explicitly that the "policy" that "right wing Israelis" are pursuing is (emphasis added) "dishonest".

But, as is becoming apparent, connecting one thing with another is not exactly your forte...

[Harry Baird]

You are never going to change your mind so what's the point?

That cuts both ways. I have at least given you reasons to change your mind. You've offered me (and those who agree with me) nothing.

[Harry Baird]

Explain what? That God was behind the souls that incarnated through time to spur democracy and a way to live ethically (eventually) via the British?

Uh. Yeah. That would be a good start.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I don’t understand the term gaslighting in this context. What makes you use that term?

Gaslighting involves denying obvious reality to another person so as to exercise power over that person. It often occurs in a context in which the perpetrator presents him/herself as being rational and dispassionate, and his/her target as irrational and emotional. If the target reacts with anger or some other appropriate emotion to the denial of his/her correct perception of reality, and to the portrayal of him/herself as being illogical and merely driven by sentiments, then the perpetrator uses this as further evidence of his/her portrayal of the situation: "See, here's the emotionality that I'm talking about. As for me, I continue to simply rationally and dispassionately tell the truth."

Of course, such an exercise in power is itself motivated by sentiments, and that's probably the best way to point out the game being played.

I do not have emotional investments in any ideas that we discuss (on this forum, in this thread). But I notice that something made you (seemingly) angry. What exactly?

Case in point...

(Granted: strictly speaking, I've applied the term "gaslighting" in a much, much milder context than that in which it usually applies, and I'm not accusing you of involvement in those awful situations of domestic abuse. It's just interesting to compare the dynamics).

While I understand now what you mean by gaslighting I do not accept your assertion that I gaslighted you. Because that is so I see your responses as tactics to avoid examining the actual issues that I brought out. You have offered no commentary at all on any of the points I did bring out. It stops with the accusation of gaslighting.

My impression is, and certainly has been (when in other conversations we’ve touched on issues of social justice and my views about *straight power-principles*) that you have often become upset. When someone gets upset in conversations of this sort involving discussions of ideas in a philosophical context and where political and social ideological positions are challenged it adds a whole other emotionalized dimension that complicates the discussion. Since I have no interest at all in making you upset, and making you upset serves no purpose, the conversation has to end. Or, and here is the real downside, it must devolve into the sort of bickering that goes on in this thread continually.

To recap: I regard the South African situation as distinct and different from either Israel or the conquest of North America by the English colonists. Difference does not mean incomparability it simply means that the differences have to be seen and understood. I regard the activism against South Africa that I mentioned in reference to my parent’s views and also to the global anti-Apartheid movement as being, let’s say, badly informed and also hyper-emotionalized. Meaning that it was established by those who controlled and directed the narrative that South Africans supportive of the state could only be seen as ‘bad’ and ‘evil’.

I will cite that particular friend of my family who repeated “Whitey got t’ go”. His statement, and what I remember of his position, equated the South African situation with that of the American South, as if they were equatable. What he seemed to do was then to *project* all of his views and feelings about the American situation onto that of the South African situation. Do you suppose that I condemn him for this? No, that is not my point. However there is nothing wrong with pointing out the fact that the ‘lenses’ that we apply when we view different situations, especially contentious ones, involve projections of stuff into those situations. If you were to say “But you have your own lenses that you apply” I would answer that yes, I do, but I can also detach myself from them and recognize, and talk about, my own *interests*. And with the introduction of that word *interest* I also introduce the notion of *ownership interest*. It is a very important term in my own lexicon. The more ownership interest, the more to be protected. And when one is in a mode of protection one will, inevitably, color and *spin* one’s discourse — rationalize it I suppose.

Speaking of the global anti-Apartheid movement, in this sense then an emotionalized position overcame a more rational and nuanced one. And I recall a conversation with a man (an American) I met on a bus heading to New Orleans who had lived in South Africa and when I voiced my simplistic analysis (borne of anti-Apartheid sentiments received but not worked for) he simply pointed out that the real situation was far more complex than that. And he seemed quite clear-headed to me and sincere as well.

It is my opinion, though you have called what I attempt here ‘gaslighting’ which implies an underhanded and unethical manoeuvre on my part, I am not acting underhandedly. My view is that when emotionalism enters in that emotionalism then dominates and distorts. That is certainly very true in the world around us. It happens all the time. But here in this context we (supposedly!) have agreed to the terms of calm conversation.

In the larger context (of political and social discourse) I do not have any doubt at all that the Progressive/Left faction always seems to assert that their cause is ‘righteous’ and ‘moral’ and they always resort to the traditional and typical accusations and assignment of labels. So by seeming to *defend* the former South African state or regime I will be seen as defending unutterable evils. Racist, colonialist, Nazi, fascist and every other trope-term that are used in political and social battles today.

I did say, and I am committed to my view, that modern Leftist and Progressives are carrying forward a sort of emotional-religious imperative that arises from within the Christian moral and ethical context. To note that this is so it not, not necessarily, to see it as ‘wrong’. It is merely to note it and to then be able to talk about it.

What I try to do in these conversations is to *locate* the arguments and viewpoints that people have within a context, certainly, but also as a product of causation within the realm of ideas. So by referring as I do to the structure of argument of Left-Progressives and noticing their employment of moral guilt-slinging (the accusation of immorality underlies all their arguments) I do not think I am doing something wrong. Yet it is seen as such.

And you did imply that I was not coming out and saying *what I really meant* which, obviously, means making the sort of statements you imagine I am making that you (I gather) see as racist, colonialist and morally regressive. You then commented on your own assertions saying this was ‘sad’.

[Belinda]

Right. Everyone's an 'expert'. What is this obsession with Israel? How is it different from every other country? It's not going to just disappear because of hypocritical wokie armchair 'experts'.

I think the obsession with Israel is because Israel is an outpost of the US empire. American settlers are appropriating land and water sources from native farmers.

[attofishpi]

Explain what? That God was behind the souls that incarnated through time to spur democracy and a way to live ethically (eventually) via the British?

Uh. Yeah. That would be a good start.

Britain (spurring freedom of democracy)
...|...
formed
...|...
Canada---USA---New Zealand---Australia..etc.
...|...
India---Hong Kong---Singapore...etc.
...|...USA-->Japan/Philipinnes

(of course it kind of gets shitter the further from the origin)


So.

Harry, right now, is the world a safer place to raise a family away from tyranny because of Britain?

[Belinda]

I don’t understand the term gaslighting in this context. What makes you use that term?

Gaslighting involves denying obvious reality to another person so as to exercise power over that person. It often occurs in a context in which the perpetrator presents him/herself as being rational and dispassionate, and his/her target as irrational and emotional. If the target reacts with anger or some other appropriate emotion to the denial of his/her correct perception of reality, and to the portrayal of him/herself as being illogical and merely driven by sentiments, then the perpetrator uses this as further evidence of his/her portrayal of the situation: "See, here's the emotionality that I'm talking about. As for me, I continue to simply rationally and dispassionately tell the truth."

Of course, such an exercise in power is itself motivated by sentiments, and that's probably the best way to point out the game being played.

I do not have emotional investments in any ideas that we discuss (on this forum, in this thread). But I notice that something made you (seemingly) angry. What exactly?

Case in point...

(Granted: strictly speaking, I've applied the term "gaslighting" in a much, much milder context than that in which it usually applies, and I'm not accusing you of involvement in those awful situations of domestic abuse. It's just interesting to compare the dynamics).

While I understand now what you mean by gaslighting I do not accept your assertion that I gaslighted you. Because that is so I see your responses as tactics to avoid examining the actual issues that I brought out. You have offered no commentary at all on any of the points I did bring out. It stops with the accusation of gaslighting.

My impression is, and certainly has been (when in other conversations we’ve touched on issues of social justice and my views about *straight power-principles*) that you have often become upset. When someone gets upset in conversations of this sort involving discussions of ideas in a philosophical context and where political and social ideological positions are challenged it adds a whole other emotionalized dimension that complicates the discussion. Since I have no interest at all in making you upset, and making you upset serves no purpose, the conversation has to end. Or, and here is the real downside, it must devolve into the sort of bickering that goes on in this thread continually.

To recap: I regard the South African situation as distinct and different from either Israel or the conquest of North America by the English colonists. Difference does not mean incomparability it simply means that the differences have to be seen and understood. I regard the activism against South Africa that I mentioned in reference to my parent’s views and also to the global anti-Apartheid movement as being, let’s say, badly informed and also hyper-emotionalized. Meaning that it was established by those who controlled and directed the narrative that South Africans supportive of the state could only be seen as ‘bad’ and ‘evil’.

I will cite that particular friend of my family who repeated “Whitey got t’ go”. His statement, and what I remember of his position, equated the South African situation with that of the American South, as if they were equatable. What he seemed to do was then to *project* all of his views and feelings about the American situation onto that of the South African situation. Do you suppose that I condemn him for this? No, that is not my point. However there is nothing wrong with pointing out the fact that the ‘lenses’ that we apply when we view different situations, especially contentious ones, involve projections of stuff into those situations. If you were to say “But you have your own lenses that you apply” I would answer that yes, I do, but I can also detach myself from them and recognize, and talk about, my own *interests*. And with the introduction of that word *interest* I also introduce the notion of *ownership interest*. It is a very important term in my own lexicon. The more ownership interest, the more to be protected. And when one is in a mode of protection one will, inevitably, color and *spin* one’s discourse — rationalize it I suppose.

Speaking of the global anti-Apartheid movement, in this sense then an emotionalized position overcame a more rational and nuanced one. And I recall a conversation with a man (an American) I met on a bus heading to New Orleans who had lived in South Africa and when I voiced my simplistic analysis (borne of anti-Apartheid sentiments received but not worked for) he simply pointed out that the real situation was far more complex than that. And he seemed quite clear-headed to me and sincere as well.

It is my opinion, though you have called what I attempt here ‘gaslighting’ which implies an underhanded and unethical manoeuvre on my part, I am not acting underhandedly. My view is that when emotionalism enters in that emotionalism then dominates and distorts. That is certainly very true in the world around us. It happens all the time. But here in this context we (supposedly!) have agreed to the terms of calm conversation.

In the larger context (of political and social discourse) I do not have any doubt at all that the Progressive/Left faction always seems to assert that their cause is ‘righteous’ and ‘moral’ and they always resort to the traditional and typical accusations and assignment of labels. So by seeming to *defend* the former South African state or regime I will be seen as defending unutterable evils. Racist, colonialist, Nazi, fascist and every other trope-term that are used in political and social battles today.

I did say, and I am committed to my view, that modern Leftist and Progressives are carrying forward a sort of emotional-religious imperative that arises from within the Christian moral and ethical context. To note that this is so it not, not necessarily, to see it as ‘wrong’. It is merely to note it and to then be able to talk about it.

What I try to do in these conversations is to *locate* the arguments and viewpoints that people have within a context, certainly, but also as a product of causation within the realm of ideas. So by referring as I do to the structure of argument of Left-Progressives and noticing their employment of moral guilt-slinging (the accusation of immorality underlies all their arguments) I do not think I am doing something wrong. Yet it is seen as such.

And you did imply that I was not coming out and saying *what I really meant* which, obviously, means making the sort of statements you imagine I am making that you (I gather) see as racist, colonialist and morally regressive. You then commented on your own assertions saying this was ‘sad’.

You need to decide which narrative you support, name that narrative, and as this is a philosophy forum, you need to say why (according to which criteria) you support that narrative.

I can tell you that the narrative I support is approximately that of a liberal Xian who was indoctrinated with the Beatitudes.
3Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

4Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.

5Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.

6Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness,

for they will be filled.

7Blessed are the merciful, for they shall be shown mercy.

8Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

9Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the sons of God.

10Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

[Harry Baird]

I see your responses as tactics to avoid examining the actual issues that I brought out.

You didn't present any issues. You only vaguely alluded to them. I challenged you to present your views explicitly. You ignored my challenge. It still stands.

The tactics are all on your side: "Alas, Harry, you poor, emotionally misguided victim of sentimental misunderstanding. Allow me, a man of dispassionate reason, to explain to you your error."

Uh. OK then. Go ahead, dude. Floor's yours.

I spent the formative first ten years of my life in South Africa with the guidance of a thoughtful, understanding, compassionate family, but maybe you can convince me that we all misunderstood the whole situation. Maybe you know something that those of us living there didn't. Again: the floor's yours. Convince me. Convince the rest of my family.

And, for a start, convince me that you're even advancing a positive position any more substantial than VT's.

[Harry Baird]

Explain what? That God was behind the souls that incarnated through time to spur democracy and a way to live ethically (eventually) via the British?

Uh. Yeah. That would be a good start.

Britain (spurring freedom of democracy)
...|...
formed
...|...
Canada---USA---New Zealand---Australia..etc.
...|...
India---Hong Kong---Singapore...etc.
...|...USA-->Japan/Philipinnes

(of course it kind of gets shitter the further from the origin)


So.

Harry, right now, is the world a safer place to raise a family away from tyranny because of Britain?

Huh. How curious. I'm... uh, I mean... uh, I'm surely mistaken, but I... I... I hate to say it, but... well, there doesn't seem to be any reference to God in all of that. I'm obviously just being a total dumbarse, 'cos you of course remember that your claim as to God's involvement was the one which I challenged, and so, you of course have backed it up explicitly but...

...huh, for some reason, God just doesn't seem to appear in your response. Of course, that must be a pure misunderstanding on my part, so, please do show me what I'm missing.

[Immanuel Can]

f I pretended to misread, I didn't actually misread.

Right. That's why you only "pretended" to.

That is you calling me a liar again.

Again, you convert a statement about what you did, to a statement about what you are.

Then you take umbrage, allege slander, and try to claim the high ground.

Nope, no good. Too transparent.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Right. Everyone's an 'expert'. What is this obsession with Israel? How is it different from every other country? It's not going to just disappear because of hypocritical wokie armchair 'experts'.

I think the obsession with Israel is because Israel is an outpost of the US empire. American settlers are appropriating land and water sources from native farmers.

The Jewish self-narrative (if you will accept my invented term) is that Jews are first and foremost world-molders and as ethical agents in this world of ours. Read any substantive Jewish history and you will see that to be a Jew is to define oneself in very unique and very unusual ways. This difference, this separation from *the ways of the Nations* is a fundamental and central element within Jewish belief. It is ensconced within religious views and, in Orthodox circles, it is explained in metaphysical terms. The purpose of Jews, and the purpose of Jewish tribulations, and the purpose of god who stands behind his selection and favor of Jews, is expressive of a larger world-scale project: converting the world essentially. Reining in the rebellious will of those of the Nations. Establishing a rulership that will proceed from Jerusalem. What must be understood is that these are not Gentile projections onto Judaism but rather the core tenets of Judaism.

It should be obvious then that Christianity extends this mission, or is a branch of the mission itself, the purpose of which is to ‘conquer’ and ‘subdue’ the Nations and bring them under the rulership of ‘guiding ideas’. Every knee shall bow should be taken seriously and as it is meant. The mission of Christianity, then, is and must be to undermine and to discredit and invalidate any people’s different or opposing religious concept. We have been over this in this thread. We have spelled it out. We have cited the biblical references. If you oppose this Mission you oppose god. If you oppose god you are operating in service to the demonic.

It really can be reduced in this way.

Now, and with that said, let us once again examine the platform of opposition to both Judaism and Christianity. I assure you that this is a most difficult and complex feat. I assure you that it will take excruciatingly difficult intellectual, ideational and moral effort to see clearly what the issues are and, at the same time, develop a clear-headed position about both Judaism and Christianity.

What I want to point out, and what I do point out, is the structure of opposition that must be brought out against whatever view I am presenting here by people involved, at a profoundly invested level, in defending the core tenets of the religious modality. Ecce Immanual.

The ‘obsession with Israel’ is an obsession that is managed by Jews and Christians. This primary factor has to be seen. To be always in the limelight is to claim for oneself and to be always the center of attention. It has a downside, that is true, but it has much more of an upside.

It is true that American foreign policy which is deeply involved in pure and simple geo-political machinations devoid of moral imperative have used Israel as an ‘imperialist outpost’. But it is also true that for American Jews and really world Jewry that America has been and is an event within Jewish history that is incomparable. That is, America opened up avenues that were closed to Jewry through the long and troubled Diaspora. America, far more than Israel, has been *a promised land*. The control of American foreign policy vis-a-vis Israel is, to anyone with two functioning eyes in a functioning head, critical to the re-founding of Israel and the re-conquest of Palestine, and also the most important platform for the continued Jewish project which I outlined at the beginning.

Do you people generally pay any attention at all to the news?!? Do you read anything? To you have any interest at all in keeping up-to-date and inforned about what is going on at this crucial juncture of world history?!?

There has been a low intensity ideological war that has over the last 10 years or so come far more out into the open. Will it help to see that *they* are projecting biblical narratives and prophecy into the realm of ideological orientation and geo-political machination? It probably won’t. But our purpose here is not to mold but merely to see. Generally we are impotent, no?

[Alexis Jacobi]

You need to decide which narrative you support, name that narrative, and as this is a philosophy forum, you need to say why (according to which criteria) you support that narrative.

No, actually I don’t need to do that. It doesn’t serve my purposes. While I sometimes think I understand some things, and sometimes think I have a defensible position that I can articulate, more often than not I do not have a clear understanding of what *narrative* (ideology, viewpoint, woerldview) to fully adopt as an existential commitment.

I am aware, however, of many competing narratives and they vie for power in the general Present.

[Harry Baird]

Right. That's why you only "pretended" to.

That is you calling me a liar again.

Again, you convert a statement about what you did, to a statement about what you are.

Then you take umbrage, allege slander, and try to claim the high ground.

Nope, no good. Too transparent.

Dude. Quit while you're way, way behind, to avoid digging yourself even deeper into a hole of your own making.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You didn't present any issues. You only vaguely alluded to them. I challenged you to present your views explicitly. You ignored my challenge. It still stands.

This is tactic on your part. If you wish to thwart any developing conversation you certainly have the power to do so. My policy is not to stop someone when they take such a tack. The refusal to allow an examination of the issues, in a very heated and controversial area, is your prerogative. To continue, and you do not wish to continue, you will have to go back to the first post I made on the topic and start over. Drop the gaslighting accusation and work, as you certainly are capable, point by point through what I fairly and squarely presented. I took the floor and presented an opening statement then. There is not need for me to do it again.

[attofishpi]

Huh. How curious. I'm... uh, I mean... uh, I'm surely mistaken, but I... I... I hate to say it, but... well, there doesn't seem to be any reference to God in all of that. I'm obviously just being a total dumbarse, 'cos you of course remember that your claim as to God's involvement was the one which I challenged, and so, you of course have backed it up explicitly but...

...huh, for some reason, God just doesn't seem to appear in your response.

Harry, I am a Pantheist/Panentheist - God has EVERYTHING to do with the spreading of good intention, ethics and democracy (via the British system).

So.

Again..

Britain (spurring freedom of democracy)
...|...
formed
...|...
Canada---USA---New Zealand---Australia..etc.
...|...
India---Hong Kong---Singapore...etc.
...|...USA-->Japan/Philipinnes


My question of you remains: Right now, is the world a safer place to raise a family away from tyranny because of Britain?