religion and libertarianism are incompatible

[MikeNovack]

IC, the way you are using TRUTH makes it impossible to communicate with others meaningfully.

I understand, you believe in a religion and what God tells you via the sacred writings of that religion are true. If among those truths is something like "person X believes Y" you can express (this) truth to person Z, but not to person X. It is absurd to say to person X "you believe in Y"(because God told me that and so it is TRUE). Person X knows what they do or do not believe in. They know whether they believe Y or not.

How do you respond to person X telling you "I do not believe in Y". Do you tell X "you re lying to me" (you actually do believe in Y). Do you tell X "you are mistaken" (you honestly think you don't believe in Y but actually you do). Here your approach seems to be to simply ignore X saying "I do not believe in Y" and keep repeating "X, you believe in Y".

You are confusing private knowledge of TRUTH with shared knowledge of TRUTH.

It doesn't matter how certain you are of the truth, you can't tell a Jew what a Jew believes, a Muslim what a Muslim believes, a Hindu or Buddhist what they believe, a Sikh, a Baha'i, a Jain, etc. etc.You can tell them the beliefs they hold are wrong (because you know the truth) but if you tell them, "you don't believe what you believe (because you know the truth about what they believe) they will think you deluded. End of conversation. It's a waste of time to try to communicate with somebody who is deluded

BTW, I think we have finally gotten back to the original question. My two cents? Should be clear I tink we cannot answer except by polling every religion "are you compatible with libertarianism?" If so, why?" We can only conclude "all are incompatible " when we've checked all on the list and gotten a "no" or judged the "why" of their yes inadequate.

[Belinda]

Maybe you should point to where your recommended alternative has been successfully practiced. Where would that be?

The Good Book itself has influenced many people to be human kind and sympathetic.

No doubt, that’s true. But where has this business of “creative arts,” plus “common sanity” and “practicality” been used to “produce happiness and prosperity”?

Jesus himself taught by parables which are a form of creative art.Jesus overturned the tables of the money changers a theatrical gesture: and Jesus orchestrated his own theatrical entry into Jerusalem.Theatre as we know it evolved from religious ritual.

That’s one heck of a stretch, B. For one thing, you’re assuming the form, not the content, made the difference. But even more so, you’re using an adjective “theatrical,” as if it was the main noun, “theatre.” There was no “theatre”in Christ, though the Pharisees would have preferred it to be nothing but that, and the use of parables to explain truth was very routine in the ancient world, as it remains today…but it does not suggest that the implications of either was merely a “creative” exercise, or that the “arts” were saving the world.

And you recommend this procedure for us, not for Christ. So say again: where has such an approach ever succeeded?

You tell me where education in liberal creative arts has not resulted in empathy, sympathy, and sanity.

Oh, that’s easy. The arts have often produced obscenities, blasphemies, lies…think of Soviet Realism, or the Futurism so beloved by Mussolini, or the urine and feces soaked productions put into art galleries. Or think of the violent theatre of the ancient Greeks and Romans, or the long association between theatre and prostitution, and you’ll have plenty of such examples. Or how about Hollywood’s culture of abuse and pedo activity? You haven’t forgotten the famed “casting couch,” have you?

You would produce that rebuttal! I expected it.

I referred of course to free artistic expression not weaponised artistic forms such as Soviet art, Nazi art, commercial art, sexual porn, violent porn, greed porn.
Free artistic expression may be traditional and popular or not as the case may be but what makes art free is the artist's aim for truth. or even Truth and Goodness. Beauty is not beauty if the aim of the artist is polluted with base concerns.

''Theatre ' means acting out life in a way that shows meaning — like parables or temple rituals — rather than just doing something plainly.''Theatre 'is often used of performance arts such as ballet so that a ballet such as Giselle is theatre ballet and a ballet such as Les Sylphides is not theatre ballet.
Similarly in a high C of E( or Anglo Catholic) church we have much theatre in the form of colourful sensual rituals, incense and so on, whereas in a low C of E church the rituals are plain and simple.

[Immanuel Can]

The Good Book itself has influenced many people to be human kind and sympathetic.

No doubt, that’s true. But where has this business of “creative arts,” plus “common sanity” and “practicality” been used to “produce happiness and prosperity”?

Jesus himself taught by parables which are a form of creative art.Jesus overturned the tables of the money changers a theatrical gesture: and Jesus orchestrated his own theatrical entry into Jerusalem.Theatre as we know it evolved from religious ritual.

That’s one heck of a stretch, B. For one thing, you’re assuming the form, not the content, made the difference. But even more so, you’re using an adjective “theatrical,” as if it was the main noun, “theatre.” There was no “theatre”in Christ, though the Pharisees would have preferred it to be nothing but that, and the use of parables to explain truth was very routine in the ancient world, as it remains today…but it does not suggest that the implications of either was merely a “creative” exercise, or that the “arts” were saving the world.

And you recommend this procedure for us, not for Christ. So say again: where has such an approach ever succeeded?

You tell me where education in liberal creative arts has not resulted in empathy, sympathy, and sanity.

Oh, that’s easy. The arts have often produced obscenities, blasphemies, lies…think of Soviet Realism, or the Futurism so beloved by Mussolini, or the urine and feces soaked productions put into art galleries. Or think of the violent theatre of the ancient Greeks and Romans, or the long association between theatre and prostitution, and you’ll have plenty of such examples. Or how about Hollywood’s culture of abuse and pedo activity? You haven’t forgotten the famed “casting couch,” have you?

You would produce that rebuttal! I expected it.

You should indeed have expected it. It is certainly obvious. So I’m surprised you said what you said.

I referred of course to free artistic expression not weaponised artistic forms such as Soviet art, Nazi art, commercial art, sexual porn, violent porn, greed porn.

“Free” isn’t a category of beneficial art. Lots of what you list are “free” enough, but still often evil.

What you appear to mean is, “Whatever Belinda likes is okay, but whatever Belinda doesn’t like is bad.” And maybe that’s true; but it won’t help anybody discover this liberating “art” that is the hope of mankind, according to Belinda, or to prevent the other kinds of “art” that are nothing close to salvific.

[Belinda]

No doubt, that’s true. But where has this business of “creative arts,” plus “common sanity” and “practicality” been used to “produce happiness and prosperity”?


That’s one heck of a stretch, B. For one thing, you’re assuming the form, not the content, made the difference. But even more so, you’re using an adjective “theatrical,” as if it was the main noun, “theatre.” There was no “theatre”in Christ, though the Pharisees would have preferred it to be nothing but that, and the use of parables to explain truth was very routine in the ancient world, as it remains today…but it does not suggest that the implications of either was merely a “creative” exercise, or that the “arts” were saving the world.

And you recommend this procedure for us, not for Christ. So say again: where has such an approach ever succeeded?

Oh, that’s easy. The arts have often produced obscenities, blasphemies, lies…think of Soviet Realism, or the Futurism so beloved by Mussolini, or the urine and feces soaked productions put into art galleries. Or think of the violent theatre of the ancient Greeks and Romans, or the long association between theatre and prostitution, and you’ll have plenty of such examples. Or how about Hollywood’s culture of abuse and pedo activity? You haven’t forgotten the famed “casting couch,” have you?

You would produce that rebuttal! I expected it.

You should indeed have expected it. It is certainly obvious. So I’m surprised you said what you said.

I referred of course to free artistic expression not weaponised artistic forms such as Soviet art, Nazi art, commercial art, sexual porn, violent porn, greed porn.

“Free” isn’t a category of beneficial art. Lots of what you list are “free” enough, but still often evil.

What you appear to mean is, “Whatever Belinda likes is okay, but whatever Belinda doesn’t like is bad.” And maybe that’s true; but it won’t help anybody discover this liberating “art” that is the hope of mankind, according to Belinda, or to prevent the other kinds of “art” that are nothing close to salvific.

What I listed certainly are not free of base motives such as commerce or indoctrination.
When commerce, or indoctrination ,is present people are seduced away from their common humanity towards greed or cruelty.

As so often previously my heart is sore that you who have studied The Bible so much have missed its message of love

[Immanuel Can]

You would produce that rebuttal! I expected it.

You should indeed have expected it. It is certainly obvious. So I’m surprised you said what you said.

I referred of course to free artistic expression not weaponised artistic forms such as Soviet art, Nazi art, commercial art, sexual porn, violent porn, greed porn.

“Free” isn’t a category of beneficial art. Lots of what you list are “free” enough, but still often evil.

What you appear to mean is, “Whatever Belinda likes is okay, but whatever Belinda doesn’t like is bad.” And maybe that’s true; but it won’t help anybody discover this liberating “art” that is the hope of mankind, according to Belinda, or to prevent the other kinds of “art” that are nothing close to salvific.

What I listed certainly are not free of base motives such as commerce or indoctrination.

Neither is practically ANY art. If you know the history of art, you know that, for sure.

[Immanuel Can]

IC, the way you are using TRUTH makes it impossible to communicate with others meaningfully.

Au contraire, I’m not “using” it at all. I’m letting the truth be known, and speak for itself. And there is no other appropriate way to speak.

I understand, you believe in a religion and what God tells you via the sacred writings of that religion are true.

Well, if God said something, wouldn’t you believe it?

How do you respond to person X telling you "I do not believe in Y".

I would respond, I believe you. But maybe you should.

But as it is, you don’t need to believe me. All you have to do is read what Jesus Christ said, and use basic logic to see He was telling the truth. Any Judaism that insists there is no afterlife, but that God is “the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” is inescapably saying also that their god is the god of the dead, not of the living.

Just read the words. You don’t need to believe me at all.

You are confusing private knowledge of TRUTH with shared knowledge of TRUTH.

This hasn’t happened. But maybe you’re thinking I’m making a private claim, whereas I’m really making a public claim that is obvious to anybody who employs logic to evaluate it.

BTW, I think we have finally gotten back to the original question. My two cents? Should be clear I tink we cannot answer except by polling every religion "are you compatible with libertarianism?" If so, why?" We can only conclude "all are incompatible " when we've checked all on the list and gotten a "no" or judged the "why" of their yes inadequate.

We can go back to the original question, if you wish. It won’t change anything I’ve said, but sure…why not?

[MikeNovack]

Just for the other folks watching this interchange between me and IC, when I've been saying Judaism doesn't have a belief about "a soul" I am forced to put it that way because if I said yes, to IC that means "a soul as understood by Christianity". In other words, a soul that is the real enduring you, and the body just a husk it wears during life. No, Judaism does not mean that sort of thing by soul.

The mainstream of Judaism believes in soul (non-physical components of us and all living things). I used the plural, because at least two components (the mysticism of the Zohar added more). On, think of as "life force" and all living things would have this. The other, as "spirit". A person, while living, would be a body into which God has placed "life force and "spirit". Upon death, they separate, the person ceases to exist, the body rots in the ground while the "life force" and "spirit" go back to from whence they came (potentially to be reused).

This is nothing like what IC means when he says "a soul" which is why I have been saying "no".

But obviously there must have been times within Judaism when there was belief about soul closer to the Christian sense. Christianity got it from somewhere, and for a hundred years, perhaps even longer, in the land where originated still a Jewish sect.

[FlashDangerpants]

But obviously there must have been times within Judaism when there was belief about soul closer to the Christian sense. Christianity got it from somewhere, and for a hundred years, perhaps even longer, in the land where originated still a Jewish sect.

That, along with all the light and dark stuff, would probably be one of the things borrowed from Zoroastrianism.

I don't bother discussing religion much, I have crop-dusted your conversation, like the man who quietly farted in the elevator, I shall now depart.

[Immanuel Can]

Just for the other folks watching this interchange between me and IC, when I've been saying Judaism doesn't have a belief about "a soul" I am forced to put it that way because if I said yes, to IC that means "a soul as understood by Christianity". In other words, a soul that is the real enduring you, and the body just a husk it wears during life. No, Judaism does not mean that sort of thing by soul.

The mainstream of Judaism believes in soul (non-physical components of us and all living things). I used the plural, because at least two components (the mysticism of the Zohar added more). On, think of as "life force" and all living things would have this. The other, as "spirit". A person, while living, would be a body into which God has placed "life force and "spirit". Upon death, they separate, the person ceases to exist, the body rots in the ground while the "life force" and "spirit" go back to from whence they came (potentially to be reused).

This is nothing like what IC means when he says "a soul" which is why I have been saying "no".

This is evasive, and nonsense.

The topic has been, “Is there an afterlife?” The concept of the soul has not been required in it. But it does serve as a useful distractor from the main point, which remains “Is there an afterlife?”

If Judaism says “No,” then, as Jesus Christ Himself pointed out, they are calling themselves worshippers of the god of the dead. As Christ says, that would be a terrible mistake…and one which any sensible Jewish person would recognize as a blasphemy. So it turns out that the Pharisees were right, if only by accident: that Judaism requires an afterlife. Failure to acknowledge this would be an abandonment of Torah, of Moses, and of logic.

That’s the real point.

[MikeNovack]

If Judaism says “No,” then, as Jesus Christ Himself pointed out, they are calling themselves worshippers of the god of the dead. As Christ says, that would be a terrible mistake…and one which any sensible Jewish person would recognize as a blasphemy. So it turns out that the Pharisees were right, if only by accident: that Judaism requires an afterlife. Failure to acknowledge this would be an abandonment of Torah, of Moses, and of logic.

That’s the real point.

IC, I will tell you one last time. What Jesus said is YOUR truth, Christian truth, the real/only TRUTH if you are a Christian. However when you are trying to discuss with a person of some other religion you have to keep in mind that their religion might be making the same claim to be the real/only TRUTH

If you want to discuss Christianity with this person, you can state TRUTH (Christian truth). But if you are discussing the other person's religion you need to do so in terms of TRUTH (of their religion). In particular, you can't say to them "because of TRUTH (Christian truth) this is what YOU believe". They know very well what they do or do not believe.

With your approach, you can't even discuss things like "afterlife" with say a Hindu or Buddhist << they don't believe death is the end -- not so easy to escape the wheel of life and suffering >> And what if they ask YOU "how about before birth?"

[Immanuel Can]

If Judaism says “No,” then, as Jesus Christ Himself pointed out, they are calling themselves worshippers of the god of the dead. As Christ says, that would be a terrible mistake…and one which any sensible Jewish person would recognize as a blasphemy. So it turns out that the Pharisees were right, if only by accident: that Judaism requires an afterlife. Failure to acknowledge this would be an abandonment of Torah, of Moses, and of logic.

That’s the real point.

IC, I will tell you one last time. What Jesus said is YOUR truth, Christian truth,

There’s no such thing. There’s only THE truth. And it’s Moses and the Torah that compel that truth, not me.

However when you are trying to discuss with a person of some other religion you have to keep in mind that their religion might be making the same claim to be the real/only TRUTH

I’ve got news for you. They ALL say that. They ALL claim to be the exclusively “right” road. But logic solves that problem immediately: logically, only one, at most, can be right. And logic is an impartial arbitrator.

if you are discussing the other person's religion you need to do so in terms of TRUTH (of their religion).

I’m not discussing what “other religions” believe. I’m discussing what Moses tells you in Torah that you must believe…which is also the truth. Nothing else is remotely interesting but the truth.

With your approach, you can't even discuss things like "afterlife" with say a Hindu or Buddhist

Sure I can. I can tell them they’re wrong.

And how about you? Aren’t you trying to tell me I’m wrong? And yet, we’re discussing, and neither of us is getting hurt by it. But Messiah Jesus had on his side the advantage of Moses and the Torah. You can read it for yourself: “the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,” not “the god of the dead.” So whatever modern Judaism is teaching, they’re wrong in the same way the Sadducees of old were wrong.

what if they ask YOU "how about before birth?"

What about it? “How about” what aspect? I don’t see an obvious question in that, so you’ll have to spell it out.

[Belinda]

If Judaism says “No,” then, as Jesus Christ Himself pointed out, they are calling themselves worshippers of the god of the dead. As Christ says, that would be a terrible mistake…and one which any sensible Jewish person would recognize as a blasphemy. So it turns out that the Pharisees were right, if only by accident: that Judaism requires an afterlife. Failure to acknowledge this would be an abandonment of Torah, of Moses, and of logic.

That’s the real point.

IC, I will tell you one last time. What Jesus said is YOUR truth, Christian truth, the real/only TRUTH if you are a Christian. However when you are trying to discuss with a person of some other religion you have to keep in mind that their religion might be making the same claim to be the real/only TRUTH

If you want to discuss Christianity with this person, you can state TRUTH (Christian truth). But if you are discussing the other person's religion you need to do so in terms of TRUTH (of their religion). In particular, you can't say to them "because of TRUTH (Christian truth) this is what YOU believe". They know very well what they do or do not believe.

With your approach, you can't even discuss things like "afterlife" with say a Hindu or Buddhist << they don't believe death is the end -- not so easy to escape the wheel of life and suffering >> And what if they ask YOU "how about before birth?"

But Mike, Jesus was a practising Jew. Christianity is a branch of Judaism. Which is why it's more explicitly called 'Judeo-Christianity'.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

9 pages of 108 continuous posts not displayed! Is that a record?