God and morality

[Immanuel Can]

May Allah bless you! You don't have to die if you believe. By the way, where do you get such statistics?

The secular, academic, "Encyclopedia of War" (3 vols.) is one place. But you can find out practically anywhere an honest source exists. We know that Stalin killed no less than 22 million, and Mao not less than 42 million. Add in the other Socialist regimes in North Korea, Cambodia, Zimbabwe, Cuba, etc., and you're bound to get a figure well over 100 million, and closer to 140 million...and those are only the ones we know of beyond reasonable doubt.

No religion, not even Islam, which is as bloody as all other religions combined into one, has come within orders of magnitude of that death count. And some religions have never caused a single war or death, so far as we can tell. But Socialism, we know about.

If you are an American, you do not know your own BLOODY history.

I'm not American. But I know American history. What do you want to say? Nothing America has ever done has come close to Socialism's total.

[popeye1945]

The secular, academic, "Encyclopedia of War" (3 vols.) is one place. But you can find out practically anywhere an honest source exists. We know that Stalin killed no less than 22 million, and Mao not less than 42 million. Add in the other Socialist regimes in North Korea, Cambodia, Zimbabwe, Cuba, etc., and you're bound to get a figure well over 100 million, and closer to 140 million...and those are only the ones we know of beyond reasonable doubt.

No religion, not even Islam, which is as bloody as all other religions combined into one, has come within orders of magnitude of that death count. And some religions have never caused a single war or death, so far as we can tell. But Socialism, we know about.

If you are an American, you do not know your own BLOODY history.

I'm not American. But I know American history. What do you want to say? Nothing America has ever done has come close to Socialism's total.

America is an Empire and as such, it has been a cruel master, as empires generally are. The age of empire and Western colonialism is coming to a close at present, but even in its decline, it is going to be as bloody as its nature dictates

[MikeNovack]

I am a person who is neither a Christian nor a Muslim.

Well, you should learn about Islam. Because for sure, they have plans for you.

IC, defend your presumed claim "Considering the entire history of the last 14 centuries, a Jew should consider Christianity more tolerant than Islam." Or the reverse? Do not bother telling the Jew "At the moment, Christianity is more tolerant". Do not bother telling the Jew "Based on the theory of Christianity should be more tolerant".

[Immanuel Can]

IC, defend your presumed claim "Considering the entire history of the last 14 centuries, a Jew should consider Christianity more tolerant than Islam."

"Presumed claim"? It's your claim, not one I made. Still, it's true for sure. However, not having made the claim, I have no need to defend it.

Ask me about what I DID say, not what I didn't.

[Immanuel Can]

If you are an American, you do not know your own BLOODY history.

I'm not American. But I know American history. What do you want to say? Nothing America has ever done has come close to Socialism's total.

America is an Empire

Justify that claim. In what way is America an "empire"?

Western colonialism

You clearly don't know anything about colonialism. I do...in fact, I even have first hand experience seeing what happened when colonialism dissolved.

[MikeNovack]

IC, defend your presumed claim "Considering the entire history of the last 14 centuries, a Jew should consider Christianity more tolerant than Islam."

"Presumed claim"? It's your claim, not one I made. Still, it's true for sure.

No, it IS your claim since you consider Christianity superior in tolerance. But the Jew would say "for about 90% of the last 1400 years, Islam more tolerant than Christianity" << in both cases, off and on, and in various places >>

It does not convince the Jew because "Christianity HERE/NOW is tolerant". Based on the Jew's experience of history, does not last.

[Immanuel Can]

IC, defend your presumed claim "Considering the entire history of the last 14 centuries, a Jew should consider Christianity more tolerant than Islam."

"Presumed claim"? It's your claim, not one I made. Still, it's true for sure.

No, it IS your claim

Quote where I said it. You cannot. Even you call it "presumed."

Stop "presuming," and deal with what I said.

I know full well that you don't even know what a "Christian" is. You've made that very clear. So it's impossible to convince you of anything that "Christians" have or have not done, because you don't even acknowledge the criteria that make one a Christian. So you'll inevitably want to pull in irrelevancies, like the Crusades or the Inquisition, which were Catholic, not Christian, and really, more political than religious, ultimately. And you'll want to insist that Hitler was a Christian because he signed the concordat with the Pope. You'll ignore his deep commitment to Aryan occultism. But you won't use the New Testament criteria, and you won't recognize what real Christians have done for Jews in history.

However, take a look at today. What is Islam doing? And who are the greatest allies that the State of Israel presently has among the goyim?

Figure it out, dude.

[phyllo]

This is typical Mr Can. Define the difficulties away.

Any Christian who did something bad was not a real Christian. He/she was something/anything else

By definition, Jews were never persecuted by Christians. Wars were never fought by Christians. Torture, mass murder, rapes, any physical or mental violence were never done by Christians.

[Immanuel Can]

This is typical Mr Can. Define the difficulties away.

Well, let's see.

What do you think a "Christian" is?

[Gary Childress]

This is typical Mr Can. Define the difficulties away.

Well, let's see.

What do you think a "Christian" is?

Oooh, ooh, can I take a guess? Is " hypocrite " the answer?

[phyllo]

Christian : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ

Christianity : the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies

[Alexis Jacobi]

Religious superstitions will be the downfall of humanity. It must be recognized that these archaic mythologies were the best our ancestors could do for us as far as orientation is concerned, considering the knowledge base of their time. Religion and its institutions are biological extensions of human nature and, as such, are meant to reflect upon us to reinforce coherence with reality, but the reality of their times, not ours. In our times, it is known that life itself is the source of all meaning in the world, that life has many forms, but has but one essence, and we are all in this together. When these mythologies were created, humanity was relatively immature, both in its humanity and its knowledge of reality. Belief in these mythologies today means to be anti- intellectual while denying the progress of humanities knowledge over the centuries, it is treading water in a stagnet pool meaning it's stillness is unhealthy. The universe is the creative field of all reality and is the only reality. We as manifestations of this field are the field, reasoning must follow this knowledge in order to come into greater cohernance with the nature of the field itself, as discoherance means greater suffering. This theme goes on, but free you mind and spirit from these mumified recipes for ancient civilizations, reality is to grand to accomadate the errors of the past as something sacred.

This is not much more than the long-rehearsed and classic early scientific argument against the religious mind and its modality. It is not that hard for anyone to read its tenets (they are presented in list form) and to assent to their logic and to some degree their reasonableness.

The unfortunate aspect of the ultra-hard anti-religious view is that it turns out to be undermining of a great deal more than merely a “religious superstition in an old lady attending Mass” (if you catch my drift). It very quickly becomes an armament against an entire value-system. It then is taken up as an educational protocol and, more often than not, that education protocol is powered by the will of a cohort with many other levels and intensities of intentionality. Remember Big Mike? He is an excellent example of that intensification of the “will” I describe. It quickly becomes turbocharged with an iconoclastic spirit that is easily availed by a “mass formation” of cultural destruction.

Now, we must realize that “modern secular philosophy” locates itself in this species of rationalism. That is one main reason why there is such a pronounced anti-metaphysical contingent on this forum. For how could it be otherwise? An entire direction of intellectualism must turn against it.

There is another route however. First, to realize that there is a destructive note and spirit in operation when the concerted effort is made to undermine the relationship of men to metaphysical principles. If you are reasonably good at argument, if you have enough energy and focus and handle rhetorics well, you can rather easily break the connection between a man and, say, an ‘invisible spirit’. And you can honestly believe you are doing good. But it does not turn out that way when the longer sweep of historical process is examined.

[Alexis Jacobi]

America is an Empire and as such, it has been a cruel master, as empires generally are. The age of empire and Western colonialism is coming to a close at present, but even in its decline, it is going to be as bloody as its nature dictates

Here Don Señor Popeye reveals one element in the Argument of Undermining. It is a sort of “spirit” that attracts a following. I thought it was just religious superstition that was being assailed but, and this is common, it shows itself in a general spirit of undermining. And this is connected, inevitably, with a critical spirit that quickly morphs into something far more consequential and farther-reaching.

[Alexis Jacobi]

America is an Empire.

Justify that claim. In what way is America an "empire"?

It is necessary to qualify such statements, I think. It is generally assumed and understood that America manages business interests on a world-level. And has a powerful military that is used to defend those interests.

But it cannot accurately be described by the word “empire” but can be described as a power management system that oversees or maintains a world economic system developed when the Second WW ended and America largely drew up the ‘management plan’ of the newer world management model.

[Gary Childress]

Religious superstitions will be the downfall of humanity. It must be recognized that these archaic mythologies were the best our ancestors could do for us as far as orientation is concerned, considering the knowledge base of their time. Religion and its institutions are biological extensions of human nature and, as such, are meant to reflect upon us to reinforce coherence with reality, but the reality of their times, not ours. In our times, it is known that life itself is the source of all meaning in the world, that life has many forms, but has but one essence, and we are all in this together. When these mythologies were created, humanity was relatively immature, both in its humanity and its knowledge of reality. Belief in these mythologies today means to be anti- intellectual while denying the progress of humanities knowledge over the centuries, it is treading water in a stagnet pool meaning it's stillness is unhealthy. The universe is the creative field of all reality and is the only reality. We as manifestations of this field are the field, reasoning must follow this knowledge in order to come into greater cohernance with the nature of the field itself, as discoherance means greater suffering. This theme goes on, but free you mind and spirit from these mumified recipes for ancient civilizations, reality is to grand to accomadate the errors of the past as something sacred.

This is not much more than the long-rehearsed and classic early scientific argument against the religious mind and its modality. It is not that hard for anyone to read its tenets (they are presented in list form) and to assent to their logic and to some degree their reasonableness.

The unfortunate aspect of the ultra-hard anti-religious view is that it turns out to be undermining of a great deal more than merely a “religious superstition in an old lady attending Mass” (if you catch my drift). It very quickly becomes an armament against an entire value-system. It then is taken up as an educational protocol and, more often than not, that education protocol is powered by the will of a cohort with many other levels and intensities of intentionality. Remember Big Mike? He is an excellent example of that intensification of the “will” I describe. It quickly becomes turbocharged with an iconoclastic spirit that is easily availed by a “mass formation” of cultural destruction.

Now, we must realize that “modern secular philosophy” locates itself in this species of rationalism. That is one main reason why there is such a pronounced anti-metaphysical contingent on this forum. For how could it be otherwise? An entire direction of intellectualism must turn against it.

There is another route however. First, to realize that there is a destructive note and spirit in operation when the concerted effort is made to undermine the relationship of men to metaphysical principles. If you are reasonably good at argument, if you have enough energy and focus and handle rhetorics well, you can rather easily break the connection between a man and, say, an ‘invisible spirit’. And you can honestly believe you are doing good. But it does not turn out that way when the longer sweep of historical process is examined.

If "metaphysics" isn't physics, then how does "metaphysics" measure truth or falsity, or, for that matter, settle disagreements? I mean, what if some guy from Russia comes along who is a "metaphysicist" and tells us that America is the great Satan or something? Do you pull out a charmed locket and demonstrate to him that he is wrong? Or how do "metaphysicians" settle disagreements?