Christianity

[attofishpi]

Y don't U lot get a life.

There is an awesome game of football on right now, half time: Morocco 1 - 0 Portugal.

[Immanuel Can]

Please post one link to one of those videos.

I've done that, but I can oblige again. Here is a bunch. There's more on the main site. Pick what interests you.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... SjDNeMaRoX

[Belinda]

Apartheid was in force in South Africa, and Apartheid was found by more civilised standards to be against human rights. "European culture" is not monolithic but dynamic rather like Xianity is dynamic. How to attain human rights in sub-Saharan Africa is via self determination and democracy. Romantic attachment to 'European culture' as was in some idealised notion of 'European' has been shown by Hitler and Co, to be wrong.

If you have followed what I have so far written on this topic you will know that what you describe here I fully understand and I also have taken it into consideration. I very well understand that the South African situation, which certainly included apartheid, came to be seen as intolerable. World-opinion, certainly, turned against it. And I made it clear that I grew up with parents who were in various ways involved in this same opposition, as was the near entirety of popular culture at that time. And were you to have asked me to give an opinion on the matter I would have responded as did popular culture.

So 'the righteous' triumphed. The bands played. The ceremonies were performed. The idealism celebrated. The leaders stepped forward and made their pronouncements. Heroes were honored. The villains vilified.

And a slow descent began, which proceeds today, toward ruin.

The righteous, with perplexed expressions, do not know quite what to think. So they double-down on versions of the original story: the Whites have too much power still. The injustice still determines the outcome. In order for the new South African project to succeed, therefore, the revolution must continue. Etc., etc., etc.

I find that on some levels at least I cannot disagree with this analysis. Why is that? Because, evidently, I *buy into it*. And any other view that I would take, according to the Reigning Narratives, places me among the unrighteous.

So with that said I return to my principle point: The narratives of *righteousness*, powerful as indeed they are, determining as indeed they are, and permitting no opposition, go forward in many different areas. There is celebration. And things, generally speaking, and inexorably, tend not to improvement and successful outcomes, but to something unlike that.

Therefore, I have to examine from a more critical perspective 'civilized standards' 'human rights' and also the well-established condemnatory posture, presented as 'righteousness' and as 'goodness', against what you describe as "romantic attachment to European culture". And then, which is even more difficult (it is employed as the *ultimate block* and an insurmountable hurdle, you make it plain that if I take any position that stands opposed to "civilized standards' 'human rights (etc.) that you and others see this as aligning with "Hitler & Co".

This is how a General Narrative functions.

How to attain human rights in sub-Saharan Africa is via self determination and democracy.

This is a 'declarative statement' which arises out of the Narrative of Righteousness, but is it, in fact, true? You seem certain. I am not at all certain. But I am, as I say, susceptible to the power in the narrative declaration. I do not want to openly oppose it for fear of being associated with unrighteousness.

Self-determination and 'democracy' are ur-European categories! They are *impositions* made by Europe on peoples who did not in any sense conceive of these as necessary. And, in my observations, when they are imposed it is often the case that factions far more interested in power alone, and something like dictatorial control, seem more often than not to emerge. The righteous, as per usual, frown in bafflement and concern. And they ramp up their core argument all over again. That the cause of disarray, or chaos, of degeneration, is . . . [fill in the blank]

This statement interest me: What is shown to be wrong. It is good for you and for one with your position to know and with certainty what is 'wrong' and also what is 'right'. I have not been as convinced that I do know. Or, once I was highly certain that I did know and now I doubt.

So here is what I say more or less in summation: our history presents us with a narrative that exclaims with certainty that the trajectory it defines as 'good' and 'necessary' is the right one. The right one? What does that mean? It means, I think literally, that what is unfolding unfolds because it is metaphysically sound and also necessary. It arose and is part-and-parcel of what I could say is perceived, consciously at times, unconsciously most other times, as 'God's will'. I kid you not. When once 'God's will' was declared a veritable force, a 'real thing', now the idea submerged and went underground. It operates at another level though. No one on this forum, except the old-school god-believer, could assert the idea of God or God's will for the Earth. And yet among an entire class of people the core idea, the metaphysical assumption, is evermore dominant and powerful.

Even within that paradigm however (God's will or metaphysical determination, or evolution according to an unfolding plan) it is actually possible to make a whole other set of assertions about what is needed and what 'does good'. It seems to be a question of where one stands in relation to that set of definitions.

The occasion of introducing civilisation and democracy to sub-Saharan Africa was via European Christian and post Christian culture, and also to some extent via Islam. That said, can we now stop talking about times past, and instead talk about what needs to be done?

Socialism is a movement that aims to improve social mobility via universal education preferably to tertiary standard. Obviously education is closely tied in with housing standards and public health. Education is the key to social mobility.

As for justification for the rights of the individual versus the ideology; that has been the most civilised standard since the great paradigm shift of between 500 and 200 BC. Never mind how the paradigm was introduced to sub-Saharan Africa, as that is fait accompli. It's the reigning ethical paradigm so lets be pragmatic about it!

[Walker]

Socialism is a movement that aims to improve social mobility via universal education preferably to tertiary standard. Obviously education is closely tied in with housing standards and public health. Education is the key to social mobility.

In practice, socialism despots are infamous for killing off the intellectuals first.

Socialist education is called indoctrination, which is obvious to true intellectuals.

I hear they even have re-education camps, so folks can get their minds right.
It's a bit more of a challenge to get a true intellectual's mind, right.

[Belinda]

Socialism is a movement that aims to improve social mobility via universal education preferably to tertiary standard. Obviously education is closely tied in with housing standards and public health. Education is the key to social mobility.

In practice, socialism despots are infamous for killing off the intellectuals first.

Socialist education is called indoctrination, which is obvious to true intellectuals.

I hear they even have re-education camps, so folks can get their minds right.
It's a bit more of a challenge to get a true intellectual's mind, right.

You are mistaking socialism for communism. Are you American?

[Walker]

Socialism is a movement that aims to improve social mobility via universal education preferably to tertiary standard. Obviously education is closely tied in with housing standards and public health. Education is the key to social mobility.

In practice, socialism despots are infamous for killing off the intellectuals first.

Socialist education is called indoctrination, which is obvious to true intellectuals.

I hear they even have re-education camps, so folks can get their minds right.
It's a bit more of a challenge to get a true intellectual's mind, right.

You are mistaking socialism for communism. Are you American?

And you're mistaking idealism for actuality.

Are you indoctrinated?

[Immanuel Can]

Socialism is a movement that aims to improve social mobility via universal education preferably to tertiary standard. Obviously education is closely tied in with housing standards and public health. Education is the key to social mobility.

Socialism is the opposite. It's by NOT really educating the "proles" that they survive. It's on forcing conformity, and playing "whack-a-mole" with anybody who raises their head.

For Socialists, all "inequality" is evidence of "exploitation." So nobody is allowed to be richer, smarter or more skilled than everybody else. If they are, they are bad, and are exploiters, capitalists and counter-revolutionaries; and the government takes measures to punish them for their success, and force them back down into "equality."

In practice, socialism despots are infamous for killing off the intellectuals first.

As in the Cultural Revolution, for example.

And this is the irony: the academics who support Socialism are the first ones marched into the gulag. Because the new authoritarians in charge realized that they fomented the last revolution, and could foment another. So the first thing they must do is "cut of the head" of the lower classes, so they stay under the control of the new "Socialist" authorities.

So the Socialist academics are sharpening the axe for their own necks.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Please post one link to one of those videos.

I've done that, but I can oblige again. Here is a bunch. There's more on the main site. Pick what interests you.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... SjDNeMaRoX

Immanuel, I cannot conceal from you that I regard you as having, and reasoning from, a cockroach-level intelligence. You are, simply put, a Christian religious fanatic and therefore you actually are convinced by those videos and that level of intellection.

I am coming to a somewhat genuine pity for you. It edges out contempt but then it depends on the day …

I listened, twice, to just one: How Can Jesus Be The Only Way and I immediately recognized the fallaciousness of the argument-structure. The presentation is ensconced within the proposition that either all are true, or false, or the possibility that one in particular (particularism) is in fact ‘true’.

No one of these must, necessarily, be true.

However, each religion discussed can be understood as having ‘functions’ — purposes if you will that can be distinguished to those interested in distinguishing. Thus Buddhist philosophy is part of Buddhist culture and social ethics proceed from it. Value and meaning can be located in Buddhism. As can the same in other religious cultures. What grows in each soil develops out of the character of the soil.

Yet Christianity has as part of its heritage, got from Judaism, a core supremacist assertion. That the god named Yahweh is supreme over all others and all others are demonic in essence. Not benign, demonic. You are well aware of this. Thus Christianity fights for supremacy through the sort of ‘argument’ presented in that video. The message then? Christian supremacy. Take note!

A thinking person has other options available.

The sole purpose of that video is easily identified: one, to ‘convince’ that there is one way, and two, to redouble certainty that one is ‘right’ in believing that there is one way only, that being conversion to Christianity.

It’s that simple you simple-minded fanatic!

There are arrays of alternatives.

[Walker]

Are you American?

It’s interesting how those whacky Germans were indoctrinated into believing the Glories of anti-nuclear, anti-oil, pro-wind, and pro-solar.

It’s also interesting how they were indoctrinated by Leftist media into thinking that Trump is a buffoon, which is why they thought him to be the prototypical Stupid American when he advised Germany against being at the mercy of Russian energy.

Those Germans, God love ‘em.

So quick to fall into line no matter if the proclamation be about climate change propaganda, or Trump propaganda, or any other absurdity … they appear to be so compliant to indoctrination.

Are you perchance, German?

[Immanuel Can]

The presentation is ensconced within the proposition that either all are true, or false, or the possibility that one in particular (particularism) is in fact ‘true’.

No one of these must, necessarily, be true.

Speaking by way of logical deduction, not facts, they could all be false, plausibly -- unless they exhaust all the possibilities; in which case, one would have to be true. Logic also tells us that.

But if you want to say that none of them at all is true, logically, you could suppose that possibility.

However, if you believe you are telling the truth about that, then your statement is false -- your view would be true, and theirs would all be wrong. In which case, you're not denying that something is true...you just think it's your view, not theirs.

This is what I mean by all belief systems being exclusivist. If you are saying that Christianity is wrong, then you're being exclusive, not inclusive. But Christianity is exclusive, so if you try to "include" it, you can only do so by denying what Christianity itself says...which is not merely exclusivist, but also rather disrespectful to a belief system you claim to "include."

There are no actual "inclusivist" perspectives. The "inclusivist" is, instead, rewriting the core of his competitor's beliefs in order to make them conform to his own ideology. He's not actually "including" them at all. And nowhere is this more evident than when an "inclusivist' attempts to "include" an exclusivistic ideology within his worldview.

When Jesus says, "I am the way, the truth and the life; no man comes to the Father [God] except by me," He's not saying, "Include this in your Beatles Buddhism." He's saying you have a choice to make; and if you try to "include" Him within your system, you've already decided to reject His testimony.

[Walker]

When Jesus says, "I am the way, the truth and the life; no man comes to the Father [God] except by me," He's not saying, "Include this in your Beatles Buddhism." He's saying you have a choice to make; and if you try to "include" Him within your system, you've already decided to reject His testimony.

Indeed, that's a good point, already known and understood.

Thus, one must examine the qualities of Jesus, and not the form.

[Alexis Jacobi]

However, if you believe you are telling the truth about that, then your statement is false -- your view would be true, and theirs would all be wrong. In which case, you're not denying that something is true...you just think it's your view, not theirs.

This is why I say you operate from a cockroach-level intellect. You will here attempt to employ the non-contradiction argument in an absurd attempt to challenge and overturn what I have said. And you will go further: you will mire the issue, and the conversation, in a similar false-controversy just as you did, and do again, with this ridiculous rehearsal about an 'original mating pair'.

I do not say that *Christianity is wrong* and I do not say that Buddhism is wrong. That is not the way to look at them if one seeks a perspective of understanding. But note that you do not wish to *understand*, you wish to undermine any other but the one you subscribe to, for a group of reasons, and elevate the specific one that you are deeply involved in.

This is what I mean by all belief systems being exclusivist.

This is largely true, but not absolutely true. An alternative exists (for a mature individual).

But why religions are 'exclusivist' is an issue that can, most certainly, be examined carefully, rationally and fairly.

There are no actual "inclusivist" perspectives.

Wrong again. There are indeed outlooks that opt for 'inclusive perspectives'. Thus -- actually -- they exist.

When Jesus says, "I am the way, the truth and the life; no man comes to the Father [God] except by me," He's not saying, "Include this in your Beatles Buddhism." He's saying you have a choice to make; and if you try to "include" Him within your system, you've already decided to reject His testimony.

Here you simply *come out into the open* and make your supremacist declaration. That is where you started from, and that is where those who concocted those videos started from, and that is your purpose and their purpose.

And that purpose, that stance can, as well, be examined and what is good about it, and what is bad about it, can be talked about in clear, honest, and fair terms.

[Immanuel Can]

However, if you believe you are telling the truth about that, then your statement is false -- your view would be true, and theirs would all be wrong. In which case, you're not denying that something is true...you just think it's your view, not theirs.

You will here attempt to employ the non-contradiction argument in an absurd attempt to challenge and overturn what I have said.

Not that complex. Here we will apply logic to find out why you have to be wrong.

And it's a done deal.

I do not say that *Christianity is wrong* and I do not say that Buddhism is wrong.

Then you deny what Christianity says about Buddhism.

This nonsense about non-binary thinking is, ironically, highly binary. It is demanded that one become a non-binarist, or one is condemned as "not mature," to use your words.

Rather "absolutist," I would say.

There are no actual "inclusivist" perspectives.

Wrong again.

You just excluded me."

There are indeed outlooks that opt for 'inclusive perspectives'.

No intelligible ones, though. None that makes sense. None that can honour even the most basic principles of logic or rational thinking.

But yes, there are plenty of folks who just blindly trust in inclusivism anyway...a fact of no particular import.

[promethean75]

u should be thinking about evolution like this, IC. i mean of course in the absence of evidence which neither u nor myself have because we don't have a time machine.

i should actually brush up on this stuff first cuz i once had a better more detailed understanding of what went down. i spent some time in this yuge university book on evolution in the joint too and learned a bunch of stuff I would later forget. a good, up to date resource with entire sections on irreducible complexity and punctuated equilibrium, for instance.

the obvious problem is missing fossil records, but there are a hundred reasons why archeologists might not find any of the bones of an entire species line. this is my argument. so what we perceive as 'leaps' in species evolution aren't leaps at all. rather we can't get a genotype specimen from every single living/once living organism to map the genetic course of its evolution. but you've got to imagine countless strange species existing that aren't in the dinosaur books and history channel shows. intermediate genetic relatives of some prior  cross species reproduction. and when the bones aren't found, we don't count them and that's why evolution is a big mystery. the big leaps, from monkey to humanoid with nothing found in between.

what, something like six anatomically different humanoid skulls have been found and that's it. well there u have it. there have been six relatively stable monkey mutant genotypes, of which we are one. if u kept going backwards you'd trace those guys to some weird rodent lookin things with moustaches and spears kinda like in The Secret Of NIMH.

i mean I don't think it's a big mystery man. u have amphibians that crawl onto land, turn into rodents that start walking semi upright, then into monkeys, and finally to humanoids. 

again tho i say this without one iota of evidence. but i can say it... i can make that inference given the preponderance of the available evidence and an honest consideration of the alternative competing theory of intelligent design.

[Alexis Jacobi]

When Jesus says, "I am the way, the truth and the life; no man comes to the Father [God] except by me," He's not saying, "Include this in your Beatles Buddhism." He's saying you have a choice to make; and if you try to "include" Him within your system, you've already decided to reject His testimony.

Indeed, that's a good point, already known and understood.

Thus, one must examine the qualities of Jesus, and not the form.

In this example *Jesus* is simply a reference made. One supposes, because it takes the form of a direct quote, that the man Jesus spoke it. That is questionable. It is questioned. Not by wicked people but by thoughtful people. What Jesus said, and didn't say, are matters of substantial debate. I doubt that the figure Jesus actually said what is ascribed to him myself. Because of its implications.

But the declaration "No one comes to God but by Me" is, seen from one angle, exactly the 'supremacist' declaration I refer to. It originated in Judaism (and is there in evidence very strongly) and began with the declaration, said to have been made by Yahweh (but we know it was made by a priest-class) "Annihilate all the residents of the land you will invade and occupy".

No mercy, no toleration. Why? Because they have been declared to be *evil*.

But Immanuel makes a cultural commentary that has validity: Beatles Buddhism means a smattering of neo-Buddhist philosophy which becomes more of an adornment, a wall-hanging, or interior decoration in the Zen style, then it really represents a full-fledged philosophy of life. There are all sorts of critiques that can be made of that level of demeaning syncretism.

Yet it says really nothing at all about the essences of Buddhism which, again, can be examined fairly and carefully by one concerned to do so. (And in any case the Beatles were more interested in Indian philosophy and Harrison became a disciple of Prabhupad and was for his whole life a Krishna devotee (a Vaishnava -- a Hare Krishna).

It is very true as well that people, you and I, have decisions to make. And making no decision is also a form of decision. In respect to religious and spiritual choices though many people don't make much of a decision at all. They seem to be 'ni chicha ni limonada'. Neither one thing nor another (nor fish nor fowl). They simply exist within established cultural currents and flow along in these.

I find that you Immanuel have forced me to 'reject' a good deal within Christianity if it is anything like what you present to me. This is, inadvertently, what you achieve here with your absurd apologetics. You destroy a conceptual pathway to an appreciation of some of the essences within Christianity. You do far more harm than you do good. I recognize a certain loss in that but then I also think *it is the way it has to be*.

Immanuel writes: Then you deny what Christianity says about Buddhism.

I am not aware that Christianity, and certainly not the figure of Jesus of Nazareth, made any statement about or against Buddhism. But if by this you are referring to the statement that has been assigned to Jesus ("no way but through me"), yes, I most certainly reject it but more especially what you mean by it. I reject the supremacist root in Judaism and its Christian iteration.

No intelligible ones, though.

That according to you. But you know and I know that you have a specific a priori opinion on the matter. So no other position could be admitted to be 'intelligible' to you. Were you to do that you'd have to modify the *supremacist* stance. And if you did the *house* would tremble and might eventually collapse.

You live in a semi-collapsed house (in my view) and your argumentation, and the ridiculous arguments you link to, are attempts to keep a house from collapsing altogether. You are a collapsed intellect and this is evident with every word, sentence and paragraph that you write. There are alternatives.

None that makes sense.

Many people have shown you that, in fact, your own System has so many odd holes in it that it does not, cannot, make sense. Unless one takes the route of abandoning sense altogether and simply giving oneself over to *faith*.

But as I say that is a realm which can be examined carefully. But why would a faithful person, one who feels himself to have been 'saved' and drawn out of the pit, why would that person undermine that which brought them back into life?

This is a philosophical environment and not one of religious confession. If someone rebuilds themselves through a Christian conversion I'd be the last to try and undermine it. But when Christianity reveals its destructive side, its Jewish imperious side, and shows itself capable of harmful actions, I don't have much choice but, at least, to point it out.