The Religion/Spirituality Thread

[SoulMonster]

Old? If we calculate the average age of humans, then we get 43-44. I am younger than that. So I am young.

Just now, Oldest Goat said:

I don't know if that's the proper terminology and obviously it's not a common thing currently but you know putting electronics inside yourself. Like the technology that monitors your heart-rate etc etc

I am not against it on principle. I am also not infatuated with technology or enjoy messing with my body. 

[Dazey]

6 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

I am 70s kid, and if I could I would somehow fuse my phone to my body 

Me too. 70 what?

[Dazey]

6 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

It's not a common thing currently but you know putting electronics inside yourself. 

It kinda is.  

Edited December 10, 2018 by Dazey

[SoulMonster]

16 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Me too. 70 what?

76.

[Dazey]

5 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

76.

I was 79. Bizarrely I was born on the day Life of Brian was released in cinemas. Clearly I'm not the Messiah but I am a very naughty boy.

Edited December 10, 2018 by Dazey

[OmarBradley]

22 hours ago, Sosso said:

Europe has a long tradition of antisemitism, which goes back to the 1400's/1500's. Martin Luther, who translated the Bible into German, was the writer of anti-jewish essays. 

Earlier. A few random examples from memory: On the way to the Holy Land, Crusaders killed a bunch of Jews after Pope Urban IV called for 'crusade' in 1096. About one hundred years later, Richard I barred Jews from attending some royal ceremony, and English citizens decided that was the green light to kill Jews and destroy their homes/business (Richard noted that was not his intention when he found out).

And as Arnold noted, Rome didn't treat Jews too well either. But I'm not learned enough on antiquity or classical history to pinpoint original causes. There are lots of long articles on the net if people are interested though.

19 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

The Nazis blamed the Jews for everything. They even blamed other groups and simply called them ''Jews'' haha. They blamed the Jews for bourgeois-capitalism and democracy (Britain and America were ''ran by Jews'') yet paradoxically blamed the Jews for communism - ''Jewry'' and ''Bolshevism'' were sort of the same thing for Hitler! The Nazis conveniently built upon preexisting Christian notions of Jews, that they were Christ slayers, medieval ignorance, Luther's invective, etc. It was convenient to build Nazi prejudices on preexisting European prejudices, but Nazi antisemitism differs in that it is racial antisemitism. Earlier examples of antisemitism tended to be satisfied by Christian conversion whereas ''christianised Jews'' were just as much a target as practicing Jews for the National Socialists.

Jews were blamed for the defeat in World War One and subsequent economic trauma. There was the ''stabbed in the back'' theory, that the Jews betrayed Germany by signing the November 1918 Armistice and implementing the Weimer Republic, rather than Germany being physically defeated in the field. The fact that the German armies seemingly marched home supports this theory (In reality the German army had collapsed upon the western front during the spring offensives of 1918, whilst Germany was starving due to the Royal Navy's blockade). This was a theory that prevailed, not just among the National Socialists but a series of other right-wing groupings and even among the Prussian conservative classes, that the Germans had been betrayed by Jews (that many Jews fought for Germany, some being awarded Iron Crosses, is neither here nor there...).

Then there is Nazi racial theory. I have formed the opinion that Nazism was less a revolution, more a desire to perform a surgical procedure. The Nazis believed Germans were a ''Herrenvolk'', a society made up of pure ''uncontaminated'' Aryans (at its most wishy-washy level, in the esoteric SS, it is a society of agrarian-warriors descending from the Himalayas). The Nazis believed that this Übermenschen had been contaminated by Untermensch: Jews, Slavs, Bolsheviks, general degenerates such as the deformed, handicapped - Nazis had this term, ''useless eaters'' meaning they used up the resources of the Volk. Again the Nazis sort of chuck all these categories into one.

Even alcoholics were blamed on ''defective genes''!

If I could summarize National Socialistic ideology into one sentence, it would be (and this is just my opinion) the bestowal of one's purified Aryan blood (the Nazis were obsessed with blood) for future generations, leaving a purified Volk. 

Warfare was a prerequisite in this. As part of ''survival of the fittest'' through which one adapts and ''improves'' (as a hunter killer) genetically for survival, a war against Jews and Bolsheviks in the east was a prerequisite for aggrandizing the Herrenvolk. It was a sort of Hegelian/Social Darwinist struggle by which only the strongest (race) would survive.

The Nazis ultimately planned to conquer the east (approximately to the Caucasus) creating Lebensraum (living space) to colonize with pure-bred Aryans. They'd use up the slavs as slave labour (probably the Jews would have been liquidated by this stage?). They'd create a sort of agrarian aristocracy, an aristocracy of blood, not class.

You nearly wrote an essay in response to a question that wasn't asked!  Anti-semitism was around long before the Nazis, you know that. I do appreciate the knowledge you've shared in the post, but the query was "why do people hate Jews?"

Nazi rhetoric is not the reason people hate Jews and they weren't the first to make anti-semitic claims. It may have fanned the flames of bigotry, but it wasn't the cause.

9 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

The banking system is extremely corrupt and evil. It's one of the worst institutions of our civilization - whether they're Jews or not. If somebody says it's because they're Jews though then yeah obviously that's mental. Just pointing that out since it's related to the whole illuminati thing and I've complained about the banking system before.

Israel is terrible, not every individual Israeli of course, but the country and modus operandi is very bad. They have a real chip on their shoulder and basically use the suffering of all the many, many Jews that have been persecuted for ages to justify their behaviour and give them carte blanche to oppress Palestine.

The Jews/money/banking thing is actually pretty interesting (maybe not the correct word...) and has historical origins. The roots of this stereotype can be found when the Catholic Church outlawed lending money with interest, for Catholics. Jews took many of those jobs/roles since Catholics couldn't; combined with the already brewing anti-semitism in Europe, you started getting some additional bigotry in the form of associating Jews with finance and banking.

I don't know if I'd say "Israel is terrible." The current government is one of the worst in terms of the Palestine situation, but there are many individuals (Knesset members included) who are trying to oppose the right-wing Netanyahu government. They've seen varying degrees of success, but the last few years (Trump winning gave Netanyahu a lot more breathing room to do bad things) have been difficult for those wanting reform in the maintenance of Palestine. 

 

[DieselDaisy]

12 minutes ago, OmarBradley said:

Earlier. A few random examples from memory: On the way to the Holy Land, Crusaders killed a bunch of Jews after Pope Urban IV called for 'crusade' in 1096. About one hundred years later, Richard I barred Jews from attending some royal ceremony, and English citizens decided that was the green light to kill Jews and destroy their homes/business (Richard noted that was not his intention when he found out).

And as Arnold noted, Rome didn't treat Jews too well either. But I'm not learned enough on antiquity or classical history to pinpoint original causes. There are lots of long articles on the net if people are interested though.

You nearly wrote an essay in response to a question that wasn't asked!  Anti-semitism was around long before the Nazis, you know that. I do appreciate the knowledge you've shared in the post, but the query was "why do people hate Jews?"

Nazi rhetoric is not the reason people hate Jews and they weren't the first to make anti-semitic claims. It may have fanned the flames of bigotry, but it wasn't the cause.

The Jews/money/banking thing is actually pretty interesting (maybe not the correct word...) and has historical origins. The roots of this stereotype can be found when the Catholic Church outlawed lending money with interest, for Catholics. Jews took many of those jobs/roles since Catholics couldn't; combined with the already brewing anti-semitism in Europe, you started getting some additional bigotry in the form of associating Jews with finance and banking.

I don't know if I'd say "Israel is terrible." The current government is one of the worst in terms of the Palestine situation, but there are many individuals (Knesset members included) who are trying to oppose the right-wing Netanyahu government. They've seen varying degrees of success, but the last few years (Trump winning gave Netanyahu a lot more breathing room to do bad things) have been difficult for those wanting reform in the maintenance of Palestine. 

 

Sorry for speaking.

 

[EvanG]

1 hour ago, Dazey said:

I was 79. 

Then you are an 80's/90's kid though. I was born in the 80's but I am a 90's kid because that's the decade I came of age.

[soon]

20 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

The Nazis blamed the Jews for everything. They even blamed other groups and simply called them ''Jews'' haha. They blamed the Jews for bourgeois-capitalism and democracy (Britain and America were ''ran by Jews'') yet paradoxically blamed the Jews for communism - ''Jewry'' and ''Bolshevism'' were sort of the same thing for Hitler!

Mikhail Bakunin had a similar view of both capitalism and communism. "...Marx on the one hand, and of Rothschild on the other." Anti-semitism claimed a voice on both extremes of the political spectrum. It's madness!

[Sosso]

10 minutes ago, soon said:

Mikhail Bakunin had a similar view of both capitalism and communism. "...Marx on the one hand, and of Rothschild on the other." Anti-semitism claimed a voice on both extremes of the political spectrum. It's madness!

This comment from Bakhunin is ridiculous, because a lot of socialists and communists from the 19th and 20th century were jewish or had jewish ancestors. 

You can trust me with this, I'm familiar with Marx and Lenin. 

On Anti-Semitism by Frederick Engels:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/04/19.htm

Edited December 10, 2018 by Sosso

[soon]

2 minutes ago, Sosso said:

This comment from Bakhunin is ridiculous, because a lot of socialists and communists from the 19th and 20th century were jewish or had jewish ancestors. 

You can trust me with this, I'm familiar with Marx and Lenin. 

Bakunin meant to highlight the Jewish participation in Communism, including its founder Karl Marx. His comment is ridiculous as are all anti-semitic or otherwise hate-filled comments. Bakunin identified as an anarchist. He clashed with Marx and Marx had him ejected from the 1st (2nd?) International. Bakunin made these types of reprehensible statements.

Hes saying that whether communists or capitalists rule, that some sort of jewish conspiracy is still at play. Obviously he is wrong to say that. 

So, what I was saying in my post is that both Hitler, a Nationalist Socialist dictator, and Bakunin, an anarchist collectivist, shared a commonality in their anti-semitism. Which is very sad to consider, how prevalent this bigotry is.

Warrants mention that a great many Jewish people were anarchists as well as communist.

[Len Cnut]

Jews get beat by any fuckin' stick that they can find.  Wherever there are jews it will be because jews have taken over 'x' thing.  Nevermind the fact that x thing might have 50 billion fuckin' christians or muslims or...buddhists or whatever in it, its the jews.  Hollywood = its run by jews!  Uh...yes?  And?  It also has about 50 million other denominations in it, whats your point?  Communism, jews.  Politics, jews.  Banking, jews.  All this says to me is that jews make up a good portion of the fuckin' intelligensia but my conspiracy, really?  By design?  This, the most maligned of races since day fuckin' dot has, despite needing to do extra in every fuckin' field just to be rated have somehow, despite all those handicaps, managed to secretly take over and run the world?  That's like saying gyppos run the world or something. 

And oh yes, the famous 'they keep to themselves' thing, muslims get it now, they keep to themselves, they don't wanna mix in and assimilate etc etc etc (though jews have a good few thousands years worth of dibs on this one) yeah...and...so...what?  Thats supposed to be one of the key tenets of our free society right, the pursuit of happiness, being allowed to keep yourself to yourself, live how you choose? 

The truth is we should be suckin' their dicks.  Jews have led the way for centuries in the arts, in politics, in banking, in any number of fields you might mention that amount to an IMMENSE contribution to human history, its a ridiculous task even trying to quantify such a thing and quite frankly even if they hadn't it shouldn't make a fuckin' difference.

And it ain't some aincent thing either and nor is the far right of today suddenly friends with Jews (and Jewish people know this too, the ones I've encountered), its just politically expedient for some of them to ring that bell because it suits the current climate but make no mistake, these people are brown shirts with white collars, the list is still the same, they're just doing it in a different order now.  And all this Bilderberg, Freemasons fuckin' bullshit you hear is just a bunch of new age anti-semitism taking shit from a different angle and it draws people in from the left and the right but its the same old shit in a new toilet.

Edited December 11, 2018 by Len Cnut

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, Len Cnut said:

Hollywood = its run by jews! 

Although in fairness, and running the risk of sounding like Mel Gibson, Hollywood was founded by Jewish migrants,

Warner Brothers (Wonsal Brothers), Polish Jews. Paramount, Adolph Zukor, Hungarian Jew. MGM, Louis B. Mayer (Lazar Meir), Russian Jew. Universal, Carl Laemmle, German Jew. 

 

[Len Cnut]

13 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Although in fairness, and running the risk of sounding like Mel Gibson, Hollywood was founded by Jewish migrants,

Warner Brothers (Wonsal Brothers), Polish Jews. Paramount, Adolph Zukor, Hungarian Jew. MGM, Louis B. Mayer (Lazar Meir), Russian Jew. Universal, Carl Laemmle, German Jew. 

 

My point wasn't that it was not 'run by Jews' but rather the idea that the fact that there were or are a lot of Jews high up in Hollywood as being indicative of some sort Jewish conspiracy.  If anything its a feather in their collective racial cap (and I'm kind of doing what the racists do here but in reverse, lumping the entire race into one category as if it was this one giant organism that is either maligned or lauded en masse based on how you judge the actions of some or many), they kind of created Hollywood, this industry that has had such a profound influence on the 20th century, fuckin' fair play to em. 

[SoulMonster]

How does it matter who runs stuff? Jews, blacks, whites, Mormons, redheads? Someone has to run something. More power to them, whoever they are! This is really only a problem if you feel threatened by particular people having power, if you believe those in power is not on your side, if you believe you will suffer from it, if you believe they will discriminate against you.  Only then does it become a problem. So if you believe that Jews running something means that you will be left at a disadvantage, then does it matter if it is the case. And therein lies the problem. This perception of threat, or racism, that takes things one step further from "they run stuff" to "and I can't have that." So whenever someone rants about "Jews running something" you have to ask yourself, "and why do you feel threatened by that? What do you have against Jews?" Because running something in itself is not the problem, no matter how much certain people like to express it.

[Len Cnut]

10 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

How does it matter who runs stuff? Jews, blacks, whites, Mormons, redheads? Someone has to run something. More power to them, whoever they are! This is really only a problem if you feel threatened by particular people having power, if you believe those in power is not on your side, if you believe you will suffer from it, if you believe they will discriminate against you.  Only then does it become a problem. So if you believe that Jews running something means that you will be left at a disadvantage, then does it matter if it is the case. And therein lies the problem. This perception of threat, or racism, that takes things one step further from "they run stuff" to "and I can't have that." So whenever someone rants about "Jews running something" you have to ask yourself, "and why do you feel threatened by that? What do you have against Jews?" Because running something in itself is not the problem, no matter how much certain people like to express it.

Marlon Brando once made a point that Hollywood was run by Jews and as such it should be more sensitive to the depiction of minorities.  He even went as far as to say that we had seen 'the wily philipino, the slant eyed jap, the chink, the n!gger, the greaseball but we haven't seen the kike because they know full well that that is where they draw their wagons around', what do you make of that?  It was slaughtered at the time for being deeply anti-semitic.

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

Marlon Brando once made a point that Hollywood was run by Jews and as such it should be more sensitive to the depiction of minorities.  He even went as far as to say that we had seen 'the wily philipino, the slant eyed jap, the chink, the n!gger, the greaseball but we haven't seen the kike because they know full well that that is where they draw their wagons around', what do you make of that?  It was slaughtered at the time for being deeply anti-semitic.

If I understand what you are saying, Brando was criticising the Jews he felt was running Hollywood because they would racially stereotype other ethnicicities but not themselves? Is that it?

 

[Len Cnut]

9 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

If I understand what you are saying, Brando was criticising the Jews he felt was running Hollywood because they would racially stereotype other ethnicicities but not themselves? Is that it?

To a point.  Not so much that Jews were doing it themselves but rather allowing it to be done under their auspices.

[SoulMonster]

Just now, Len Cnut said:

To a point.  Not so much that Jews were doing it themselves but rather allowing it to be done under their auspices.

To me, it is a criticism of those Jews in Hollywood who could have done things differently. I am not saying the criticism is valid or not, because I have no idea, but I don't consider it a criticism of Jews as a group, and hence it isn't really anti-semitic. It is criticism of a group of Jews. Unless he said something like, "Well, in allowing this distorted portrayal of other races to infest movies while sparing themselves, the Jews running Hollywood, as is so typical for the Jewish race, are blah blah blah". That's antisemitic because he says something about Jews as a group, as a people, and not just criticising some of them. That's basically racism because you extrapolate from individuals to a whole people.

[SoulMonster]

And that is one of the difficulties in today society when it comes to discussion. You have to have really tough skin to levy certain criticism at certain folks. You could go, "The Jews running Hollywood are fucking racists" and you can bet it will be interpreted as anti-semitic whether it was meant that way or not. I mean, it could very well be that Jews in Hollywood have developed a certain business culture where they actually do suppress negative portrayels of themselves but that this is just something that has developed among some individuals there and has no bearing on Jews as a whole or their culture/personalities/etc. Who knows? But you can bet that whoever said anything like that would have it coming for him  

[Len Cnut]

38 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

And that is one of the difficulties in today society when it comes to discussion. You have to have really tough skin to levy certain criticism at certain folks. You could go, "The Jews running Hollywood are fucking racists" and you can bet it will be interpreted as anti-semitic whether it was meant that way or not. I mean, it could very well be that Jews in Hollywood have developed a certain business culture where they actually do suppress negative portrayels of themselves but that this is just something that has developed among some individuals there and has no bearing on Jews as a whole or their culture/personalities/etc. Who knows? But you can bet that whoever said anything like that would have it coming for him  

It was quite weird in Marlons case cuz he was always like, the champion of minorities, in ways that involved him really sticking his head above the parapet, like 'life on the line' type situations, whether it be through his association with the black panthers or the American Indian Movement and Wounded Knee.  He was kind of raised/taught to act by Jews.  In the post WW2 era he did work for Jews coming out of concentration camps, so it was weird to see him pegged as this anti-semite. 

[SoulMonster]

6 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

It was quite weird in Marlons case cuz he was always like, the champion of minorities, in ways that involved him really sticking his head above the parapet, like 'life on the line' type situations, whether it be through his association with the black panthers or the American Indian Movement and Wounded Knee.  He was kind of raised/taught to act by Jews.  In the post WW2 era he did work for Jews coming out of concentration camps, so it was weird to see him pegged as this anti-semite. 

Interesting. I know nothing about the fellow.

If he used the word "kike" then that could also help explain the reaction. It is one of those "red flags", isn't it? One of those emotional triggers that when used in a sentence can make people lose their ability to think clearly. I don't know from your paraphrasing how he intended using that word, but I would suppose it was more in the direction of, "Hey, you Jews in Hollywood, now have presented Japanese as "slanted-eyed bastards", African American as "n!ggers", when are you going to portray Jews as "kikes"?" Or something like that. So it wasn't Brando using that word himself, really, but pointing out a flaw in their representations that if taken seriously would indicate preferential treatment. It doesn't even mean that Brando objected to how they portrayed other people, just that it wasn't fair that they didn't take the piss out of their own race, too. 

[SoulMonster]

Gather round boys and girls, today's text from Soulmonster's bible study group is Galatians 5:22-23. Sound like a people in the Middle East, but I suppose Galatians could equally well be an alian race in Star Wars. Anyway, the text goes like this:

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. "

So it is basically a recipe on how christians should behave, to themselves and to un-christians. Lots of nice virtues I guess we all strive for, religions aside. If only christians were able to live according to this it would almost make it worthwhile, right? If christian people consistently displayed these virtues it would really act as a good advertisement for christianity. "Become a christian and be transformed into a better person!" But it is just nice talk, right, and they, like us non-believers, struggle as much with bettering ourselves. Because we all try to be better, and it doesn't seem like christians has any advantage in that regard, does it. As if having it written down in a book somehow makes it easier for them. 

Anyway, still one of the better parts of the bible. In our next gathering we will look at the more sinister parts of christianity.

[Len Cnut]

14 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Gather round boys and girls, today's text from Soulmonster's bible study group is Galatians 5:22-23. Sound like a people in the Middle East, but I suppose Galatians could equally well be an alian race in Star Wars. Anyway, the text goes like this:

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. "

So it is basically a recipe on how christians should behave, to themselves and to un-christians. Lots of nice virtues I guess we all strive for, religions aside. If only christians were able to live according to this it would almost make it worthwhile, right? If christian people consistently displayed these virtues it would really act as a good advertisement for christianity. "Become a christian and be transformed into a better person!" But it is just nice talk, right, and they, like us non-believers, struggle as much with bettering ourselves. Because we all try to be better, and it doesn't seem like christians has any advantage in that regard, does it. As if having it written down in a book somehow makes it easier for them. 

Anyway, still one of the better parts of the bible. In our next gathering we will look at the more sinister parts of christianity.

Why is faithfull necessarily a good thing? 

[SoulMonster]

Just now, Len Cnut said:

Why is faithfull necessarily a good thing? 

Ooh, you got me there. If there is an underlying promise of being faithful, which I suppose it is between god and his followers (like in a pact), then not being faithful is breaking that promise, and then you are untrustworthy and it will damage your relationship with others (and of course with god).

It is the same with human relation. If you have promised faithfulness, e.g. in marriage, then being unfaithful is a sin. 

And I think the word "faithful" indicates that there is such an underlying promise. And if so, any acts of being unfaithful would be a sin.