Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Christianity

Post by Gary Childress »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 1:09 am
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 12:07 am That's a pretty violent scene, AJ (from the movie Mississippi burning). What is it supposed to mean in the context of the discussion?
A number of things. One, the movie is a dramatic invention the purpose of which (according to my reading of course) is for the viewer to participate in an enactment that absolves the viewer of guilt. Northerners, through they rarely admit or understand this, effectively treated the Negroes in their midst in thoroughly abominable ways. Both before and after the Civil War. Lincoln was a supreme *racist* (in the terms of the word today). His idea was to export all of the Black population to some other place.
Prior to Emancipation, Lincoln was a proponent of colonization: the idea of sending African American slaves to another land to live as free people. Lincoln supported resettlement schemes in Panama and Haiti early in his presidency and openly advocated the idea through the fall of 1862. But the bigoted, flawed concept of colonization never became a permanent fixture of U.S. policy, and by the time Lincoln had signed the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, the word “colonization” had disappeared from his public lexicon. As such, history remembers Lincoln as having abandoned his support of colonization when he signed the proclamation. Documents exist, however, that tell another story.
See also North of Slavery: The Negro in the Free States, 1790-1860:
The Mason-Dixon Line is a convenient but an often misleading geographical division. It has been used not only to distinguish the Old South from the North and the Confederacy from the Union but to dramatize essential differences in the treatment of, and attitudes toward, the Negro - to contrast southern racial inhumanity with northern benevolence and liberality. But the historian must be wary of such an over-simplified comparison, for it does not accord with the realities of either the nineteenth or the twentieth century. The inherent cruelty and violence of southern slavery requires no further demonstration, but this does not prove northern humanity. Although slavery eventually confined itself to the region below the Mason-Dixon Line, discrimination against the Negro and a firmly held belief in the superiority of the white race were not restricted to one section but were shared by an overwhelming majority of white Americans in both the North and the South. Abraham Lincoln, in his vigorous support of both white supremacy and denial of equal rights for Negroes, simply gave expression to almost universal American convictions. In the ante bellum North racial discrimination was not as subtle or as concealed as it has been in more recent decades.
So, this completely and really utterly upends the entire idea that Lincoln (or the North) had any real 'concern' (as we define it today) for the Black man. And his attitude was *your* attitude (i.e. of all your ancestors). When Lincoln is referred to, what is referred to is a cartoon version; a distortion, a lie. Why can't the *real Lincoln* be exposed and seen? Because it upends established narratives. Through these distorting lenses the *real history* and this the truth is obscured. It cannot, in fact, be seen.

The Lincoln Monument is an entirely false representation. In so many different ways.

So a movie like Mississippi Burning should be, can be, seen in a different light. It can be read differently. It is a 'production' of a certain time frame, designed for a specific audience, and with a specific purpose: vindication for the viewer. The viewer gets to participate in all the punishments that are enacted against the Southern Man. That's you beating on Lester and giving him what he deserves. That's you treating his wife decently and, simultaneously, enlisting her in your cause. You are the FBI agents who will, if it is *righteous* violate all laws in order to bring down the perps. It is all a lie of course. Since in fact the FBI is said to have engineered the assassination of MLK. It simply repeats tropes that, unbeknownst to you(plural) were common 10-20 years prior to the outbreak of war. The vilification of the South and the Southern Man. This is 'cathartic projection' since in fact, the North (the federal structure, the régime which runs the show) is deeply invested in lies, distortions and misrepresentations.

What is the relevancy to today? That we operate from confected narratives. These are established for us, fed to us, and we become actors in them.

With a good script writer and a clever script re-write we could create a Mississippi Burning version of the Trump Presidency.

[Hold on! PBS already worked that angle!]

Instead of poor Lester (with his dumb smile) we could interpose the cartoon interpretation of Donald Trump. Seeds? What do you think? You down for this? You already have that GIF depicting Trump mimicking the cripple -- which was debunked by the way, but what does that matter? It does not matter who he is, really, what matters is how he is portrayed. And if the character in the rehearsal is to be hated then hate it shall be! So what we are dealing with is structures of view that are interposed between ourselves and *reality*.

We are both observers of theatre and, strangely enough, actors and performers in it.
Yes. I am aware of some of Lincoln's views on blacks and the belief of some that the Civil War amounted to little more than an invasion of the South by the North. My 7th grade US History teacher was quite a character and taught us about "The War of Northern Aggression", as he called it.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by attofishpi »

Harry Baird wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 2:42 am
attofishpi wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 9:09 pm Well I see you state you are going to go somewhere that you are indigenous of...so where is that?
You misunderstand. I did not say that.
Yeah, actually I think you did. So WHERE are you indigenous to where you can live without the shame?

Harry Baird wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 2:42 am
attofishpi wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 9:09 pm Personally, I am indigenous to planet Earth so I'll live wherever the fuck I want.
Choose wisely.
What's that supposed to mean? Do you think I am so f'ing stupid I'd choose to live under the rule of the CCP? ..or some other f'wit govt?

Nah, the British Empire set up some nice places to live.
Harry Baird
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:14 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Harry Baird »

Gary Childress wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 10:05 pm What if their choice [that of indigenous Australians as to the future for their land --Harry] is something else that is unacceptable to you
Give me an example of the sort of choice you're imagining here.
Gary Childress wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 10:05 pm or what if their choice was, indeed, for you to go back to where you came from?
If it was part of a formally arrived at collective decision between indigenous Australians and non-indigenous Australians, I would respect it to the extent that I could, i.e., the extent to which I was accepted as an immigrant to one of my countries of ancestry. There are all sorts of such pragmatic problems with it as a choice that make it less likely to be chosen - in particular, getting countries like the UK to accept the millions of new immigrants that would be arriving on its doorstep.

However, having some understanding of, and engagement with, indigenous Australians, I don't expect that it would be their choice. I'm just saying that the choice is theirs and should be respected.

More generally to your point:

There are already all sorts of potential "choices from above" that as a member of a democracy would be unacceptable to me, but that I simply have to live with: for example, there is the possibility that in a hypothetical WWIII I would be conscripted by my government (and face prison time if I refused).

In personal terms this would be no different in that respect.
Gary Childress wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 10:05 pm the possibility of losing our lives is a pretty scary prospect.
It's not a possibility I'm entertaining. Non-indigenous Australians are in the majority here and currently hold power. I think it goes without saying then that if the choice of its indigenous peoples was that every non-indigenous Australian be slaughtered, that choice would be rejected, and rightly so. Why? Because it's not an ethical choice.
Harry Baird
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:14 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Harry Baird »

attofishpi wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 3:58 am
Harry Baird wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 2:42 am
attofishpi wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 9:09 pm Well I see you state you are going to go somewhere that you are indigenous of...so where is that?
You misunderstand. I did not say that.
Yeah, actually I think you did.
Then actually you are mistaken.
attofishpi wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 3:58 am the British Empire set up some nice places to live.
Not for those whose land they stole to do so.
seeds
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by seeds »

Gary Childress wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 8:16 pm
seeds wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 7:36 pm Image
To me, that's an extremely complex picture that is worth billions of words, probably more than I can come up with in a lifetime. And it's very depressing to me.
Yes, Gary, it's depressing to me as well.

But just imagine how depressing (and frightening) it was for that brave young girl.
_______
seeds
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by seeds »

Lacewing wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 8:28 pm
seeds wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 7:36 pm...
Nice post, Seeds. I made it all the way through without tripping a mental breaker as I sometimes do with your drawings. :D
Thank you, Lacewing.

And I'm sorry my drawings affect you negatively. :(
_______
seeds
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by seeds »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 1:09 am With a good script writer and a clever script re-write we could create a Mississippi Burning version of the Trump Presidency.

[Hold on! PBS already worked that angle!]

Instead of poor Lester (with his dumb smile) we could interpose the cartoon interpretation of Donald Trump. Seeds? What do you think? You down for this? You already have that GIF depicting Trump mimicking the cripple -- which was debunked by the way,...
Sure, I'm down for that.

We can build a stage in my parent's barn, and mother and Aunt Hilde can make the costumes.

We'll invite the whole town.

It'll be swell.

Image

Oh, and Uncle Don can do his zany impersonations...

Image

(..."debunked," my butt...)
_______
Harry Baird
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:14 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Harry Baird »

Briefly, some further thoughts:
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 3:38 pm Your latest *set-up* was to present a simple model of the theft of, say, a pencil and the answer you seek, which in your mind is unavoidable, leads to your interlocutor admitting that point which is your sole and primary point.
With "set-up" you seem to imply some sort of manipulative behaviour on my part. There is none. I am simply presenting to you my sincerely held principles, which I do think are obviously justified. It remains to be seen if/why you reject them.

In the above, you implicitly recognise that it is wrong to steal a pencil. How much worse, then, to steal a people's land? A pencil can be done without or easily replaced; land is of much, much more irreplaceable importance to its people.
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Christianity

Post by Gary Childress »

seeds wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 5:51 am
Gary Childress wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 8:16 pm
seeds wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 7:36 pm Image
To me, that's an extremely complex picture that is worth billions of words, probably more than I can come up with in a lifetime. And it's very depressing to me.
Yes, Gary, it's depressing to me as well.

But just imagine how depressing (and frightening) it was for that brave young girl.
_______
Which "brave young girl" are you talking about, I assume the black one? I'm sure they're all on a close par for participating in life and the trials and tribulations of living it. There are neither heroes nor villains in that picture from what I see at first glance, just people trying to cope with the broken world they're living in, the world that God allegedly made and which we were thrown into.
seeds
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by seeds »

seeds wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 5:51 am
Gary Childress wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 8:16 pm
seeds wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 7:36 pm Image
To me, that's an extremely complex picture that is worth billions of words, probably more than I can come up with in a lifetime. And it's very depressing to me.
Yes, Gary, it's depressing to me as well.

But just imagine how depressing (and frightening) it was for that brave young girl.
_______
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 6:14 am Which "brave young girl" are you talking about, I assume the black one?...There are neither heroes nor villains in that picture from what I see...
WOW! The members of this "bizzarro-world" forum never cease to amaze me.

Okay then, Gary, no, I'm talking about the brave little white girl standing behind the lone black girl, the one that's surrounded by her mob of friends and fellow racists, the one that looks like she's screeching out the "n" word.

I mean, it takes a lot of bravery to be that horrible of a person out in broad daylight. :roll:
_______
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Lacewing »

seeds wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 5:53 am
Lacewing wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 8:28 pm
seeds wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 7:36 pm...
Nice post, Seeds. I made it all the way through without tripping a mental breaker as I sometimes do with your drawings. :D
Thank you, Lacewing.

And I'm sorry my drawings affect you negatively. :(
No, they don't affect me negatively! I just can't wrap my head around them sometimes. I'm sure there are people who don't understand what I'm talking about half the time. :wink:
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by attofishpi »

seeds wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 7:03 am WOW! The members of this "bizzarro-world" forum never cease to amaze me.

Okay then, Gary, no, I'm talking about the brave little white girl standing behind the lone black girl, the one that's surrounded by her mob of friends and fellow racists, the one that looks like she's screeching out the "n" word.

I mean, it takes a lot of bravery to be that horrible of a person out in broad daylight. :roll:
Talking of "bizzarro-world" ...what are you attempting to acheive in dredging up photos of racist Americans?
Harry Baird
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:14 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Harry Baird »

One other thing:
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 3:38 pm Finally, I find that conversing with you is similar in some ways to conversing with Immanuel Can. You are totally fixed in your idea structures. They are reduced, binary and absolute.
You might not be surprised that I see it as quite the opposite. As with Immanuel Can, I have questioned you straightforwardly and directly on a straightforward and direct proposition. Like him, you duck, dodge, weave around, and avoid answering the question.

In his case, the question was whether or not it is loving and just to commit a person to unimaginable, eternal torment for finite crimes.

In your case, the question is whether stealing is (tautologically, and by definition) wrong, and whether, when it does occur, the stolen property should be returned to its rightful owner(s).

In this scenario, much like Immanuel Can, you seem to be unable to respond straightforwardly and directly to a straightforward and direct question.

Where was your assessment at the time that my question to Immanuel Can was "reduced, binary and absolute"? Nowhere to be found. But, somehow, in a very, very similar situation, you assess my question to you in that way. To me, that seems very self-serving.
Harry Baird
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:14 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Harry Baird »

seeds wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 7:36 pm As a polite gesture in deference to [AJ's] request, I almost made it through the entirety of that one-hour and fifteen-minute Bowden speech
Rest easy, folks: masochism is alive and well. (I'm simply teasing you both, of course :wink:).
seeds wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 7:36 pm using this white nationalist - Jonathan Bowden - as a reference source whose views are a mirror of your own views
Slowly but surely, AJ is coming out of the white nationalist closet...
seeds wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 7:36 pm The only thing that will matter in the "new paradigm" is that all humans become aware of the absolute sameness of their being (the sameness of their inner souls) and thus learn to live and work together in harmony. And if that takes a complete homogenization of all races into one common race, then so be it.
I really like your vision and the devastation it wreaks upon theories of inherent racial dominance. However, I'm not sure that racial homogenisation is such a good idea. Why not? Because there is value in diversity.

It is really cool that there is a whole variety of different races/cultures with their own perspectives on reality and their own way of living. It makes life more interesting.
noerd
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2022 8:58 am

Re: Christianity

Post by noerd »

… cite page 392 by @Alexis Jacobi
And here the notion of 'sin', which requires an inner, moral platform of understanding, can only be understood as 'naughtiness'. The man is incapbale of grasping what, at one time, the fallen condition of man referred to. Thus the possibility of a comparative mental order shows itself to have become dissolved. Sin becomes a meaningless idea.

Conscious evolution -- evolution of consciousness -- conscious awakening: all become similarly incomprehensible.

O brave new world, that has such people in 't!”

Aldous Huxley developed the notion of the conscious engineering of a dumbded-down society in his (ironic) novel Brave New World.


… but what about „necessity“ of conscious(ness ) ?
… „do“ have human‘s „be“ programmed ?
… or is instinct „good“ ?
… „is“ human(kind ) „creating“ ?
… cause this alternative‘s seem to be „single“ :
… „are“ real … and „were“ ever … and describe this way „possibilities“ :
… „is“ human(kind ) „competent“ - enough … to feel „re‘spect“ ?
Post Reply