Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by attofishpi »

This guys explains the flaws of evangelist fundamentalism so well:- https://youtu.be/3emCHEONym4

..oh look, pole position, thanks God.
Harry Baird
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:14 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Harry Baird »

Harry Baird wrote: Wed Nov 30, 2022 11:07 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Nov 30, 2022 10:43 pm How's that canoe-building going?
Sprinkler's finally been turned off, so I've got a good old fire going. Should have her hollowed out in no time.
Great news, VT. Not only have I finished building my canoe, but I've had it fit with some simply splendid cruise missiles. I'm now all set to develop a wonderful modern democracy on somebody else's land.
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: Thu Dec 01, 2022 10:47 am
Harry Baird wrote: Wed Nov 30, 2022 11:07 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Nov 30, 2022 10:43 pm How's that canoe-building going?
Sprinkler's finally been turned off, so I've got a good old fire going. Should have her hollowed out in no time.
Great news, VT. Not only have I finished building my canoe, but I've had it fit with some simply splendid cruise missiles. I'm now all set to develop a wonderful modern democracy on somebody else's land.
Get the Abo to paddle mate.
Harry Baird
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:14 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Harry Baird »

attofishpi wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 11:24 am
Harry Baird wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 10:47 am
Harry Baird wrote: Wed Nov 30, 2022 11:07 pm Sprinkler's finally been turned off, so I've got a good old fire going. Should have her hollowed out in no time.
Great news, VT. Not only have I finished building my canoe, but I've had it fit with some simply splendid cruise missiles. I'm now all set to develop a wonderful modern democracy on somebody else's land.
Get the Abo to paddle mate.
What an excellent idea, atto. How better to set off in our weaponised canoe to exploit other lands and disempower their occupants than by generously involving those who are already being exploited and disempowered on their own lands in our liberating endeavours, all whilst referring to them in such endearing terms?! The sense of it all is sublime! I'm so glad you offered this proposal!
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: Thu Dec 01, 2022 11:41 am
attofishpi wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 11:24 am
Harry Baird wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 10:47 am

Great news, VT. Not only have I finished building my canoe, but I've had it fit with some simply splendid cruise missiles. I'm now all set to develop a wonderful modern democracy on somebody else's land.
Get the Abo to paddle mate.
What an excellent idea, atto. How better to set off in our weaponised canoe to exploit other lands and disempower their occupants than by generously involving those who are already being exploited and disempowered on their own lands in our liberating endeavours, all whilst referring to them in such endearing terms?! The sense of it all is sublime! I'm so glad you offered this proposal!
I knew you'd understand. Make sure he doesn't slack off when you make landfall too.
Harry Baird
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:14 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Harry Baird »

attofishpi wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 11:50 am I knew you'd understand. Make sure he doesn't slack off when you make landfall too.
But of course. One of the canoe's cruise missiles will be aimed directly at him at all times.
tillingborn
Posts: 1314
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by tillingborn »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 12:24 am
tillingborn wrote: Wed Nov 30, 2022 6:40 amYou will not even concede that you are the same Immanuel Can who responded to this:
tillingborn wrote: Sat Nov 26, 2022 6:41 amThe outlets that use 'legacy media' in this way are your Pravda news.
with this:
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 26, 2022 2:02 pmYes, they are.
Sure, I will. But at first, I misunderstood your implication...
I know; that's what I've been telling you.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 12:24 am...and you misunderstood mine.
And then you had to ruin it. No Immanuel Can, I don't believe I have misunderstood one thing that you have written:
tillingborn wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 4:37 pmI accepted that you might have made a mistake, gave you the opportunity to correct and in return you tell me:
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 5:07 amYou pretend to misread, I see.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 12:24 amSo I withdraw my seeming approval of that comment.
Finally! Now all you have to do is apologise for accusing me of pretending to misread, I as a man of upstanding morals can forgive you and we, having gained a little respect for each other, can move on. You know what though? I won't hold my breath.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 12:24 amSee if you can do the same.
I won't hold my breath.
If you can find something I need to withdraw, I will do so. Don't hold your breath while you are searching.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 12:24 amAs I already said, I don't have a "Pravda," like the legacy media.
You will continue to ignore the fact that I did, of course.
I have never ignored that you deny having a "Pravda", I just don't think it's true. As I already said:
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Nov 25, 2022 4:05 pmI got fed up waiting for you to explain so I looked it up. It is as I suspected:
""Legacy media" is politi-speak that political conservatives use to identify long-standing ("mature") media outlets (such as the TV news networks - ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc., and the major print news services - New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times., etc.) Typically, these ostensibly "left-wing" news outlets are critical of conservative political agendas."
The outlets that use 'legacy media' in this way are your Pravda news.
And that you use it in the same way convinces me that you have bought into a narrative expressed by media that have an obvious interest in persuading you that their rivals are dishonest. What would convince me otherwise would be if you were to say some things that couldn't seamlessly be stitched into a Fox news broadcast.
Gary Childress
Posts: 8121
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Christianity

Post by Gary Childress »

Harry Baird wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 11:41 am
attofishpi wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 11:24 am
Harry Baird wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 10:47 am

Great news, VT. Not only have I finished building my canoe, but I've had it fit with some simply splendid cruise missiles. I'm now all set to develop a wonderful modern democracy on somebody else's land.
Get the Abo to paddle mate.
What an excellent idea, atto. How better to set off in our weaponised canoe to exploit other lands and disempower their occupants than by generously involving those who are already being exploited and disempowered on their own lands in our liberating endeavours, all whilst referring to them in such endearing terms?! The sense of it all is sublime! I'm so glad you offered this proposal!
I think VT is right, this forum needs a vomit emoji.
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: Thu Dec 01, 2022 11:54 am
attofishpi wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 11:50 am I knew you'd understand. Make sure he doesn't slack off when you make landfall too.
But of course. One of the canoe's cruise missiles will be aimed directly at him at all times.
Mind you don't get involved with some of the African natives that clearly have gone psychopathic since white man and his colonial overreach

Tutsi and Hutu - interview with a survivor
https://youtu.be/owNlSNNd7tw

Child sacrifice (required an English girl that was in Uganda to encourage their govt to legislate against it)
https://youtu.be/VQTNB4ROSlI
Harry Baird
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:14 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Harry Baird »

Harry Baird wrote: Tue Nov 29, 2022 11:14 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Tue Nov 29, 2022 9:38 pm Since you are so riddled with 'colonial guilt and romorse' then it's a given that you would be on the next flight (oops, can't be a flight because that would be utilising a modern, 'hateful colonial' invention), I mean canoe, back to your place of origin...
I'd be happy to have a sincere and meaningful conversation about this in the right circumstances, but these obviously aren't those.
I've reconsidered. Given that earlier in this thread I criticised IC for refusing, on the basis that my mental state was in his view insufficiently composed, to respond to me when I was criticising his basic (Christian) beliefs, it seems only fair that I anyway respond sincerely and meaningfully to VT here despite her attack-dog approach.

The first thing to note, VT, is that your implicit argument is essentially that because - as you contend - the behaviour of myself and those like me is inconsistent with our position that land theft has occurred and is ongoing, that position must be false. This is, though, a non sequitur: even if it was true that our behaviour was inconsistent - on which, more below - inconsistent behaviour in itself proves nothing about the correctness of the position with which it is supposedly inconsistent: in this case, that land theft has occurred.

Because that position is, in my view, unassailable on its own merits, your response amounts to a mere diversion or in other words to a red herring. You have no genuine way of denying that land theft has occurred - because it has - but it's such an uncomfortable idea for you that you seek to delegitimise it anyway by attacking the credibility and consistency of those who point it out.

The accusation of inconsistency nevertheless demands a response. Since I've committed to a sincere and meaningful response, I affirm up front that the thought has occurred to me to emigrate to a country in which I am indigenous (as opposed to one in which I am associated with a colonialist occupying force). There are various personal reasons why that is impractical for the moment. More importantly, though, my position doesn't anyway demand it. That position is that the decision as to what we non-indigenous residents of colonised nations should do is up to their indigenous citizens. I don't simply assume that their choice would be: "Piss off back to where you came from, the lot of you". I think that a process of genuine consultation on the basis that indigenous citizens are the genuine sovereigns of this land ("Australia") needs to be undertaken, and I would respect the outcome of that process, even if it was "Go back to where you came from, whiteys".

In the meantime, the best I can do is to advocate, from where I am right now, for effective sovereignty to be returned to indigenous "Australians", and for their will to be respected.

So, there you have it, VT. Once again, I welcome you to sink your mighty talons into my weak flesh and drag me off into your fiery den for further torment. Mock me. Scorn me. Utterly humiliate me!
Harry Baird
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:14 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Harry Baird »

Gary Childress wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 12:09 pm I think VT is right, this forum needs a vomit emoji.
What's making you so nauseous, Gary?
Harry Baird
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:14 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Harry Baird »

attofishpi wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 12:12 pm Mind you don't get involved with some of the African natives that clearly have gone psychopathic since white man and his colonial overreach

Tutsi and Hutu - interview with a survivor
https://youtu.be/owNlSNNd7tw

Child sacrifice (required an English girl that was in Uganda to encourage their govt to legislate against it)
https://youtu.be/VQTNB4ROSlI
I watched both videos. I think the lessons to be drawn from them are that the white race is not the only one to commit horrific injustices, but also not the only one with fierce fighters for justice. Full credit to the two women featured in those videos. They are brave and heroic.
Gary Childress
Posts: 8121
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Christianity

Post by Gary Childress »

Harry Baird wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 12:34 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 12:09 pm I think VT is right, this forum needs a vomit emoji.
What's making you so nauseous, Gary?
What appears to be blithe to me.
Harry Baird
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:14 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Harry Baird »

Gary Childress wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 2:21 pm What appears to be blithe to me.
Not such a fan of satire, huh?
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5154
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Harry Baird wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 3:39 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 2:32 pm I was drawn to your assertion: "South Africa, which was itself an exploitative colonial project". From a conventional historical perspective this statement cannot be right. Actually, it requires a specific and a relatively recent perspective in order to confect that statement. It requires an established and a somewhat developed political perspective to *see it in that way*. It requires, then, a type of historical revisionism. You (I mean one) have to have been educated in the view in order to have adopted it. Therefore, to counter this view, I will have to bring forward and become cognizant of another, countermanding view. Largely, that is the view that I have personally. But having the critical position that I do have of post-Apartheid South Africa I will have had to *turn against* entire sets of ideas and assertions which are modernist and progressive. Again, my assertion here is that these are "metaphysical". They exist and operate at a level that could be described, though perhaps a bit fancifully, as subconscious or perhaps *non-rational* is the word I seek. So it requires an emoted reasoning, a sentimental reasoning, to *see things* as we have all been trained to see things. And the more careful and the more 'truthful" reasoning is then seen as 'fascistic (which is an interchangeable term with evil or even demonic).
I'm not interested in being gaslighted by you via your historical revisionism whilst you shamelessly accuse me of historical revisionism. Sadly, one need not wonder too hard at what the motivating views of yours are to which you only vaguely allude. Are you brave enough to come out and express them explicitly?
I am going to go back to this juncture -- where you got a bit belligerent (which I do not really mind that much) -- and start over.

You start from the assertion, an absolutely sure one, that you can judge and have a right to judge negatively the founding of what is now South Africa. The attitudes that you have are attitudes formed in later modernity. It is a 'revisionist' perspective insofar as a modern idea or an attitude is projected backward hundreds of years into the past, and moral judgments are made against actions of the past. That is 'revisionism'.

The ideas that have been formed in our present are beyond doubt influenced by Marxist analysis and are part-and-parcel of anti-Colonialist political movements that have engaged in guerrilla-style war to topple those regimes that were identified as colonialist and racist. Are you aware of this? And would I need to cite references that you could study? The case in point is South Africa. I understand this position because, as I said, I devoted not days or weeks or months to studying those who write from this perspective, but frankly years. (My area of interest was the Americas and not Africa but the similarities link them). It would be impossible to say that I am unaware of the Left-Progressive (and also Marxist-revolutionary) perspective of those groups that engaged in civil war, and guerrilla war, to push matters to the negotiated settlement of the early 1990s. So in this sense I can fairly say *I have done my homework*.

Since I myself do not start from a revisionist position when I review South Africa's founding, I am not compelled, or impelled, to make all the judgments that you do about those Europeans who came and settled the area. I note that you do. I do not judge your position, necessarily, since judgment becomes too final. I say that it can be examined, interrogated, questioned, and in this sense dismantled. Should you do this? I am not sure it would serve your purposes if those purposes involve having and holding to an absolute position from which to judge, again from a modernist's perspective, world history and as I often say *the way things are here*. So what I notice is that the position that you do have has built into it a unique advantage: you can reexamine any historical event and 'assign blame' to those who did not act the way you assert they should have acted. This could be 2,000 years ago, or 800, or 50. I have called this position 'The Cat Bird's Seat'.

This is why I said "From a conventional historical perspective this statement cannot be right." Your historical perspective, which is revisionist, was certainly not entertained in the early days of the establishment of the South African outpost (middle 1600s). Within non-European Africa itself there were, as there always are, expansions, invasions and occupations of lands held by different tribes. These go on everywhere in the world. Africa, Asia, South America, North America, everywhere. These have gone on since the beginning of human time. Literally, it is *the way the world is*.

Now is it possible to de-blame native Africans when they expand, conquer and dominate, and to say something like "Well, that is internecine struggle" or the (natural) struggles between similar groups (similar because they are Negro I assume) while seeing the European (Dutch and English) invaders as somehow uniquely wrong or especially wrong? Yes. How would one do that? And really why would one do that? The *how* involves taking and internalizing specific perspectives, no? These have to be fashioned and organized into a coherent framing, right? But where did they come from? And an additional question is What purpose do they serve? That is, who concocted them and why?

To answer these questions must involve back-tracking into historical intellectual processes. I feel that I can say with certainty that *the Marxist perspective* as an ideological wave can be examined fruitfully as one of the major sources of our modern perspective. You seemed confused when you retorted that your father, a capitalist, must therefore not have absorbed aspects of the ideology and as if his capitalism negates what I refer to. Not so. Marxian analysis has deeply penetrated into highly capitalist societies. (And this is another topic).

Take one example: Marx himself wrote extensively about the American situation, the slave-economy, and he was read by many within the American intellectual community of that time. The roots of Marxian influence go deep. I am not saying this is 'bad' or 'evil' and I am not even saying that it is 'pernicious'. I am saying that it existed, it went on. The perspectives that we have today, I say, have roots, and the better we see and understand them, the better we can understand 'what has informed us'. Why we think like we do and why we internalize certain perspectives and then see them as 'natural' or as 'normal', so that other idea-set seem 'wrong' and also bad/evil depending on our moods.

I went on to say:
Therefore, to counter this view [a range of views informed by modern perspectives and ideology], I will have to bring forward and become cognizant of another, countermanding view. Largely, that is the view that I have personally. But having the critical position that I do have of post-Apartheid South Africa I will have had to *turn against* entire sets of ideas and assertions which are modernist and progressive. Again, my assertion here is that these are "metaphysical". They exist and operate at a level that could be described, though perhaps a bit fancifully, as subconscious or perhaps *non-rational* is the word I seek. So it requires an emoted reasoning, a sentimental reasoning, to *see things* as we have all been trained to see things. And the more careful and the more 'truthful" reasoning is then seen as 'fascistic (which is an interchangeable term with evil or even demonic).
Now can I ask you if you see and understand better what I am attempting to bring out? Do you still see this as 'abstract'? Do you see getting clear about *orientation* as useful or non-useful?

Or (and this does happen and is common) will you set your feet, as you surely can, and refuse, absolutely, to entertain any ideas, any views, which could potentially undermine the core perspective that you hold to?
Are you brave enough to come out and express them explicitly?
I believe so. It takes something like *bravery* or at least a commitment and dedication to examine the view-structure from which it seems to me that you operate. Why? Because this view-structure is so powerful today. Those who hold to it, who wield it as I often say, use it as a bludgeoning tool. They develop certain historical views in the present and, with an intensity of conviction bolstered by self-righteousness, march forward to become activists of these perspectives. The entire movement (this is my opinion) involves a form of extremism (taking one idea and putting all the emphasis on it in a somewhat fanatical manner) but on the extremes of this extremism are those who we have loosely been describing as 'the Woke'. And they cobble together activist narratives which, for example, take positions against the Founders of the US (one example) and, through this ideological opposition, against the very idea that the country has a right to exist. They take their activism forward, in sheer certainty that they are *right*, and tear down monuments and historical figures they see as *bad* and *evil* and they do this believing they are *doing good*.

Shall I go on? Do I need to? What seems plain as day, to me, might not be seen so plainly and clearly by you.

So what we are doing here is setting up the necessary preambles to be able to talk about those other perspectives (you say that I only) allude to. But the background and the preamble has to be established when people have such different core positions.

Now, and I direct this both to you and to Seeds (another others who may care to undertake deeper analysis) I present here a speech by Jonathan Bowden that explains the 'countermanding' views that I alluded to. You are aware of the shorter excerpt from this speech because I shared it with you numerous times). But I very much like what he says, and I agree with a great deal of it, and I also understand it as originating in sets of ideas that are countermanding and countervailing.
Post Reply