|
|
Currently no members online:)
You are an anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here |
We have 38 guests online !
|
|
|
 |
 |
| Theories: Play Nicely (Love Thy Neighbour, Part II) |
Posted by
Rogue on Friday, March 29, 2002 - 04:07 AM PST
(This article was written in response to the postings under "Love Thy Neighbour, Dammit!")
Many people these days seem to have lost their minds to a book, or are victims of those who have had their minds sucked out by this text, the Bible. More specifically, the altered-to-fit-our-view bible that was produced by the Vatican to justify their power and play down the validity of others. If you read a non-editorialized version (i.e. not the KJV that was essentially the world according to James) you will see that certain groups were mentioned when the 'make no pacts' thing was stated to the nation of Israel. This is because these groups were hostile to the fledgling nation of Israel and would practice treachery and deceit in the event of a peace treaty, besides having idolatrous or other offensive practices that would possibly spread to the people of Israel if contact were encouraged (they had enough trouble staying away from things like that in the first place, like Baal and the calf).
Jews are to love their neighbours, to not impose upon these neighbours (neither a lender nor a borrower be) and to deal with them fairly inasmuch as you can still profit from the trade (you gotta make a living). Brothers, other members of the twelve tribes, were to be given preferential treatment for the betterment of the nation, and this is still evidenced today with the custom of selling to friends and relatives wholesale. However, if a neighbour is hostile to you or is preparing to attack you, the order is to strike him with as much force as necessary to stop his attack and deter him from any future attacks, a policy which has served well the tiny state of Israel since its contentious birth in 1948 and which is practiced by most of the more successful nations on earth like Japan (1941, Pearl Harbour, in response to a likely invasion fleet being assembled).
Muslims have the principle of the people of the book, but this is contradicted by the modern Imams, who seem to preach only hate for all others including Jews and Christians and Zoroastrians, the previously mentioned book people. Likewise, many of us here have experienced hate from Christians due to fundamentalist indoctrination bestowed upon brainwashed followers despite the actual words of the Gospels (and I do not include the Epistles here, since they seem to encourage hate against women, homosexuals, Jews, and just about everyone else). The fact is, people are prone to hate and violence for some reason and will find a way within the construct of any religious system to commit violence, doubly so if they can find a passage out of context (like the one you clipped earlier about the no pacts or amends) that will justify their actions. An example of this is the two world idea in Islam, that there is a World of Islam (Submission (to Allah)) and a World of Struggle (usually interpreted as spiritual struggle, a place you go to spread spirituality to those not 'of the book')...which has been reinterpreted as the World of War, the place you go to kill the infidel. The original intentions of both Christianity and Islam were to enact a reform of Judaism and return to its roots as they were at Sinai, as there had been considerable drift or adaptation to the times, depending upon who you ask. Both of the chief figures of these religions attempted to address these concerns to the Priests and Rabbis of their time, only to be rejected since they were outsiders and most people resist change, so after their deaths their teachings have been interpreted as a new rejectionist religion. This is a normal progression of things generally, as you will always have old-school and new-school people at odds with each other and resulting splinter groups, but people lose track of just how closely related and bound these three faiths are.
Since you, Arthegarn, are in the country (one of my ancestral lands) and religion responsible for such high points in history as the invasion of Iberia (where the greatest seat of learning probably ever, between Jewish and Muslim scholars, was destroyed by invading Christians), the Edict of Expulsion (love thy neighbour unless he doesn't convert, then make him not your neighbour), and the Inquisition (Auto da fe, anyone?), your comments do not surprise me as I am sure these attitudes are still pervasive in everyday culture there and seem normal to those immersed in it. These attitudes and misconceptions were prevalent in the years leading up to the second World War (the Great Patriotic War, for you CIS residents) as well, and account for the alarming numbers of common people committing executions before the invading Teutonic troops could arrive.
Modern Israel is confronted with a difficult situation, one which actually started years before there was a state there. There was rampant Muslim violence against anybody they did not like in the land, and the whole area was under British control as a result of the raw deal given to the Ottoman Empire by the Europeans. The Balfour declaration attempted to rectify this by creating an Arab state and a Jewish state in the land known as Palestine since the Romans named it such as an insult. When the declaration was presented, immigration began from the Arab states into the lands which were largely vacant, with the express purpose of demographically preventing anything but Arab land being formed there (many of them had designs on restoring a pan-Arab caliphate that would turn all Arab nations into one big kingdom and restore what was lost when the area was partitioned by outsiders at the end of WWI). When the Arab armies invaded in 1948 (the same day that David Ben Gurion gave his famous radio address declaring the establishment of the state) they drove out or caused to flee these same immigrants, and these are the people who now claim right of return. Thing is, very few people were there before Balfour, and in fact the so-called Omar Mosque (Dome of the Rock) was in disrepair in the late 1800s as it had been built there mostly to desecrate what they believed to be the site of Herod's Temple. The one thing I will assert is that there is currently a difficult situation in that area where conflicting sets of entitlements are complicating what would otherwise be a secession situation, and that wrongs are committed on both sides due to the intensity of this conflict and the fact that it involves primarily civilians.
Judgment day. Everybody thinks they are doing what is correct, but of course not everybody can be right. There is a concept in Judaism of the Righteous Gentile, one who will be given honoured status in the End Times due to living respecfully and properly without being of any certain religion. Can you say that about the other two Judaic faiths? Muslims keep the laws that were laid down in what you call the "Old Testament", such as not eating the flesh of unclean animals like swine (when was the last time you ate from a salted ham that was in somebody's kitchen on a rack?) and observing the Sabbath by not working or dealing with worldly matters. Tell me, o righteous one, on what day do you pray and contemplate and do no work, do not travel, carry nothing, write nothing, light not or extinguish not a flame, and so on? Most Christians do not follow the commandments that they say makes the difference between them and the damned, not the ten or the seven or the 613(If Christians consider themselves, as the Muslims do, the rightful heirs of the Covenants, they must obey all the laws since they have not been revoked and are part and parcel of the Covenants...if they consider themselves Gentiles then there are only seven laws (the Noahide, or laws of Noah) that they need to be concerned with, including not worshipping any other gods as the Trinity concept treads dangerously close to doing) and therefore are on shaky ground to "cast the first stones" as it has been my experience they do frequently. On Judgment Day/End Times/Rapture/whatever the only thing that will matter is righteousness and whether you were a good person, and when I look around me I see good people who are Satanists, Wiccans, Picts, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Asatru, Greco-Roman Pagans, Setians, Muslims, Hindus, and people who just can't decide but still think it is cool to be nice. The one thread that runs through all these people is that they would get along if they lived in a house together and think that people should be considerate and understanding (as in, actually taking the time (as some of you seem to have with Satanism) to learn about the other person's perspective instead of dismissing it) and kind to their fellow creatures just because it is the right thing to do.
Unfortunately there are bad seeds in all these groups, people that pontificate or lecture others about how they are wrong and they are damned for all time because they don't do this thing or that thing right, or just plain act with hostility and inconsideration toward others...and these people cause others to form incorrect stereotypes about their groups and cause intergroup hatred and fear, as evidenced by earlier statements about how the Jews are not supposed to love their neighbours. Ask anybody that knows me how I treat others, and I think you will get a surprise because I love my neighbours in as many ways as possible (twice in the naughty ways)...
Besides all of this, for the benefit of you 'Kabbalists', KBL or Kabbalah (the word that can be spelled any way you want since it is only three consonants meaning 'tradition') is a Hebrew (or possibly more correctly, Haviru, ancient Hebrew) word and a Hebrew tradition that predates Judaism, so if you are to love your neighbours with the exception of 'those non-neighbour-loving Jews' I guess you will have to cast that body of work aside as worthless as well.
Recognising that we have a worldwide readership here in our little corner of the web, I would like to explain something about schools in the United States since I know little of other systems except for Belgium. We are taught in our pre-first grade, otherwise known as Kindergarten (roughly 'Garden of Children') to Play Nicely and Share Your Toys, Don't Hate Anybody, and Get To Know Someone Before You Decide If You Like Them Or Not. If everybody would really learn and practice these rules (they're not just for rug rats anymore) we would all get along fine, without religious territorial pissings or spouses fighting over suspected affairs (spouses are property?) or theft or greed or anything that necessitates a pile of statutes with which you could wipe your arse for all eternity and never run out of pages.
Now everybody find a blackboard and a good piece of squeaky chalk and write ten times each:- I will play nicely.
- I will share my toys.
- I will not hate anybody.
- I will see the inner good in everybody.
- I will treat others as I want them to treat me.
- Each person is as good as
every other person. - Devin is a currant.
-RogueLe joli rouge Ich suche nach Klugheit und Wahrheit.
|
| |
| |
|
|
This article has not been rated
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Play Nicely (Love Thy Neighbour, Part II) | Login/Create an account | 31 Comments |
|
| | Comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
Re: Play Nicely (Love Thy Neighbour, Part II)
by gothvail (vail@gothicamateur.com)
on Mar 29, 2002 - 06:29 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://www.gothicamateur.com
|
|
Still doing my best to be kind and fair to everyone, and to share when I have something and someone else is in need. I just like people in general too much to want to see the innocent hurt.
|
This time it WAS about me...
by Arthegarn on Mar 29, 2002 - 12:43 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
Now, Coder, wait a sec. If I deserve some credit to you, please start by believing this. I do not hate anyone. I do not hate the Jew. Nor the Muslims, nor the native Americans, nor anyone that I know of. Hating a group of people is ridiculous (any group of people). Really, I don’t. Please please please believe me. Because of you don’t grant me the benefit of doubt and spit my words in my face just as I speak them we won’t understand each other. Actually I really admire the Jew and feel a strong sympathy towards them.
Let’s try to go point by point. You talk about the “altered-to-fit-our-view” bible. Altered how, by whom and most importantly when? You talk about the Vatican. Well, if you tell me what modifications are you talking about and when were they introduced, I might give you the reason. If you wish we can go on with the discussion using only the torah, which is quite hard to alter since the Jew have been copying the handscripts with minuciosity for millennia.
You say that Jews are to love their neighbours. Well, I could start with examples of the opposite and never end (read the end before jumping to my throat), unless you consider neighbour only the Sons of Jacob, which I consider is the correct interpretation. I am referring to the letter of the law here. The order to make no pacts was general, but I agree the reason was to preserve the purity of the Jew (“for I am a jealous God”, etc). The orders are quite clear: Genocide. Jews could completely impose in credits to gentiles, and the proof of that is they have been doing so ever since (and did it back then). It is not that brothers were given a preferential treatment. It is that brothers had rights that gentiles had not, as simple as that. At that time law was personal, you had rights only as long as you were a citizen of the kingdom. Foreigners had no rights but those specifically given to them by law
You say that “if a neighbour is hostile to you or is preparing to attack you, the order is to strike him with as much force as necessary to stop his attack and deter him from any future attacks, a policy which has served well the tiny state of Israel since its contentious birth in 1948”. Well, the opposite is also true. Golda Meyr, possibly one of the strongest female political personalities of the last century (with Ms Thatcher) knew well in advance of the Muslim attack that started the Six Day War and didn’t launch a much recommended pre-emptive strike because she knew it was much better to be the attacked part. (I also don’t agree about Pearl Harbour having been a Japanese pre-emptive strike, but let’s leave that for revisionists)
I agree with you in all you say about fundamentalism. If there is something I hate about religion it’s fanatics, be them Christians, Jew, Muslims or Children of Anemone (No offence here, Dolorosa ;-) I don’t like most of the Epistles either, and always complained of orthodox Christianity being too Pauline and too little Jew. Of course I don’t agree with the idea that the original idea of Christianity was to bring Judaism to its roots, but I have studied it in great length and always believed it to be part of the truth. Nevertheless, as a Christian, I don’t believe it’s the only objective (and now faith comes into play and we can’t have a rational discussion). And I strongly disagree with the idea of Islam being to reform Judaism back to its roots, but I also find myself intrigued by the thought. I would like to hear your motives for making that assertion.
I really don’t get it when you talk of Iberia. Iberia was how Spain and Portugal was known during the Punic Wars, at the time of Cartage. The iberians were one of the cultures that existed in the peninsula, with whom cataginensis (?) had more contact (they were in the south, with Celt at north and Lusitanians at west), so long looong before any Muslims ever existed. I believe you talk about
Read the rest of this comment...
|
Re: Play Nicely (Love Thy Neighbour, Part II)
by Comedian (comedian@callatg.com)
on Mar 29, 2002 - 08:03 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
One constant I do see:
All Judaic groups have funny ideas where "ritual mutilation of the genitalia" crosses over the line of healthy living.
|
Re: Play Nicely (Love Thy Neighbour, Part II)
by callei (plyn@plynlymon.com)
on Mar 29, 2002 - 10:28 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://www.plynlymon.com
|
"Devin is a currant" is proof that typos happen; that they are then interpreted, transmuted.
If you look at the10 Commandments ,the 16 Strong Suggestions and the 7 Deadly Sins that we have on this site, you see that they also can be seen as vague and could be bent to mean things that they dont actually intend.
My mom pointed this out to me when she read them last week. she called me and asked me to explain what a few of them really meant. I was actually shocked that she needed them explained, but as we walked through each one, she pointed out where certain words had many meaning, and when used in phrases, they meant something all together different.
She and I speak some of the same languages. she taught me how to talk in the first place and yet we had different concepts behind the words.
No words, no matter how careful you are, can accuratly express an idea to someone else if they have only the words to go by.
To use a more pointed example:
I will play nicely.
I will play nicely with what? with who? when? where? what does nicely MEAN? that i wont steal someone else's toys, or that i will play with the toys that i have stolen and be happy. OR that i will play in such a way as to not bother the people around me, or will go away from other people to play so as not to bother them? OR that i will play in such a way as to cause others to think happy thoughts about me, or in an artistic way? or in a clean way?
To me this means that i will play in such a way as to make others comfortable to join my game, create little mess, and cause no discomfort to those around me, it does not mean that i will play prettily or artistically, or with others joy before my own (I being in key word here).
It is a straight forward idea at a glance, but it could just as easily mean any combination of the other ideas as well as ones that i havent even thought of yet. It probably does mean something different to you than it does to me(you being male, from a different cultureal background but of a similar age) and it does mean something different to my mom (i asked her and she and i share a cultural background but are seperated in age) and something different to a child of ten (either sex, but boys and girls will probably think it means different things as well).
The point around which i am dancing is that words are ephemeral even when writen down, even when the pronunication stays the same, even when there arent changes in the geographic area of the language, even over short periods of time, even inside a small family. I am not trying to bring up the paradox of language to confuse the issue, this is rather less vague than the idea of shared symbols between two people. Rather that, as Rogue pointed out in the prayer, words inherantly have multiple means and interpretations and that the combination of those interpretations can radically alter the underlying concepts of those words.
When we look at anyone's "holy" book, we see the inconsistancy of words. Is it "thou shall not suffer a witch to live" or " thou shall not suffer a well poisoner to live"?
Does "unto the people" mean " at the people" or "about the people" or " into the care of the people" and WHEN does it mean one or the other?
Can parables mean the same thing 50 years later? 500 years later? What if the parable is about snow and the receiver of the parable lives in the tropics?
Is a well poisoner really the same as a stream poisoner?
must you honor (another ephemeral and changable word) your parents, or obey (this is actually very hard to define as well) you parents. In what things must you obey/honor them? Even when they get Alzheimer's disease? Even if they think they are chickens?
Even if they want to abuse you, rape you, and sell you to others?
What does the word " LOVE mean? w
Read the rest of this comment...
|
Re: Play Nicely (Love Thy Neighbour, Part II)
by kat_vamp (-)
on Mar 31, 2002 - 05:09 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
After generally studying many diverse religious beleifs, and now reading your wonderful post, I feel validated in saying that what I have studied is fact: at the base of all religions lies one eternal truth..."Love All." Love means respect, appreciation, caring, giving, and all the other happy little verbs. Humans are not capable of Perfect Love...but it is the journey that is the fun part....Perfection would be boring, to me. I agree...everyone SHOULD write down those basic rules of Kindergarten, and read them daily. *takes up pencil and paper and begins list*
|
Missed me completely, flew over the head and killed a passing bird...
by Dolorosa on Mar 31, 2002 - 07:35 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
May I purpose a new commandment thingie...
I will not eat the fuzzy stuff that hides in my belly-button.
I guess you could call that a response in disguise.
|
Have it Yahweh.
by Monolycus on Apr 01, 2002 - 06:17 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
While I agree that humans should get along with one another (or at least not actively antagonise one another), I would be saddened to think that the role of religion is confined to merely giving people a rationale for doing what they ought to be doing in the first place. Emile Durkheim (who was, if memory serves, a lapsed Jew. Curious.) proposed that organised religion was simply the apotheosis of society at large and provided a cohesive framework to prevent the dissolution of that society. While this idea is not without merit (and certainly seems to be applicable to Judaism as Rogue describes it), what it boils down to is the cynical proposition that people would not and can not behave themselves without the ersatz parental figure of their theology to provide a system of rewards/punishments to its adherents which insures that they behave themselves as rational beings should behave.
This also implies a secondary function of religion which is more insulting than the idea that people are incapable of getting along together without an authority figure present to ensure that they do. An insular religious community is maintained by a common (more or less) faith, and the more insular the community, the more explicit becomes the conviction that they are the "true" faith (or "God's chosen people", et cetera) and non-adherents are infidels (or "the Damned", et cetera). Religion at this point becomes nothing more than an insidious exercise in xenophobic reasoning that would not stand up except as an article of faith. In other words, it provides a sense of communal unity when there is nothing else to justify it. More simply, when a group can not say "We are great because we have this or that positive quality", they fall back on being able to say "We are great because we are not those guys over there". This, then, becomes the basis for otherwise indefensible human atrocities.
It should be clear at this point that I am no great proponent of the sociological model of organised religion (Oh, I believe it is valid... and I detest it). I feel that thinking, rational, compassionate humans could live together in a community without killing one another off like animals and be able to imbue their culture with enough positive qualities that they can feel good about themselves without having to resort to negative comparisons. This hasn't happened yet, and would require a humankind comprised of members with intellectual and emotional maturity (There's never a platonic philosopher-king around when you need them!), but I am cautiously optimistic.
One may now be getting the idea that I see no place for religion in society. Nothing could be further from the truth. I believe, however, that religion is only a truly positive thing when it is apolitical, which it can not be beyond the level of the individual. My own faith and practice is that of an anchorite in the Celtic and Preceltic tradition; I have voluntarily marginalised myself as much as is possible from the corruption of my society, and pursued my faith with the goal of enriching my soul and working out my spiritual imperfections as best I am able so that I may help and not hinder those with whom I come into contact. I view myself as something of a monastic, but my hermitage is inside me and I take it with me where I go (Perhaps the mountain will come to Muhamet after all).
When religion is personal and directed inwardly, it serves to make better people. Better people make better societies. When religion is a cultural practice that is directed outwardly, it creates intolerance, thoughtless fundamentalism and death.
I am not saying that there is no place for congregations. I am saying that that place seems to be a battlefield.
|
|
|
