Is recognition that Jews have the best ideology of the Abrahamic cults the reaso

Gisteron wrote: [

quote="Greatest-I-am" post=265695]Is recognition that Jews have the best ideology of the Abrahamic cults the reason Muslims and Christians hate Jews?

Maybe. It could also be that Jews and their ever so virtuous parrots keep insisting that they are the chosen people with the one true religion and that even at the best of times all they have to say to Christians is that the person most of them consider to be a literal incarnation of their common god is a mere mortal with silly ideas of the afterlife.

You center out Jewry. Why, when both Christianity and Islam also say that they are the most virtuous ands true religions?

Christianity depends on their notion that substitutionary atonement is somehow just and moral.

Is that your view?

Islam says that women are not equal to men before the law.

Is that your view?

The Jews do not lie about a hell the way Christianity does. Which is more honest?

Islam isn't even warranted that much respect.

On this, we agree.

This is not to say that either deserve them, but the question itself not only makes a laughably bold assumption, it also betrays a unique kind of arrogance of the sort that says "we are so brilliant, there is no way someone could possibly honestly disagree with us".

With Christianity and Jewry, you can disagree and skip out. With Islam, given the power that Muslim majority countries have, they kill apostates.

In debates on morality, agreements can be found through good arguments. In debates of God's existence, it is just how good a liar the one side is compared to the other.

Arrogance I see as a plus as it shows confidence in ones ideas. I note that you seem to have your share. So do I.

Now, I'm neither a Christian nor a Jew nor a Muslim, I have no religion that would leave me wounded when condescended towards, but lines like these sure don't inspire any sympathy from me and I frankly can't see how a Muslim or a Christian is supposed to be any more appreciative.

I do not seek appreciation. I seek to have idol worshipers wonder why, when they say they respect Jesus, they do not do his bidding and seek God and not become idol worshipers.

Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it."

Well, he is wrong about that being in the Torah.

He did not say it was in the Torah. He said it was the essence of the teachings in the Torah. Jesus himself mimicked it with his second command of loving your neighbor as yourself. That is a reciprocity rule just like the Golden Rule.

The closest thing to it is a line in the Book of Tobit which is not a part of the Torah nor of a majority of the versions of the Christian Bible. If anything, the golden rule is at best expressed in a positive form, and in the New Testament at that, but Hillel is referring to Leviticus 19:18 which says almost nothing of the sort. In my humble opinion both versions of the rule are severely lacking both in principle and in practice, but even if they wouldn't be, there is no reason why anyone should consider them superior or follow them beyond their own intuitive agreement with them after they hear them.

Regardless of all that, reciprocity is reciprocity regardless of it being said in a positive way or a negative way. The result is the same. My favorite sociologist dubbed it as Harm/Care and that also shows reciprocity.

Please listen as to what is said about literal reading.

Why?

Because no one can know anything definitely about God and to think someone does shows two fools.

"Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, "God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning."

If Origen said that (citation, please), he is wrong, because as a matter of fact people do take these texts literally and to varying extents.

Yes and stupidly end in believing in real talking serpents and donkeys or a bunch of virgins waiting in heaven for them.

Do you think that that is a good way for intelligent people to think?

In the light of what is actually the case, what some ancient Greek thought was impossible is completely irrelevant. I'm also pretty sure that he didn't know any more about the intent of God than any other mere mortal at the time, or prior, or since. Without an explanation of the roots of his position, his opinion is useless to us, as would be any other.

I think Greeks knowing that serpents and donkeys could not talk human is quite relaxant. It shows intelligence as compared to gullibility in a theist who believes lies.

Muslims and Christians foolishly read their holy books literally, ignoring that none of the Abrahamic cults did in the past.

Again, so what?

So the ancients knew that God could not be known and so did the other Abrahamic cults as they all say that God is unknowable and unfathomable, just before they start to lie about what they know and fathom.

There is a past when nobody used to have a horseless carriage either, yet here we are.

Irrelevant. Do not waste both of our time.

Older doesn't mean better or more correct. In fact, in most cases quite the opposite is true: As time moves on, our positions improve with the understanding we gain.

On things that can be known, I agree. That is not the case with imaginary man made Gods.

Now, that's not the case with faith-based positions,

Which is what we are talking about when speaking of the Abrahamic cults. Seems you just contradicted your last or did not quite express it as you wanted to.

I'll grant that much, but just from the fact that there used to be a different position, it does by no means follow that the new ones are "foolish".

Yes it does when based on faith which is a belief based on nothing.

This fact makes Muslims and Christians idol worshipers. All Muslim and Christian denominations ignore that the Jesus they all profess to respect preached that we should all be God seekers and never become idol worshipers the way Muslims and Christians have done.

According to Islam, Jews are idol worshippers every bit as much as Muslims are according to what ever source you think to be capital-T truth. And I for one don't know why it matters what some guy allegedly said about what we should or should not worship, but do feel free to enlighten me...

Yes, according to Muslims Jews are idol worshipers yet they worship the same idol while saying they are not. Good grief. If you cannot see the hypocrisy and double standard at work then their is nothing I can say that will open your eyes.

Gnostic Christians like me were and are esoteric ecumenists. You might say that to the old Abrahamic cults of Muslims, Christians and Jews, we were the religious whores of those old days, thanks to the fact that our mystery schools would pick and choose the best tenets of all religions and work them into our Universalist creed. We would not tie ourselves down to becoming idol worshipers of imaginary demiurges the way Muslims and Christians did in ancient days and continue to do today. The fool says in his heart, I know who God is and who his prophets are.

That's funny, considering how you are trying to tell us who God isn't and who his prophets aren't, as if you knew any better than anyone else.

It is a lot easier to know what is not real based on evidence than to prove what is assumed to be real based on faith which means nothing and the supernatural which is more stupid than bright.

Gnostic Christians and Jews, --- having a superior ideology and philosophy of seeking a good God, --- instead of becoming idol worshipers like Muslims and Christians, --- shared the hate and attempted genocide that Jews suffered thanks to Christians then Muslims.

I'm sorry, I must have overlooked the part where you demonstrated the superiority of the Gnostic Christian or Jewish ideology or philosophy by some metric, or even so much as named the metric by which they are.

I did above with substitutionary atonement for Christianity and with the institutionalized inequality for women in Islam. Good moral questions that I hope you answer.

Should Muslims and Christians admit their ideological deficiencies and turn their hate to love. It should be quite easy for religions that say they are all about peace and love.

What if they aren't?

Then they show themselves to be liars who do not care about morality, which should be a religions first point of importance. Right?

And if they are, why should it be easy to say?

Because they should by quite happy to have improved their moral sense.

And if it is easy to say, what about that makes it easy to implement?

If common sense and decency cannot override the lies given previously then that should show all the rest just how damaging religious lies are.

And what idological deficiencies are you talking about?

See those questions on morality above. Basically the homophobia and misogyny both Christianity and Islam preach. Jews as well in a few cases in how they view women and cleanliness. That would be the fundamentals more than the majority.

What does that even mean? Why do I even ask this if it's supposedly that obvious how superior your position is to the ones you are challenging here? So far it looks like a pot not only calling the kettle black, but meanwhile also insisting it is brushed and shiny itself.

I know that you are somewhat confused but things should clear up for you from what I put above.

[

quote]I think it would be fitting for Muslims and Christians to start walking their talk and apologise to Jews and Gnostic Christians by giving them the recognition for excellence in religious matters.

Yea, well, that's just like... your opinion, man. But, please, do feel free to also explain what you mean by that or why you think so. Its certainly no uncommon position, but so far I only ever heard it stated, never substantiated.[/quote][/quote]

Again, your own answers to the questions above, if you agree with my view, will show you that at least Gnostic Christianity is a better ideology and theology with Jewry a close second.

Now that these questions are out of our way, perhaps we can start to look at the actual ideologies of homophobia and misogyny in the Christian and Muslim religions that are not in mine and are less apparent and severe in Jewry.

Regards
DL

Adder wrote: Don't forget its never really constructive to group a large set of people under one label for the purpose of using that label for behaviors of only a subset of the group.... words like 'some' or 'many' are more accurate, but also less inflammatory.

You are right but in this case, the ideologies in question, regardless of the particular denomination or branch applies, when looking at their holy books.

Regards
DL

Silas Mercury wrote: Does it occur to you that ISIS, Al Shabab and Al Quaeda aren't Muslims ?? Muslims are kind, moral, charitable people. I know it may be hippocritical coming from me, but watch your tongue.

Sure, they have practiced a corrupted Islam but that does not take away from the fact that Islam and Sharia are the most immoral ideologies on the religious menu for us to choose from.

Regards
DL

Greatest-I-am wrote:

Silas Mercury wrote: Does it occur to you that ISIS, Al Shabab and Al Quaeda aren't Muslims ?? Muslims are kind, moral, charitable people. I know it may be hippocritical coming from me, but watch your tongue.

Sure, they have practiced a corrupted Islam but that does not take away from the fact that Islam and Sharia are the most immoral ideologies on the religious menu for us to choose from.

Regards
DL

In your opinion, but remember, we practice understanding and acceptance here and try not to make judgements about other people. Millions of Muslims who practice Islam do so peacefully, it is not the 'immorality' of Islam that creates extremists.

Silas Mercury wrote: Does it occur to you that ISIS, Al Shabab and Al Quaeda aren't Muslims ?? Muslims are kind, moral, charitable people. I know it may be hippocritical coming from me, but watch your tongue.

Have you noted that Saudi Arabia, a rather rich country, has a lot of slums?

The charity I see there does not negate the public decapitations of gays and those murdered for sexual misconduct.

Regards
DL

Edan wrote:

Greatest-I-am wrote:

Silas Mercury wrote: Does it occur to you that ISIS, Al Shabab and Al Quaeda aren't Muslims ?? Muslims are kind, moral, charitable people. I know it may be hippocritical coming from me, but watch your tongue.

Sure, they have practiced a corrupted Islam but that does not take away from the fact that Islam and Sharia are the most immoral ideologies on the religious menu for us to choose from.

Regards
DL

In your opinion, but remember, we practice understanding and acceptance here and try not to make judgements about other people. Millions of Muslims who practice Islam do so peacefully, it is not the 'immorality' of Islam that creates extremists.

I live by these just as you likely do.

Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

True that there are millions of good Muslims, but their ideology produces millions of evil Muslims as well.

Check the numbers and judge the ideology and if you cannot then you might wonder why you cannot. For evil to grow, all good people need do is not judge evil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pSPvnFDDQHk

Regards
DL

Hey everyone, look, I found Gisteron 2.0 !!!

Greatest-I-am wrote:

Edan wrote:

Greatest-I-am wrote:

Silas Mercury wrote: Does it occur to you that ISIS, Al Shabab and Al Quaeda aren't Muslims ?? Muslims are kind, moral, charitable people. I know it may be hippocritical coming from me, but watch your tongue.

Sure, they have practiced a corrupted Islam but that does not take away from the fact that Islam and Sharia are the most immoral ideologies on the religious menu for us to choose from.

Regards
DL

In your opinion, but remember, we practice understanding and acceptance here and try not to make judgements about other people. Millions of Muslims who practice Islam do so peacefully, it is not the 'immorality' of Islam that creates extremists.

I live by these just as you likely do.

Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

True that there are millions of good Muslims, but their ideology produces millions of evil Muslims as well.

Check the numbers and judge the ideology and if you cannot then you might wonder why you cannot. For evil to grow, all good people need do is not judge evil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pSPvnFDDQHk

Regards
DL

YouTube videos are evidence of nothing...

Greatest-I-am wrote:
I live by these just as you likely do.

Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

Silly Kaa, tricks are for kids. :laugh:

Greatest-I-am wrote:

Gisteron wrote: [

quote="Greatest-I-am" post=265695]Is recognition that Jews have the best ideology of the Abrahamic cults the reason Muslims and Christians hate Jews?

Maybe. It could also be that Jews and their ever so virtuous parrots keep insisting that they are the chosen people with the one true religion and that even at the best of times all they have to say to Christians is that the person most of them consider to be a literal incarnation of their common god is a mere mortal with silly ideas of the afterlife.

You center out Jewry. Why, when both Christianity and Islam also say that they are the most virtuous ands true religions?

Because you asked about why they hate Jews, not why they hate each other. As a neutral party, I would frankly also not find a lot of love for someone who plays the "they hate me because they're jealous" game, which I have seen even the least religious self-identifying Jews still happily engage in. Is it something other religions do, too? Sure, I suppose. I just focused on the goal post you set at first, not the one you now shifted it to for no reason.

Christianity depends on their notion that substitutionary atonement is somehow just and moral.

Since you already pulled the tu-quoque turd in the quote above, I'll just gently point out that the tradition of sacrificing animals to atone for the villagers' collective sins is something Christianity inherited directly from the Jewish traditions it arose from. On top of that, it replaced those rituals with a belief that a single sacrifice on behalf of all people yet to come has already been made and that no further sacrifices are necessary. But you are also wrong about Christianity depending on the notion that this is just or moral. You can believe that this is the case and that you are better off accepting the Nazarene's alleged sacrifice as atonement for mankind's collective sins, and still think of the system as unjust or immoral. Christianity commands to love God, but it does not command to agree with the system it claims he set up.

Islam says that women are not equal to men before the law.

Islamic scriptures say on multiple occasions. You can still believe that Allah is the only true God and that Mohammed is his messenger without believing that men and women are or should be treated differently in court, or in Allah's eyes. It is not a central tenet of Islam any more than the moral excellency of substitutionary atonement is a central tenet of Christianity.

The Jews do not lie about a hell the way Christianity does. Which is more honest?

Well, Jewish scriptures are generally more vague about ideas of the afterlife, I'll grant that. The fact that Christianity has more concrete things to say about it means only that. Sure, it's as unfounded as anything in the Jewish texts was, and though I find it somewhat childish to say that "my shorter book of fairytales has fewer made up nonsense, so it's better than yours", I'll grant that the assessment is not necessarily flawed. Now what I wonder is why this is at all relevant? You never said that honesty was a measure of superiority.

Now, I'm neither a Christian nor a Jew nor a Muslim, I have no religion that would leave me wounded when condescended towards, but lines like these sure don't inspire any sympathy from me and I frankly can't see how a Muslim or a Christian is supposed to be any more appreciative.

I do not seek appreciation. I seek to have idol worshipers wonder why, when they say they respect Jesus, they do not do his bidding and seek God and not become idol worshipers.

Because maybe they don't think that his bidding is what you think his bidding is. Maybe they don't actually recognize that your world view is better than theirs and disagree with it out of mere spite, maybe they genuinely and honestly just think differently than you. And maybe you and your ilk trying to educate them on what they ought or ought not believe about their religious figures is what makes them dislike you so much. But maybe you should ask them, I'm sure they'd represent themselves much better than I could.

The closest thing to it is a line in the Book of Tobit which is not a part of the Torah nor of a majority of the versions of the Christian Bible. If anything, the golden rule is at best expressed in a positive form, and in the New Testament at that, but Hillel is referring to Leviticus 19:18 which says almost nothing of the sort. In my humble opinion both versions of the rule are severely lacking both in principle and in practice, but even if they wouldn't be, there is no reason why anyone should consider them superior or follow them beyond their own intuitive agreement with them after they hear them.

Regardless of all that, reciprocity is reciprocity regardless of it being said in a positive way or a negative way. The result is the same.

I'm no expert on matters of moral philosophy, but from the two classes I took on the subject, it would seem that it is not the same. The positive form is instructive. It tells us what to do to others. The negative form is prohibitive. It tells us what not to do to them. It is trivially easy to follow one rule and break the other by one and the same action (or indeed inaction).

Please listen as to what is said about literal reading.

Why?

Because no one can know anything definitely about God and to think someone does shows two fools.

And yet you say that this is someone who knows something about what kind of reading is correct or incorrect?

"Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, "God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning."

If Origen said that (citation, please), he is wrong, because as a matter of fact people do take these texts literally and to varying extents.

Yes and stupidly end in believing in real talking serpents and donkeys or a bunch of virgins waiting in heaven for them.

Do you think that that is a good way for intelligent people to think?

Irrelevant. You say Origen called it "absolutely impossible to take these texts literally". People do though. So either Origen was wrong about what is impossible to take literally or you are misrepresenting his position... Or both. You are about to quote me saying this, too, as if you read it and are now only pretending to not have understood. You also skipped over the part where I questioned why Origen felt like he had any knowledge of God's mind, so I shall in return skip over your misunderstanding what I just rephrased for your comprehension.

Muslims and Christians foolishly read their holy books literally, ignoring that none of the Abrahamic cults did in the past.

Again, so what?

So the ancients knew that God could not be known and so did the other Abrahamic cults as they all say that God is unknowable and unfathomable, just before they start to lie about what they know and fathom.

So how did these "the ancients" know that God was unknowable? And how do you know that they knew that? But even if I grand that they did, as I explained through an analogy you are about to quote, it is completely irrelevant what some people before a given time thought or knew. Nothing about their traditions being older implies anything about them being more appropriate or better by any other metric. If they were based on some sound reasoning or even evidence, we would talk about that reason instead of just that they are older.

This fact makes Muslims and Christians idol worshipers. All Muslim and Christian denominations ignore that the Jesus they all profess to respect preached that we should all be God seekers and never become idol worshipers the way Muslims and Christians have done.

According to Islam, Jews are idol worshippers every bit as much as Muslims are according to what ever source you think to be capital-T truth. And I for one don't know why it matters what some guy allegedly said about what we should or should not worship, but do feel free to enlighten me...

Yes, according to Muslims Jews are idol worshipers yet they worship the same idol while saying they are not. Good grief. If you cannot see the hypocrisy and double standard at work then their is nothing I can say that will open your eyes.

Well yes, of course they are hypocritical. My point is that you sound exactly like them. I'm not saying that Islam has the "best ideology" or is "superior" to Jewry. You are saying that Jewry is superior to them. I'm just asking what makes your claim to superiority any more believable than theirs.

Gnostic Christians like me were and are esoteric ecumenists. You might say that to the old Abrahamic cults of Muslims, Christians and Jews, we were the religious whores of those old days, thanks to the fact that our mystery schools would pick and choose the best tenets of all religions and work them into our Universalist creed. We would not tie ourselves down to becoming idol worshipers of imaginary demiurges the way Muslims and Christians did in ancient days and continue to do today. The fool says in his heart, I know who God is and who his prophets are.

That's funny, considering how you are trying to tell us who God isn't and who his prophets aren't, as if you knew any better than anyone else.

It is a lot easier to know what is not real based on evidence than to prove what is assumed to be real based on faith which means nothing and the supernatural which is more stupid than bright.

So when you tell us who God isn't and who his prophets aren't, that is based on evidence, is it? Then why don't you just present the evidence instead of saying how silly the things other people believe are? I'm not defending Christianity or Islam, I'm just waiting to see why I wouldn't dismiss you with the same ease you dismiss them.

Gnostic Christians and Jews, --- having a superior ideology and philosophy of seeking a good God, --- instead of becoming idol worshipers like Muslims and Christians, --- shared the hate and attempted genocide that Jews suffered thanks to Christians then Muslims.

I'm sorry, I must have overlooked the part where you demonstrated the superiority of the Gnostic Christian or Jewish ideology or philosophy by some metric, or even so much as named the metric by which they are.

I did above with substitutionary atonement for Christianity and with the institutionalized inequality for women in Islam. Good moral questions that I hope you answer.

Well, neither of those doctrines are crucially important to their respective religions, but even if I granted you that they were, and even if I personally thought of these things as highly immoral, what about that makes either religion inferior? What metric for superiority/inferiority are we using? So far you suggested honesty, age, and some unspecified form of morality. What does being superior mean?

Should Muslims and Christians admit their ideological deficiencies and turn their hate to love. It should be quite easy for religions that say they are all about peace and love.

What if they aren't?

Then they show themselves to be liars who do not care about morality, which should be a religions first point of importance. Right?

I don't know of any law that declares what should or should not be any religion's first point of importance. Do you? Even if I grant you that they are liars, that tells us nothing about what they should or shouldn't do.

And if they are, why should it be easy to say?

Because they should by quite happy to have improved their moral sense.

You are assuming that admitting to an ideological deficiency and turning hate to love is a moral improvement. We have not established that yet.

And if it is easy to say, what about that makes it easy to implement?

If common sense and decency cannot override the lies given previously then that should show all the rest just how damaging religious lies are.

I am not religious. I didn't grow up religious either. Now I'm not saying that I have any common sense or decency, but I also have no deep rooted lies that need overriding. I do not find it easy to like you or people who share your view. If anything, you are making it harder for me. My point here is that even if one frees oneself of religious lies and admits to all one's own flaws and faults, that doesn't make it easier to like a religious position like your own.

And what idological deficiencies are you talking about?

See those questions on morality above. Basically the homophobia and misogyny both Christianity and Islam preach. Jews as well in a few cases in how they view women and cleanliness. That would be the fundamentals more than the majority.

We have not established that immorality is a sign of ideological deficiency. We have not established that either homophobia or misogyny are immoral in as absolute a sense as would be required for your argument to stand. You have all of your work to demonstrating anything you said about the superiority of Jewry - or Gnostic Christianity for that matter - still ahead of you and until you bring some structure to your thought I'm afraid it will remain so.

I think it would be fitting for Muslims and Christians to start walking their talk and apologise to Jews and Gnostic Christians by giving them the recognition for excellence in religious matters.

Yea, well, that's just like... your opinion, man. But, please, do feel free to also explain what you mean by that or why you think so. Its certainly no uncommon position, but so far I only ever heard it stated, never substantiated.

Again, your own answers to the questions above, if you agree with my view, will show you that at least Gnostic Christianity is a better ideology and theology with Jewry a close second.[/quote]Well, I did. But I don't know why morality (or age or honesty) is a measure of "excellence in religious matters". And if it is morality I also don't understand why my own moral sensibilities should be applied and someone else's shouldn't. For instance, I find it morally objectionable to think of one's own religious position as vastly or inherently superior to someone else's, or to think that adherents to other religious groups owe one an apology for disagreeing. Are we allowed to test your religious position against the same standards we apply to the others?

Now that these questions are out of our way, perhaps we can start to look at the actual ideologies of homophobia and misogyny in the Christian and Muslim religions that are not in mine and are less apparent and severe in Jewry.

We can, if you like, but I think we first need to agree that it makes any difference to your central claim, namely that the Jews have the best ideology. Unless we agree that the morality of the religions is relevant to the topic at hand, discussing it is... well... off-topic.