#and also you are wrong. there are many many many jews who are 100% atheists YES for realsies | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

magnetothemagnificent · 2 years ago

Note

white jews are still white and benefit from whiteness, though... there's a lot of antiblackness under this guise that should be adressed.

also religion doesn't equal race or ethnicity. like bosniaks are muslim but are still white europeans. just because they are muslim doesn't mean they are poc

Hi, as a Black Jew here, this anon is annoying the hell out of me. You already did more than enough to explain how wrong it is but I feel like ranting to ahsjsk.

It isn’t ‘antiBlack’ to explain how even white Jews still face a form of racialized bigotry. Whiteness is not a stagnant category, race as a whole as it’s utilized in the world is 100% sociopolitical. The whiteness extended to (mainly Ashkenazi) Jews was always a political motivation, and only came about after WWII, and not one based out of White people actually thinking Jews can be/are white and simply because they (the Americans) were trying to differentiate themselves from the Nazis who separated Jews from whites.

Up until that point, Jews in the US and pretty much all of the western White world were considered Hebrew/Israelite/Judean etc, which was considered to be their own race seperate from White Europeans. Also, there’s a reason antiSemitism is only used to refer to Jewish discrimination… bc we were literally thought to be semitic (and so we’re not considered white no matter how white presenting we were) and that was used as a way to racially seperate and discriminate against us. And Semite was used so strongly to refer to Jews, no matter the color, that today many people STILL use it as a derogatory word to show Jews just how different racially we are to Whites. Literally look up ‘filthy semite’ on twitter and see how many care about whether Jews are white.

Also, antiBlackness is not the only form of discrimination and it is quite interesting to me how you can say acknowledging the fact that white Jews still face antisemitism is antiBlack . Like I really don’t understand how you even thought this was antiblack to begin with unless you think the only people who can experience racism are black people.

Also, the Jewish religious identity is inextricable to the Jewish ethnic identity and vice versa. Majority of practicing religious jews today are ethnically Jewish and are from one of our many diasporas. Even jews who are secular, nonreligious or full out atheist are STILL Jewish bc it’s still their ethnicity. You seem to care about race so much yet don’t seem to understand the simply concept of a ethnoreligion.

Also Bosniaks do face a lot of racialized discrimation as well despite them actually being an native European ethnic group. Their Muslim identity and the fact they share a lot of cultural similarities with Middle Eastern, specifically Turkish, cultures. They face a lot of hatred due to them not being seen as true Europeans, not just due to religion but ethnicity. Even in Bosnia there is a ethno-racial divide between those who are Christian and ‘European’ and those who are Muslim and ‘other’, even if those Muslims are also native to Europe. They aren’t the best example you could’ve used here lol

👆👆👆👆

#nothing to add because this is perfect #antisemitism #racism #racialized antisemitism #antiblackness #history

132 notes · View notes

wakingthefury · 10 months ago

Text

"Jesus Is Never Mentioned In Historical Documents Outside of the Bible".

Wrong.

Flavius Josephus (A.D. 37-100), a Jewish historian, wrote the famous work Antiquities of the Jews. In this text, he mentions Jesus, John the Baptist, and Jesus’ “brother” James. Although there is some controversy surrounding the passage, Josephus confirms the existence of Jesus. Here’s an excerpt from his writing: “There was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works—a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day” 1.

Additionally, Josephus mentions Jesus’ “brother” James:“Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he [Ananus] assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned” 1.

Tacitus, a Roman historian (circa 116 CE), also references Jesus in his work Annals. Although brief, this mention confirms Jesus’ historical existence:“Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus” 2.

This begs the question: Why do Atheists just simply lie about stuff? I mean, you have to know this will be refuted and you'll simply be exposed as one with an axe to grind.

#christianity #atheism #jesus christ

1 note · View note

weiszklee · 2 years ago

Note

The reason why the "culturally christian" discussion so often lingers on semantics is that people use the term so very inconsistently, and also for most definitions I see floating around it is a blatant misnomer, because it's not actually about culture anymore. Let's go through the definitions in this post:

@spacelazarwolf

people who were raised christian or perpetuate christonormativity

Do you not see how insulting it is to lump those together? I was raised christian and worked hard to get rid of all the unexamined assumptions that came with it. Maybe I do occasionally perpetuate christonormativity, I don't think so, but of course I can't 100% rule it out, I am after all still used to having to navigate the christian hegemony all around me, even though it is in many aspects actively hostile to me. I'm always glad when people point out unexamined assumptions I have, I love thinking this stuff through, but just calling me basically the same as, I dunno, pro-lifers or whatever, and then mocking me when I protest, is ... not it. Many ex-christian atheists have been at the forefront of the fight against christian hegemony.

Also, misnomer. Someone's upbringing, and someone's normative ideas, and someone's culture, are not the same. They are often correlated, but you don't actually know how strong that correlation is in the specific person you are talking to or about unless you know them very well.

And two from @evilwickedme

bc of their precious quismas

Ah, the actual original meaning of "culturally christian": non-christians who participate in christian cultural traditions. Those certainly exist, though again this does not describe all ex-christians (it doesn't describe me, for example). It's also pretty benign, I think? Like, the problem isn't people who celebrate christmas, the problem is forcing christmas onto others, and the problem is not giving people of other religions the same opportunities to celebrate their religious holidays. Just calling people culturally christian is not talking about these problems, but it is still a useful concept for understanding the society around us, for example for understanding why so many people view christmas as secular and don't take issue with christian religious language and symbols (and ONLY christian ones) on government documents and land, in public schools, and so on. If that were all that the "culturally christian" discourse is about, I'd be 100% on your side, these symbols may not be one of the most pressing issues at the moment, but they should still be unacceptable.

their group is the morally righteous one, everyone else needs to convert to their way of thinking, and Jews are evil.

Thinking of oneself or one's own group as morally righteous is an almost universal phenomenon I think. Christians did not invent thinking they are right and others are wrong. And calling antisemitism "culturally christian" is almost letting antisemites off the hook. Not thinking jewish people are evil is very easy, and it can't be significantly harder for (however defined) "culturally christian" people or for christians.

One last observation, @terulakimban

Almost like people care more about shutting you up for trying to start or participate in the conversation than they do about what you’re trying to say.

This is kinda funny, because one of the biggest objections I have seen repeatedly against the use of "culturally christian" is that this too is so often used to just shut people up, to the point that it even gets applied to people who have never been christian and have never been in christian-majority regions, simply for expressing atheist or anti-religious sentiments. Maybe we should all listen more to each other and shut each other up less. We can try to make it easier though by using words with clear and sensible definitions.

Re: “culturally Christian” as a label for people.

Why not just say “goyim?” And if someone has an opinion rooted in Xianity, say “this opinion is rooted in Crain propaganda/mythology, historically”.

It solves the problems of the American centrism of the term, still deals with the issue of “the people this term applies to don’t deal with antisemitism as an axis of oppression,” does not immediately trigger people (or well, doesn’t trigger people who aren’t already a stones throw from being neo Nazis rather than just religious trauma survivors anyway) and doesn’t have the issue of demanding people who are already rejecting one religious framework of who they are accept your religion’s framework.

because “goyim” isn’t a synonym for “people who were raised christian or perpetuate christonormativity” or “people who don’t deal with antisemitism.” there are a lot of goyim who are not culturally christian, especially who don’t live in the west, and there are a lot of people who do deal with antisemitism who are culturally christian. to say that cultural christianity is “american centric” is to admit that you think christian hegemony and cultural christianity only exist and affect people in the us, which is very much not true.

and i’m gonna be honest, i think y’all’s fixation on semantics is rooted in reluctance to address what we’re actually talking about. you can say it’s about your trauma all you want (as if the people trying to have this conversation aren’t also traumatized both on a personal and communal/cultural level), but i’ve said over and over that your trauma isn’t your fault, it’s your responsibility. but you don’t want that responsibility, so i’ll be setting another boundary in that i will no longer be bickering with people about these semantics. future anons like this will be deleted. i do not have the time or energy for this.

#additions

808 notes · View notes

iamsielow · 4 years ago

Text

Heaven Knows Many Rules

One of the neatest things about being an Atheist is you can actually Do Any Damned Thing You Want!! -- as long as you don't get caught .

Sometimes, if you are rich enough or powerful enough, even if you do get caught, You Can Get Away With ANYTHING!

That's one of the draws to being an Atheist: No Rules.

Or, rather, One-And-A-Half Rule: 1) Never get caught. 1.5) If you do get caught be Rich or Powerful Enough to get off without punishment!

It's also one of the draw backs of being a Christian. You've got all these Rules and Requirements! Don't do Evil. Be Honest. Turn the Other Cheek.

Honestly, how do Christians deal with all of this?

"What about Muslims and Jews???" you ask.

Did you know that both the Muslims and the Jews believe in the Ten Commandments? The problem is they believe the Ten Rules ONLY apply to members of the Faith. Sometimes they believe it only applies to members of one's tribe. And, more often than can be believed, it only applies to one's family.

Yep.

Muslims, for example, believe all the Ten Rules are valid and should be enforced -- for any Believer in the Prophet, Blessed Be His Name. But you are allowed to kill Infidels (non-Muslims). God will separate the Good from the Bad after they are dead.

Jews are/were the same way. Except Jews had requirements. Moses, for example, would kick someone OUT of Judaism before having him Stoned. In other cases, the Tribes were free cheat, murder and lie to other Tribes or Gentiles (non-Jews).

This was one of the reasons JC was unique in his philosophy. He said something strange for the time and the place: He advocated that the Ten Rules be applied to EVERY0ONE! Jew, Gentile, EVERYONE! No Murderin', Lyin', Cheatin' on ANYONE! Even those NOT of the faith!

ARE YOU NUTS? How can you treat EVERYONE like that? As though God loves EVERYONE?

Sheesh!

The only downside of being an Atheist, I guess, is if you are wrong. Also you only have a 25% of getting int Heaven.

If I were a Good Christian, I have a 100% chance of getting into Heaven. Everyone else? Less than.

Look, let's run the numbers:50% chance the afterlife exists, right? it either does or it doesn't. I happen to know it exists, but A) I have sources you don't and B) For all you know, I could be nuts.

If Atheists are right and it doesn't exist, then it doesn't matter to me because I get to assume I'm getting into Heaven and if nothing exists, then it doesn't matter. I thought I was going to Heaven when I died. The fact I did have a Heaven to get into is Null if nothing exists after life.

Now if Heaven DOES exist, there are two versions:

One version only those who are Good and Follow the Word(s) gets in and then there's the one that let Hitler and Stalin in*.

*Hitler is in his bunker. Ava has taken poison and is dead. He sitting there. The Allies are almost upon him. He takes his poison pill and suddenly realizes ALL THE EVIL he's done. He quickly and honestly prays to God asking for complete and utter forgiveness for ALL his sins up to and including his own murder. After saying "Amen" he's dead.

But because he confessed his sins, he's getting into Heaven.

-- *Same story for Stalin, but with different aspects.

Okay, so either Heaven lets EVERYONE who asks for forgiveness in or Heaven is where Judgement is rendered.

In the second version of Heaven you cannot rob a bank on Saturday and go to Church on Sunday and asked to be forgiven your sins and be cleansed enough to get in.

Actually, JC DID cover this: He actually said: FIRST Change your ways, THEN ask for forgiveness AND THEN you'll get in. But you HAVE TO stop doing bad first.

...

So either Heaven lets everyone in or membership is limited.

So, IS or is NOT and then Flexible or Rigid. No matter what, as long as I follow JC I'm in.

The Atheist? Well, 50% there is a place and then 50% of that chance that you've followed all the requirements to get in, one of which was to believe.

Opps! That hurts!

Atheist have a 25% chance of getting into an Existing Heaven is if it is also a Flexible one.

A follower of JC? Exist or not, believes will get in. Exists then hopes they have followed God's Words enough to be worth.

Huh. Yeah, following JC gives you a MUCH better chance of getting in. A good 100%.

Anything else? Then you have a about a 25% chance of getting in as an Atheist. Which, if you consider JUST Heaven, those aren't bad odds.

But then, if you throw in Hell ... Well, you'd better just hope that ghost of Grandma you saw after she died was just a false memory thingie and NOT an indication there is something BEYOND this existence.

Just cross your fingers as the bus hits you.

** I am Sielow and These are My Words

#heaven #hell #judgement #atheist

1 note · View note

ekmekandwater-blog · 5 years ago

Text

Thirty Eight Years and Still Going

38 years ago today I made a decision that would forever impact my life. Here’s the story:

I thought I'd take this time to re-post my own story of how I decided to follow Jesus. In other words, How did a guy like me end up writing a blog like this?

I was raised in a non-religious Jewish home. I emphasize the term “non-religious” because I don’t want you to get the wrong impression. No side curls, no Hebrew classes, just an occasional Yiddish phrase and matzo ball soup. I had no idea about any of the reasons for some of the holidays we celebrated. I thought Passover was a food holiday – “Pass over the matzos please. Pass over the bitter herbs!” Seriously, I had no idea. I just knew we didn’t believe in Jesus because I asked my mom several times after watching Davy and Goliath or something like that.

The God issue wasn’t something that we discussed much, but I had thought about it some. I remember early on thinking it was kinda silly to believe in God. I understood later, that people believed in God, as I saw it, to help them cope with life and mortality or hardships or whatever. I didn’t really have a problem with people doing this if it helped them cope. When I got older though, I met people who didn’t just casually believe in a divine coping mechanism (the invisible friend for grownups) but who were making life choices as a result of this belief. These people were choosing to not do some of the things that I was doing – they were choosing not to have the kind of fun that (it seemed to me) high school kids ought to have because of this concept of God. That seemed ludicrous to me. It seemed to me that Christians were being stupid about this and so I saw it as my duty to let them know.

I was that guy in high school – the outspoken skeptic. I wouldn’t have called myself an atheist because I thought to speak authoritatively that there is no God seemed equally foolish. My argument was that it was impossible to know.

During my senior year in high school, my buddy Chet and I applied to work at The Happiest Place on Earth, Disneyland. We got accepted and shortly after my 18th birthday, we began to work in “Outdoor Vending.” My job title was a “culinary host” which meant that I sold ice-cream, popcorn and balloons.

On day 2 of my employment, I was assigned a trainer for the day to learn the art and science of ice-cream sales. It’s a complicated science that requires 8 hours together with a trainer. You take the order, take the money, open the lid, pull out the desired frozen treat and smile. It’s very complex. So the trainer assigned to me for the day was a young woman named Cynthia. Cynthia had a personality as big as life. She laughed loud, smiled big and just seemed to get a lot out of life. It turns out, and I found out quickly, that she was also one of those enthusiastic, life changed, born again Christians – but like I said, she had a pretty engaging personality and we became friends in spite of her deep convictions.

So during that summer if she was working at a nearby popcorn or ice cream wagon, and I was on a break, I would stop by to visit. And every single time, I kid you not, she would start to tell me something about the God she believed in. She would have Bible verses on 3X5 cards that she was using to actually memorize portions of the Bible! And she would show me what was on her card and say something like, “Mike, look at this. Look at how much God loves you. Isn’t that amazing?” And I would respond with something like, “That’s great for you, but it’s not my thing.” Undaunted, we would have a similar conversation the next time we met.

I think it was her consistency of her life and message (and for those of you wondering, no, I wasn’t really interested in dating her or anything) and she seemed so earnestly convinced of this God stuff that I started to re-visit the whole God question in my head. Is there a God? If there is a God, is he somebody I need to worry about? Does it ultimately make a difference? Who could I ask about this? Who’s been talking to me non-stop about God since the day I met her?

So I was working on Main St. at popcorn wagon #2 and I decided to send a note to Cynthia to come and chat with me when she got a chance. As a sidelight and a bit of Disney trivia, when popcorn venders want to communicate with each other in those days, we of course couldn’t leave our wagons. We were stuck in one place and so we would use the sweepers. They were mobile and they were the pony express of the Disney world. So Cynthia got my note and came out at the end of her shift and I told her what I had been thinking about.

Literally, just at that moment, a sweeper came by. “Hey Joe,” Cynthia called, and Joe came sweeping over, “You still have that Gospel of John on you?” Joe said, “Sure,” pulled a gospel of John out of his breast pocket and handed it to me. Cynthia said, “Mike, if you want to know about God, the best person to ask is God. Say, ‘Lord I want to know you and I want to know more about you.’ And then sit down and read this Gospel of John.”

I said, “okay” and I took that book home and I probably prayed that prayer 100 times (by the way, had I known I was praying, I probably wouldn’t have done it). And the more I prayed, the more I thought, “Yeah, God, if you are real, I want to know you.” So finally, I sat down on our couch in the living room and read the book from cover to cover.

Now I’d heard about Jesus before this time, mainly as something you yell when you’re really frustrated, but I’d never really known any of the story. This was my first encounter with him and I have to tell you, he impressed me. There was something to this guy - something, dare I say…spiritual? Something was happening to me as I read it – for the first time in my life, I began to believe in God. I still wasn’t sure what to do with Jesus and how he fit into it all. There was a verse in John 14:6 where Jesus claimed to be the only way to God and I remember thinking that was a pretty narrow statement and it excluded my people – even though I wasn’t an observant Jew, that seemed like a big hurdle.

But I went off to Whittier College as a freshman and I started to enter into the God discussion as a participant rather than an antagonist. This was a new experience. I remember being surprised at how many people believed in God as I met Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Mormons and every Joe blow with their own homespun theology. And as I compared notes, I realized all of their theologies had complexity to them. All of their gods had personality and ideas and history and values and the God I believed in was empty and void – he needed help and so I enhanced him. I began to construct God out of the conversations I’d been having. A little of this, a dab of that and voila I had my god. By the end of the school year, he had become more complex and I was proud of him.

On June 15 of that year, I stepped into The Raven bookshop in La Canada and ran into one of my Christian friends from high school who I used to pick on. I said, “Hey Denise, how’re you doing?” “Praise the Lord,” she replied, “I’m just serving Jesus…” and blahbity blahbity blah about Jesus and I replied, “I have my beliefs.” “Really,” she exclaimed, “I’d love to hear them.” And so in the next 30 seconds, I unpacked all of my complex theology (I remember thinking, “Is that all?” I guess I hadn’t developed my theology as much as I had thought) and Denise shook her head and cleared her throat and said, “we need to talk.”

So there we were right in the middle of the bookstore, talking about God, “In our culture, Mike,” she continued, “Wouldn’t you agree that if we’re talking about God, then more often than not, we’re probably talking about the God of the Bible.” I thought about it – if there wasn’t a Bible we probably wouldn’t know much about God and so I replied, “sure.” She said then, “It seems to me that if we’re claiming to believe in the God of the Bible, we should believe what the Bible says about the God of the Bible.” I agreed.

There is a verse in the New Testament book of Romans – Romans 10:9,10 which says, “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that He is risen from the dead, you will be saved.” Denise explained to me a lot about the God of the Bible. She answered a lot of my objections and I knew that I needed to quit avoiding the inevitable and I needed to start following the God that Denise followed whatever that meant. And I really had no idea what that meant. But I also knew that I didn’t want to be a freak and so I was going to keep that decision to myself. I wasn’t going to confess that with my mouth before anyone.

As it turns out, God knew what I was thinking. And so just a few hours later, that same evening, I was working at Disneyland. I wasn’t actually working in the park itself but rather was blowing up balloons for the evening in the balloon room. I was only able to interact with guests in the park for 15 minutes when I was giving a balloon vender a break. So there I was, standing with a bunch of Mickey Mouse balloons under the people mover when this guy walked up to me. I had never seen him before and I have never seen him since. But he walked up to me and said, “Excuse me. I’d like to know if you’ve accepted Jesus Christ as your personal savior.”

I thought for a moment and replied, “Yes, as a matter of fact I have.” He said, “okay,” and took off into the crowd (and who knows? Back to heaven?). That was that. I went back to the balloon room where a # of my Christian friends were working and I told them what happened, that this weird guy came up to me and…They got very excited and word got out among the believers in outdoor vending and we started a Bible study with the sweepers and the vendors. And I got a good strong start to my Christian life.

That God was in such obvious pursuit of me is something that still moves me. And the events of June 15 following my freshman year in college 30+ years ago still wow me. But that was just the beginning. More stories to come soon. I’d love to hear yours!

1 note · View note

steveharveyquote-blog · 5 years ago

Text

CHARLIE HARVEY IS NOT A CHRISTIAN

When I was around year, I first saw Steve Harvey Quotes hosting Family Feud. As a comedian, Steve Harvey was and still is hilarious. But as an influencer, Steve Harvey needs to go. When i study Islam. I study it a lot. For the history four, coming on five years, I have studied Islam and have come to a very different conclusion than what Charlie Harvey has spoken on Islam. Perhaps he is primarily ignorant on the matter, but if he truly is really a Christian as claimed, he wouldn’t fall for this type of trivial statements. Let’s follow the path Steve Harvey is without a doubt taking: Steve Harvey, like many other ‘Christians’, are super star sell-outs. They aren’t followers of Christ but visitors of their fan-base. They must stay relevant, they must not hurt, they must always compromise. That is not being a Christian. While sweeping Christians died for their beliefs, these other ones happen to be religiously fluid. They philosophize God. Sure, God will be one, but is He this one, that one, or most of one? Jews believe in the same God as Christians, and yet Christians believe in the revealed God who is hidden on Christ. Followers of Muhammad do not. They reject Fin and God in Christ for their own Arabic fin. God doesn’t have an ethnicity, He’s a Spirit. The fact is that, people love people like steve Harvey because they concur, at least in part, with their religion. This seems to back up the views are ‘correct’ even if they are not. Many ‘great’ leaders have believed in no god, why doesn’t that make all the atheists right? Anyone that professes Christ then suddenly turns around and says all religions are actually right if they work for you, is not a Christian. He’s the sell-out to his money, to his fans, for you to his principles (the very definition of a person that is actually a sell-out). If all religions are 100% correct please believe in it, then Santa Clause and the Easter Rabbit are real too. If Islam is 100% precise, then Christianity is wrong, Jesus, John, and the others are not needed, and Steve Harvey’s own beliefs will be wrong. In fact , if Islam is 100% correct, therefore we need to institute slavery and apostate killing. So basically no, Mr. Harvey, read the Qur’an, the Hadiths, and the Sira. Just because someone says their religion is the religion regarding peace does not make it the religion of peace. Christianity for centuries was the religion of peace. Why features it lost its title, being stolen by Islam? The first Arab Christians were also called Muslims before Islam stole that away from them and shamed them, exiled them, enslaved them, or killed them. Mr. Harvey, read history. Armenian Genocide, Hitlerism, the Crusades, etc . Mr. Harvey will lead millions to hell given that he is ashamed of Christ, too afraid of hidden, and afraid of being rejected. It seems that Mr. Harvey seems to have rejected his Creator by rejecting Christ, God invisible in the flesh. If there is only one God, but there are couple of different claims to this one God, then they cannot equally be the same God, one must be false and the other sorts of must be true. If Islam is 100% correct plus Mr. Harvey agrees with it, then he is of the antichrist. Why? Islam rejects the Son of God as well as makes all the prophets sons of God. Islam rejects Jesus’ claim of having the Father in the Son (being one of a kind, only begotten). Islam rejects the Torah and the Gospels (all which are historical documents) and recreates them from the Qur’an (no evidence or historicity). We cannot exist by the rule “it works for you, it is right” for the reason that while it may not affect you presently, it will later on. Given that it doesn’t affect you, it will affect someone else. What number Christians, gays, and ex-followers of Muhammad has Islam affected? Steve Harvey, answer those questions.

0 notes

khutbahs · 5 years ago

Link

Can you proof the Hereafter?

By Dr. Zakir Naik

1. Many people wonder as to how a person with a scientific and logical temperament, can lend any credence to the belief of life after death. People assume that anyone believing in the hereafter is doing so on the basis of blind belief. My belief in the hereafter is based on a logical argument.

2. There are more than a thousand verses in the Glorious Quran, containing scientific facts (see “The Quran and modern science”). Many facts mentioned in the Quran have been discovered in the last few centuries. But science has not advanced to a level where it can confirm every statement of the Quran.

Suppose 80% of all that is mentioned in the Quran has been proved 100% correct. Useful links the remaining 20%, science makes no categorical statement, since it has not advanced to a level, where it can either prove or disprove these statements. With the limited knowledge that we have, we cannot say for sure whether even a single percentage or a single verse of the Quran from this 20% portion is wrong. Thus when 80% of the Quran is 100% correct and the remaining 20% is not disproved, logic says that even the 20% portion is correct. The existence of the hereafter, which is mentioned in the Quran, falls in the 20% ambiguous portion which my logic says is correct.

3. Concept of peace and human values is useless without the concept of hereafter. Is robbing a good or an evil act? A normal balanced person would say it is evil. How would a person who does not believe in the hereafter convince a powerful and influential criminal that robbing is evil?

Suppose I am the most powerful and influential criminal in the world. At the same time I am an Intelligent and a logical person. I say that robbing is good because it helps me lead a luxurious life. Thus robbing is good for me.

If anybody can put forward a single logical argument as to why it is evil for me, I will stop immediately. People usually put forward the following arguments:

a. Some may say that the person who is robbed will face difficulties. I certainly agree that it is bad for the person who is robbed. But it is good for me. If I rob a thousand dollars, I can enjoy a good meal at a 5 star restaurant.

b. Some people argue that someday I may be robbed. No one can rob me because I am a very powerful criminal and I have hundreds of bodyguards. I can rob anybody but nobody can rob me. Robbing may be a risky profession for a common man but not for an influential person like me.

c. Some may say, if you rob, you can be arrested by the police. The police cannot arrest me because I have the police on my payroll. I have the ministers on my payroll. I agree that if a common man robs, he will be arrested and it will be bad for him, but I am an extraordinarily influential and powerful criminal.

Give me one logical reason why it is bad for me and I will stop robbing.

d. Some may say its easy money and not hard-earned money. I agree completely that it is easy money, and that is one of the main reasons why I rob. If a person has the option of earning money the easy as well as the hard way, any logical person would choose the easy way.

e. Some may say it is against humanity and that a person should care for other human beings. I counter argue by asking as to who wrote this law called ‘humanity’ and why should I follow it?

This law may be good for the emotional and sentimental people but I am a logical person and I see no benefit in caring for other human beings.

f. Some may say that robbing is being selfish. It is true that robbing is a selfish act; but then why should I not be selfish? It helps me enjoy life.

No logical reason for robbing being an evil act. Hence all arguments that attempt to prove that robbing is an evil act are futile. These arguments may satisfy a common man but not a powerful and influential criminal like me. None of the arguments can be defended on the strength of reason and logic. It is no surprise that there are so many criminals in this world.

Similarly raping, cheating etc. can be justified as good for a person like me and there is no logical argument that can convince me that these things are bad.

Now let us switch sides. Suppose you are the most powerful and influential criminal in the world, who has the police and the ministers on his payroll. You have army of thugs to protect you. I am a Muslim who will convince you that robbing, raping, cheating, etc. are evil acts.

Even if I put forth the same arguments to prove that robbing is evil the criminal will respond the same way as he did earlier.

I agree that the criminal is being logical and all his arguments are true only when he is the most powerful and influential criminal.

Each and every human being desires justice. Even if he does not want justice for others he wants justice for himself. Some people are intoxicated by power and influence and inflict pain and suffering on others. The same people, however, would surely object if some injustice was done to them. The reason such people become insensitive to the suffering of others is that they worship power and influence. Power and influence, they feel, not only allows them to inflict injustice on others but also prevents others from doing likewise to them.

As a Muslim I would convince the criminal about the existence of Almighty God. This God is more powerful than you and at the same time is also just. The Glorious Quran says “Allah is never unjust in the least degree” (Quran 4:40)

The criminal, being a logical and scientific person, agrees that God exists, after being presented with scientific facts from the Quran. He may argue as to why God, if He is Powerful and Just, does not punish him.

Every person who has suffered injustice, irrespective of financial or social status, almost certainly wants the perpetrator of injustice to be punished. Every normal person would like the robber or the rapist to be taught a lesson. Though a large number of criminals are punished, many even go scot-free. They lead a pleasant, luxurious life, and even enjoy a peaceful existence. If injustice is done to a powerful and influential person, by someone more powerful and more influential than he, even such a person would want that person perpetrators of injustice to be punished.

This life is a test for the hereafter. The Quran says “He who created Death and life that He may try which of you is best in deed; and He is the Exalted in Might, Oft-Forgiving” (Quran 67:2)

The Quran says “Every soul shall have a taste of death: and only on the Day of Judgement shall you be paid your full recompense. Only he who is saved far from the Fire and admitted to the Garden will have attained the object (of life): for the life of this world is but goods and chattels of deception.” (Quran 3:185)

Final justice will be meted out on the Day of Judgement. After a person dies, he will be resurrected on the Day of Judgement along with the rest of mankind. It is possible that a person receives part of his punishment in this world. The final reward and punishment will only be in the hereafter. God Almighty may not punish a robber or a rapist in this world but he will surely be held accountable on the Day of Judgement and will be punished in the hereafter i.e. life after death.

Hitler incinerated six million Jews during his reign of terror. Even if the police had arrested him, what punishment can the human law give Hitler for justice to prevail? The most they can do is to send Hitler to the gas chamber. But that will only be punishment for the killing of one Jew. What about the remaining five million, nine hundred and ninety nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety-nine Jews?

Allah can burn Hitler more than six million times in hellfire. Allah say in the Quran “Those who reject Our signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire; as often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the penalty: for Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise” (Quran 4:56)

No concept of human values or good and bad without concept of hereafter It is clear that without convincing a person about the hereafter, i.e. life after death, the concept of human values and the good or evil nature of acts is impossible to prove to any person who is doing injustice especially when he is influential and powerful.

#Hereafter #Life after death #Heaven and Hell #TheDayOfJudgement #Life is a test for Hereafter #Proof of hereafter #Proof the hereafter #Jannah #Jahannam

0 notes

deborahdeshoftim5779 · 6 years ago

Text

Refuting Haaretz’s Publisher: Part IV

Response to Amos Schocken, publisher of Haaretz, whose email deserves criticism and rebuttal.

Part I is here.

Part II is here.

Part III is here.

In Part III, we saw Schocken declare that Israel had two paths: “liberal democracy” or “fundamentalism and ethnocentrism...”

Whilst Schocken means to denounce “fundamentalism” without regard to the context or desires of Jewish nationalists (which reflect the founding title of his newspaper), his charge of “ethnocentrism” is specious and dishonest.

The real issue is whether Israel will stay a liberal democracy, or move further towards a fundamentalist and ethnocentric society.

An ethnocentric society?

The negative connotations here come from Schocken’s own pen, not from Israel.

Promoting Jewish national self-determination, faith, language, culture, tradition, and holidays may well be “ethnocentric”, since Jews are an ethnic, as well as national and religious group.

However, this carries none of the negative connotations that Schocken wishes to insert here. This promotion and focus does not demean non-Jewish people, who have the same civil and religious rights as Jews in Israel. Instead, it affirms the same national and political rights that countries with non-Jewish majorities take for granted. It restores what foreign invaders had tried to extinguish during centuries of war, expulsion, and oppression. It celebrates what has become so difficult to celebrate in other countries: Jewish faith, freedom, national self-determination, and autonomy.

Again: it’s crucial to point out that this does not harm, belittle, or erase non-Jewish people. Israel has Arab MK’s, has had Arab members of the Supreme Court, Arabs working in all professions, and Arabs representing Israel in sports teams and other delegations. Many are Muslim, and freely able to practice their religion. Most, if not all, are exempt from mandatory military service on account of their religious beliefs. The same goes for the Druze (who do serve in the IDF), and Christians (who have greater religious freedom in Israel than in any other Middle-Eastern nation).

Furthermore, Israel’s vibrant tourist industry encourages people from all around the world to visit and experience the land. Christian tourism is huge, particularly in Jerusalem. Muslims often visit the Cave of the Patriarchs. Israel regularly honours the “Righteous Gentiles”, non-Jews who helped protect Jews from persecution and mass murder throughout the ages, and non-Jews are encouraged to visit Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Museum, as well as the wealth of archaeological sites that prove and strengthen the Jewish connection to the land.

More importantly, Israel’s Jewish population are anything but monolithic. Having been scattered across Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa, all have retained many distinct cultural and national traditions, enriching Jewish life in Israel. You can find a blend of culture, tradition, cuisine, and even language within Israeli Jewish communities, often reflecting locations across the globe. This does not accord with Schocken’s accusation of “ethnocentrism”.

Russian and Lithuanian Jews brought Yiddish and Chassidism. Yemenite Jews brought their ancient Torah scrolls, traditional dress, and delicious cuisine. The same goes for Iraqi Jews, Syrian Jews, French Jews, American Jews etc. The rescue of Ethiopian Jews during the 90′s surely ranks as one of Israel’s proudest achievements, and much work is being done to bring them into the national fold. Israel has close and cordial relations with India, a country that historically sheltered Jews and which has its own array of synagogues.

Put simply, the emphasis on promoting Jewish life and flourishing in Israel is neither selfish nor bigoted. Rather, it accords Jews the same rights to recognition as every other ethnic and/or national group takes for granted.

In 2011 David Remnick wrote in The New Yorker that Haaretz "is easily the most liberal newspaper in Israel, and arguably the most liberal institution in a country that has moved inexorably to the right in the past decade." Eight years later, this is even truer.

So Haaretz are liberal.

And?

Politics and life is nowhere near as simple as liberal=good, right=bad. The notion that Israel is “losing” its status as a liberal democracy is specious, refuted by the prominence of Schocken’s own newspaper, as well as the Supreme Court’s recent legal challenges, the investigation of Netanyahu and his wife, and the diversity of political thought in the Knesset.

Rather, Schocken’s complaint lies in the fact that Israeli’s have voted for right-wing political parties. He has every right to be liberal, disagree with the right, and lobby for the left. But this does not make him or his newspaper superior to Israeli’s with opposing or more nuanced points of view.

Schocken should bear in mind that the founders of Zionism, many of whom were liberal, secular, and atheist, believed in settling Jews throughout the land, including what he terms “the West Bank”. By Schocken’s standards, they were occupiers, whose actions would result in apartheid. He should also bear in mind that many who were avowedly liberal and secular still had condescending and even prejudiced views about Jews from the Middle East, whom they saw as needing “civilisation” from Western Jews. He should also bear in mind that famous Israeli Left-wing politicians, such as Golda Meir, said emphatically that there was never a Palestinian State, and that Israel would keep fighting, because the Jews had nowhere else to go.

Whilst prejudice and racism sadly exist in the Jewish community, Meir’s statement was a common sentiment on the Israeli Left as well as Right. As I said earlier, Israeli’s are united around being a Jewish State. Schocken may not like this, but neither should he demonise their views.

The support of our subscribers is the reason we can continue fighting for the true Zionist vision of Israel. We thank you for this support, and urge other readers to buy a stake in Israel's democracy and subscribe to Haaretz.

Schocken implies here that the “fundamentalist”, “ethnocentric”, “right” vision of Zionism is wrong, and his (politically) “liberal” version is the true version. Such a statement is, in and of itself, fundamentalist. That’s fine-- but he should acknowledge that fact.

By his own standards, however, much of the true Zionist vision has been achieved: the creation of a Jewish State, close and increasing settlement throughout the Land, international recognition of a Jewish State, and the flourishing of Hebrew as the national language. Haaretz’s success, in which 71 of its 100 years of history have seen the birth and success of Israel, stands as a testament to that vision. Israeli’s voting for right-wing parties has not, therefore, hampered these Zionist essentials and will not do so.

Despite my criticisms and disagreements with Haaretz, it’s crucial that they have a voice in Israel’s vibrant democracy, and that supporters of Israel can also voice legitimate criticism (as Israeli’s do everyday) of the State.

But Schocken could perhaps open his mind to the possibility that a proud, nationalist Jew is not incompatible with being (if they choose) socially liberal, democratic, just towards foreigners and non-Jewish Israeli’s, and concerned for a lasting peace.

More importantly, Schocken should not unquestioningly repeat lies about Israel, which will endanger Jews and empower people who wish to dismantle Israel. Accusing Israel of apartheid will not win him popularity among Palestinians, the UN, or Western pro-Palestinian apologists. They have their own agenda, which is distinctly illiberal, violent, and anti-Semitic. They will not accept the term “Israel’s democracy”, though it reflects the truth. They will not accept that Hebrew is the national language of the Jewish people, neither will they celebrate 100 years of Haaretz. They do not accept that there is a Land of Israel and it is the Jewish homeland.

Political correctness may stop Schocken from critically analysing their claims, but emotional appeals will not make lies become true.

I would strongly urge Amos Schocken to reconsider where the interest of his paper truly lies.

I am pleased, however, at the longevity of Haaretz and wish them many more years of robust debate.

0 notes

pitz182 · 6 years ago

Text

Dear AA, We Need to Talk

Dear Alcoholics Anonymous,I’m leaving you. I’ve had enough after 31 years and that’s not even counting the 2 before that. Oy, those were rocky. You sounded way too Christian with just a spritz of Buddhism thrown in for a twist. We’d be nothing but a sour mix because I’m a devout Jewish atheist.“Trust me,” you cooed. “Alcohol is cunning and baffling. I can help.” But when you strongly suggested I pray on my knees, I lost it.I screamed, “Jews don’t pray on their knees!”You weren’t alarmed but you asked that same old tired question. “How can you be an atheist and a Jew?”Before I could explain culture versus religion to you with my secular “bagel Jew” crack, you cooed at me:“That doesn’t matter. Anything can be a higher power—a chair or a doorknob. Just as long as you know you’re not it.”With an eyeroll, “A doorknob? What’re you, high? That makes no sense.”Unfazed, you kept trying to lure me in. “You’ll see the hoop you have to jump through is wider than you think.”But, oy vey, the goddamn god stuff left me feeling shaken so I split. Then when alcohol stopped working all together, I ran back. I dreamed about you warming me up like a stiff scotch used to. But instead of giving me euphoria, you said I needed to admit I was powerless over alcohol. If I surrendered this time, you said I could pour my sadness into you. I was lost and you were gentle, so when you told me to close my eyes, I did.You asked, “Can you think of anything that’s more powerful than you?”“Yes,” I said. “Rain. No matter how much I screamed at the sky, it wouldn’t stop raining.”Your face lit up. “You got it!”I beamed. “Oh! And the ocean, too,” I said. “Waves will keep crashing no matter what I do.”“Right. You’re powerless over alcohol and I can restore you to sanity.”Hands on hips, I yelled “I’m not insane!” But I was still shaken, not stirred.“You can use G.O.D. as in Group of Drunks,” you reminded me, then led me to a dark church basement where you said I’d feel welcome. But the pathetic coffee left me craving something stronger; I wanted to be under the influence till I was over the limit. Yet, still attracted to the liquor-free confidence there, I decided on the GOD acronym. Until the speaker cracked the Big Book open and read Step 11.You smarmy liar! And I was vulnerable, trying to quit getting lit. You gaslit me:“To certain newcomers and to those one-time agnostics who still cling to the A.A. group as their higher power….”Still desperate and confused, I kept going because people were nice to me. At a lunchtime meeting, the speaker talked about her fifth step. It sounded so much like confession I got excited and whirled my head around scanning the room for communion wine. Those early meetings taught me to pray—for a liquid lunch.You said it was a spiritual program so I had to accept the idea of a higher power. That nearly crushed me. You really didn’t understand that some people know there isn’t any god. I’d held out hope that you were going to unveil yourself as top shelf stuff but most of the time, you seemed like Mad Dog. Especially when you said stupid shit like, “Your best thinking got you here.”I wanted to be with you in the rooms, but most of the time I was dragging my ass around. But now I’m sick of feeling trapped. I hate your smoke and mirrors trickery. Your demand for rigorous honesty can cramp my style. When we almost broke up and I wanted to bolt, I cheated on you with meetings for atheists. The problem was there were so few of them and they were just as dogmatic.I can hear your disdain when you call me one of those “unfortunates” who can’t get the program because I’m constitutionally incapable of being honest. Now that’s grandiose. I’m sick of your self-righteous finger wagging at me, saying you’re not judgmental but then labeling me the belligerent one if I challenge anything you say. But come on, the idea of a looming spirit in place of intoxicating spirits is ridiculous.Okay, I admit I’m grateful that you always took me back. You’ve been patient and kind and most of all, you stuck by me. But damn it, I’m sick of being barked at for doing things that aren’t suggested. So I’m at a crossroads. The fear of leaving is a biggie. You and all of our friends will pull away from me if I leave you. The pressure to stay feels a lot like the bar pressure to do one more shot.If I went that route, at least I could take breaks from feeling everything so acutely while also stuffing down any critical words about you. Whenever I express frustration about how hypocritical you can be, I get looked at with pity: “Poor Dee. She’s taking her will back. Let’s pray for her. It only works if you work it.” I wince at that crap. I refuse to wear a cone of shame if I save a seat, or gossip, or don’t feel like stacking the chairs some days. A lot of people think it’s healthy to fear slipping but I no longer want to fear anything. Peer pressure reminds me of junior high.Please quit telling me if I’m upset it’s because I’m obstinate, immature, and willful.Uh oh. But what if you’re right? If I leave, would I regress? I never want to be the sorry sot I was before we met. Those stakes are too high. I was afraid to give up alcohol and drugs because I “knew” I needed them. Then you proved me wrong. If I storm out, does that make me a brat who won’t take my medicine?You’ve always been a good listener and who else would love me in spite of my god rants? Maybe I am at the right party now. Though I long for the schnockered nights, I ain't in my twenties anymore. I don't even know if I could still stay up till four in the morning, much less hit the after-hours until the Tequila Sunrises. Yearning for wild nights of yore could be euphoric recall — rosy as a maraschino on top.Maybe staying together is fine after all. We’ve talked so many times about my expectations and you’re right—it’s stupid to blame you for being imperfect. I mean, look at me.G.O.D. can stand for good orderly direction, with Buddhism’s tangy flavor: a god within. Now that I’m thinking things through, I suppose a frothy soy milkshake could satiate me more than White Russians ever could. And, seriously, who wants a shit-faced higher power within anyway? No marriage is 100 percent bliss; perhaps I just caught a 31-year itch. My mind easily wanders back to booty calls with sexy bar pickups. Libidos on fire. At weak moments I ache to go back there. Then I snap out of it.Truth is, I love Netflix nights chillin’ with decaf chai latte from Starbucks. You’ve been there for me time after time. So, let’s hold up the paper cup. Cheers, AA. I’m not going anywhere.What’ll it be tonight? Barfly or Leaving Las Vegas?” How have you handled boredom and frustration in recovery? Or did you decide to leave your 12-step program? Tell us in the comments.

0 notes

alexdmorgan30 · 6 years ago

Text

Dear AA, We Need to Talk

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8241841 http://bit.ly/2ZdTGc7

0 notes

emlydunstan · 6 years ago

Text

Dear AA, We Need to Talk

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8241841 https://www.thefix.com/dear-aa-we-need-talk

0 notes

theconservativebrief · 6 years ago

Link

“You could say I was red-pilled by Nietzsche.”

That’s how white nationalist leader Richard Spencer described his intellectual awakening to the Atlantic’s Graeme Wood last June. “Red-pilled” is a common alt-right term for that “eureka moment” one experiences upon confrontation with some dark and previously buried truth.

For Spencer and other alt-right enthusiasts of the 19th-century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, that dark truth goes something like this: All the modern pieties about race, peace, equality, justice, civility, universal suffrage — that’s all bullshit. These are constructs cooked up by human beings and later enshrined as eternal truths.

Nietzsche says the world is in constant flux, that there is no capital-T truth. He hated moral and social conventions because he thought they stifled the individual. In one of his most famous essays, The Genealogy of Morality, which Spencer credits with inspiring his awakening, Nietzsche tears down the intellectual justifications for Christian morality. He calls it a “slave morality” developed by peasants to subdue the strong. The experience of reading this was “shattering,” Spencer told Wood. It upended his “moral universe.”

There is, of course, much more to Nietzsche than this. As someone silly enough to have written a dissertation on Nietzsche, I’ve encountered many Spencer-like reactions to his thought. And I’m not surprised that the old German philosopher has become a lodestar for the burgeoning alt-right movement. There is something punk rock about his philosophy. You read it for the first time and you think, “Holy shit, how was I so blind for so long?!”

But if you read Nietzsche like a college freshman cramming for a midterm, you’re bound to misinterpret him — or at least to project your own prejudices into his work. When that happens, we get “bad Nietzsche,” as the Week’s Scott Galupo recently put it.

And it would appear that “bad Nietzsche” is back, and he looks a lot like he did in the early 20th century when his ideas were unjustly appropriated by the (original) Nazis. So now’s a good time to reengage with Nietzsche’s ideas and explain what the alt-right gets right and wrong about their favorite philosopher.

White nationalist Richard Spencer speaks to select media in his office space on August 14, 2017, in Alexandria, Virginia. Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

In her recent book about the rise of the alt-right, Irish academic Angela Nagle discusses their obsession with civilizational decay. “They’re disgusted by what they consider a degenerate culture,” she told me in a recent interview.

Nietzsche made these same arguments more than 100 years ago. The story he tells in The Genealogy of Morality is that Christianity overturned classical Roman values like strength, will, and nobility of spirit. These were replaced with egalitarianism, community, humility, charity, and pity. Nietzsche saw this shift as the beginning of a grand democratic movement in Western civilization, one that championed the weak over the strong, the mass over the individual.

The alt-right — or at least parts of the alt-right — are enamored of this strain of Nietzsche’s thought. The influential alt-right blog Alternative Right refers to Nietzsche as a great “visionary” and published an essay affirming his warnings about cultural decay.

“Future historians will likely look back on the contemporary West as a madhouse,” the essay’s author writes, “where the classic virtues of heroism, high culture, nobility, self-respect, and reason had almost completely disappeared, along with the characteristics of adulthood generally.”

There is something punk rock about his philosophy. You read it for the first time and you think, “Holy shit, how was I so blind for so long?!”

In his interview with the Atlantic, Spencer, an avowed atheist, surprised Wood with a peculiar defense of Christianity: that the religion is false but it “bound together the civilizations of Europe.”

Spencer’s view is common among the alt-right. They have no interest in the teachings of Christ, but they see the whole edifice of white European civilization as built on a framework of Christian beliefs. From their perspective, Christendom united the European continent and forged white identity.

It’s a paradox: They believe the West has grown degenerate and weak because it internalized Christian values, but they find themselves defending Christendom because they believe it’s the glue that binds European culture together.

Last August, Vox Day, a prominent alt-right thinker (who often cites Nietzsche in his posts), laid out the central tenets of the alt-right in a post titled “What the Alt-Right is.” There are a number of revealing points, one of which reads:

The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Graeco-Roman legacy.

Nietzsche accepted that Christianity was central to the development of Western civilization, but his whole philosophy was focused on convincing people that the West had to move beyond Christianity.

When Nietzsche famously declared that “God is dead,” he meant that science and reason had progressed to the point where we could no longer justify belief in God, and that meant that we could no longer justify the values rooted in that belief. So his point was that we had to reckon with a world in which there is no foundation for our highest values.

The alt-right skipped this part of Nietzsche’s philosophy. They’re tickled by the “death of God” thesis but ignore the implications.

“Nietzsche’s argument was that you had to move forward, not fall back onto ethnocentrism,” Hugo Drochon, author of Nietzsche’s Great Politics, told me. “So in many ways Spencer is stuck in the ‘Shadows of God’ — claiming Christianity is over but trying to find something that will replace it so that we can go on living as if it still existed, rather than trying something new.”

A man makes a slashing motion across his throat toward counterprotesters as he marches with other white nationalists, neo-Nazis, and members of the alt-right during the “Unite the Right” rally August 12, 2017, in Charlottesville, Virginia. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

The alt-right renounces Christianity but insists on defending Christendom against nonwhites. But that’s not Nietzsche; that’s just racism. And the half-baked defense of “Christendom” is an attempt to paper over that fact.

Nietzsche was interested in ideas, in freedom of thought. To the extent that he knocked down the taboos of his day, it was to free up the creative powers of the individual. He feared the death of God would result in an era of mass politics in which people sought new “isms” that would give them a group identity.

“The time is coming when the struggle for dominion over the earth will be carried on in the name of fundamental philosophical doctrines,” he wrote. By doctrines, he meant political ideologies like communism or socialism. But he was equally contemptuous of nationalism, which he considered petty and provincial.

Listening to Spencer talk about Nietzsche (and, regrettably, I listened to his Nietzsche podcast) is like hearing someone who never got past the introduction of any of his favorite books. It’s the kind of dilettantism you hear in first-year critical theory seminars. He uses words like “radical traditionalist” and “archeofuturist,” neither of which means anything to anyone.

Like so many superficial readers of Nietzsche, Spencer is excited by the radicalism but doesn’t take it seriously. Spencer’s rejection of conventional conservatism clearly has roots in Nietzsche’s ideas, but Spencer’s fantasy of a white ethnostate is exactly what Nietzsche was condemning in the Germany of his time.

“Nietzsche’s way forward was not more [racial] purity but instead more mixing,” Drochon told me. “His ideal was to bring together the European Jew and the Prussian military officer. Spencer, I take it, only wants the latter.” Nietzsche, for better or worse, longed for a new kind of European citizen, one free of group attachments, be they racial or ideological or nationalistic.

Racists find affirmation in Nietzsche’s preference for “Aryan humanity,” a phrase he uses in several books, but that term doesn’t mean what racists think it means. “Aryan humanity” is always contrasted with Christian morality in Nietzsche’s works; it’s a reference to pre-Christian Paganism. Second, in Nietzsche’s time, “Aryan” was not a racially pure concept; it also included Indo-Iranian peoples.

People often say that the Nazis loved Nietzsche, which is true. What’s less known is that Nietzsche’s sister, who was in charge of his estate after he died, was a Nazi sympathizer who shamefully rearranged his remaining notes to produce a final book, The Will to Power, that embraced Nazi ideology. It won her the favor of Hitler, but it was a terrible disservice to her brother’s legacy.

Nietzsche regularly denounced anti-Semitism and even had a falling-out with his friend Richard Wagner, the proto-fascist composer, on account of Wagner’s rabid anti-Semitism. Nietzsche also condemned the “blood and soil” politics of Otto von Bismarck, the Prussian statesman who unified Germany in 1871, for cementing his power by stoking nationalist resentments and appealing to racial purity.

So there’s no way to square Nietzsche’s philosophy with the racial politics of the alt-right, just as it wasn’t fair to charge Nietzsche with inspiring Nazism. But both of these movements found just enough ambiguity in his thought to justify their hate.

The alt-right renounces Christianity but insists on defending Christendom against nonwhites. But that’s not Nietzsche; that’s just racism.

Nietzsche liked to say that he “philosophized with a hammer.” For someone on the margins, stewing in their own hate or alienation or boredom, his books are a blast of dynamite. All that disillusionment suddenly seems profound, like you just stumbled upon a secret that justifies your condition.

He tells you that the world is wrong, that society is upside down, that all our sacred cows are waiting to be slaughtered. So if you’re living in a multiethnic society, you trash pluralism. If you’re embedded in a liberal democracy, you trumpet fascism. In short, you become politically incorrect — and fancy yourself a rebel for it.

Nietzsche was a lot of things — iconoclast, recluse, misanthrope — but he wasn’t a racist or a fascist. He would have shunned the white identity politics of the Nazis and the alt-right. That he’s been hijacked by racists and fascists is partly his fault, though. His writings are riddled with contradictions and puzzles. And his fixation on the future of humankind is easily confused with a kind of social Darwinism.

But in the end, people find in Nietzsche’s work what they went into it already believing. Which is why the alt-right, animated as they are by rage and discontent, find in Nietzsche a mirror of their own resentments. If you’re seeking a reason to reject a world you don’t like, you can find it anywhere, especially in Nietzsche.

Original Source -> The alt-right is drunk on bad readings of Nietzsche. The Nazis were too.

via The Conservative Brief

#IFTTT #The Conservative Brief

0 notes

zeroviraluniverse-blog · 7 years ago

Text

Today's atheists are bullies -- and they are doing their best to intimidate the rest of us into silence

Visit Now - http://zeroviral.com/todays-atheists-are-bullies-and-they-are-doing-their-best-to-intimidate-the-rest-of-us-into-silence/

Today's atheists are bullies -- and they are doing their best to intimidate the rest of us into silence

Brochures at godless congregation Sunday Assembly founded by British comedians Sanderson Jones and Pippa Evans.

(AP)

There’s no polite way to say it. Atheists today are the most arrogant, ignorant and dangerous people on earth.

We’ve all seen how these pompous prigs get offended by the slightest bit of religious imagery in public and mortified if even a whisper of “Merry Christmas” escapes the lips of some well-meaning but naïve department store clerk during the “holiday season.”

To cite a few recent examples: Last December, the group “American Atheists” launched its annual billboard campaign with the slogan: “Stay Away from Church—it’s All Fake News.” In February, the “American Humanist Association” became furious when President Trump had the gall to mention Christianity and Jesus Christ without also mentioning atheists—at the National Prayer Breakfast! (How dare he!) And just this month, the “Freedom From Religion Foundation” raised holy hell because the Reverend Billy Graham was laid out in state in the Capitol Rotunda before his burial.

Yes, these atheists are loud, nasty, unapologetic and in-your-face.

But while their arrogance is annoying, it’s nothing compared to their ignorance. Atheists believe that the vast majority of human beings from all periods of time and all places on the Earth have been wrong about the thing most important to them. They basically dismiss this vast majority as being either moronic or profoundly naïve. What they don’t seem to know – or won’t admit – is that the greatest contributions to civilization have been made, not by atheists, but by believers.

Aristotle, Francis Bacon, Leonardo Da Vinci, and Isaac Newton all believed in God. Nobel-prize winner Wilhelm Rontgen, the discoverer of X-rays; Antoine Lavoisier, the father of modern chemistry; William Keen, the pioneer of brain surgery; rocket scientist Wernher von Braun; and Ernest Walton, the first person to artificially split the atom—all believed in God.

And speaking of pioneers of science, who do you think coined the term “scientist” in the first place? William Whewell, an Anglican priest and theologian! He also came up with words “physicist,” “cathode”, “anode” and many other commonly used scientific terms. Essentially, the very language used by scientists today comes from the brain of a believer.

Even the Big Bang Theory itself – which atheists mistakenly think bolsters their arguments against God – was proposed by Fr. George Lemaitre, a Belgian astronomer and Roman Catholic priest! And the father of genetics—which provides the basis for the whole theory of evolution—was Gregor Mendel, an Augustinian monk!

Yes, the new atheists have an ignorance of history bordering on madness.

But are they really dangerous, too?

You bet they are. The truth is, the atheist position is incapable of supporting any coherent system of morality other than ruthless social Darwinism. That’s why it has caused more deaths, murders and bloodshed than any other belief system in the history of the world.

Atheists, of course, are always claiming hysterically that Christianity has been responsible for most of the world’s wars, but that’s just another example of atheistic ignorance. The main reasons for war have always been economic gain, territorial gain, civil and revolutionary conflicts. According to Philip Axelrod’s monumental “Encyclopedia of Wars,” only 6.98 percent or all wars from 8000 BC to present were religious in nature. If you subtract Islamic wars from the equation, only 3.2 percent of wars were due to specifically Christian causes. That means that over 96 percent of all the wars on this planet were due to worldly reasons.

Indeed, in the last 100 years alone, upwards of 360 million people were killed by governments—and close to half of those people were killed by atheist governments!

Yes, there is a profound and frightening connection between atheism and death. Atheist leaders like Stalin, Mao Zedong, Hideki To ̄jo ̄, Pol Pot and many others bear the blame for the overwhelming majority of deaths caused by war and mass murder in history. And while many atheists make the preposterous claim that Adolf Hitler was a Christian, his private diaries, first published in 1953 by Farrar, Straus and Young, reveal clearly that the Fuhrer was a rabid atheist: “The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity,” Hitler stated, “was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew… Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of  Christianity.”  

The facts are incontrovertible. Between the years 1900 and 2017, approximately 150 million people were killed by atheistic political regimes. 150 million!

And it makes perfect sense, doesn’t it? Atheists don’t believe in God, so they don’t believe in any transcendent, objective moral law. Nor do they believe that human beings are made in the image of God, and so they don’t believe humans possess infinite value and dignity. When you put these two beliefs together, you have a deadly recipe that makes killing “problematic” human beings quite easy and defensible.

One has only to look at the growing numbers of abortions, suicides, homicides, and cases of state-sponsored euthanasia, and infanticide, to see the atheist-death connection. As a thoroughly secular and functionally atheistic culture, we are fast becoming accustomed to “killing” our problems rather than dealing with them in a compassionate, loving, and sacrificial way.

So yes, the modern breed of atheist is arrogant, ignorant and dangerous. Too many books written in response to these pseudo-intellectual hatemongers have been altogether too nice. Too many Christian authors have tried to be kind and amiable in an effort to demonstrate that believers don’t have to sink into the mud in order to defend the faith. That tact is very charitable, but unfortunately, it just doesn’t work with bullies.

And that’s exactly what modern-day atheists are—bullies; bullies who are doing their best to intimidate the rest of us into silence.

Well, we can’t allow that to happen. As I say in my book, “Inside the Atheist Mind: Unmasking the Religion of Those Who Say There is No God,” there is only one way to deal with bullies, even in this politically correct world—and that is to stand up to them and fight them; to fight them in a bold, aggressive, and fearless way, and to fight them now.

This article was adapted, in part, from the book “Inside the Atheist Mind: Unmasking the Religion of Those Who Say There is No God”

#atheists #bullies #intimidate #rest #silence #todays #News #Trending News

0 notes

ethanstruthblog-blog · 7 years ago

Text

Does God Exist

Does God Exist?

By Ethan Rulloda

Christianity, the biggest religion in the world, with over 2.1 billion believers. Especially, in the Philippines, where 86% of the population are Roman Catholics, 6% Various Nationalized Christian Cults, and 2% are associated with over 100 Protestant denominations. But, did Christ really exist?

Here in this article, will show significant amounts of pieces of evidence proving the existence of Jesus Christ.

My entire life, I've been a Christian without knowing if he actually existed. I usually just listen to whoever lectures me about Christ. But, I obviously had faith, and will always have, even though, I had no evidence. And even other Christians can relate. There are even some who question and doubt the existence of Christ(skeptics).

So I searched up different videos on YouTube, including such as, Matthew Santoro a Canadian Youtuber who posts Top 10 Lists and 50 amazing facts and The Case for Christ hosted by Lee Strobel is a Documentary and a book about trying to find valid evidence about the existence of Jesus, both gave viable evidence which will help strengthen the argument.

But first who is Jesus? Based on (https://carm.org/what-is-christianity), Christianity is a monotheistic religion which is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. Christ, meaning the anointed one, is indicating that Jesus was anointed or chosen by God from Father who in the old testament created the world, fulfilled the laws and prophecies, died on the cross for our sins, and rose from the dead three days later. After reading this paragraph, you might be really intrigued, or in disbelief. You can assume that these aren’t true, I mean reading this seems pretty impossible, but I’m going to show you six arguments about Jesus’ existence,

First, Anselm's ontological argument. In 1070, Ansel states that our ability to imagine a concept of a perfect human being means that it must exist. He argued that his idea must stem from something that exists in our universe, otherwise, we wouldn't be able to think it up.

French philosopher Rene Descartes, supported it 571 years later saying that if his concept of perfection needs existence, then God must exist. We all know who God is and that he's perfect, so, therefore, he exists in our understanding. We also understand things we see everywhere, but there are hidden things that we do not yet understand. But why do we understand who God is even though we couldn't see him? And some may argue is because he exists.

Second, the Bible is based on many eye-witness accounts, including, the resurrection of Jesus Christ. But, how can we prove it's real? We can say that Jesus was crucified on the cross and that he was buried in a tomb, which was owned by one of the executors. But first, he appeared in front of over 500 people, and second, his disciples died for the truth. After Jesus rose from the dead, his disciples sacrificed their own lives just to prove that Jesus really has risen from the dead. No one would risk their lives just to validate a fake religion. One of them, named James, the brother of John who was later exiled to the island of Patmos was killed by the sword upon the order of King Herod.

Third, there are many miracles written in the Bible, one of the stories, when Jesus healed a Blind Man, or when he turned water to wine. It's not possible, but it was witnessed by many people. And, no ordinary person or thing in this world could do that. And even today there have been reports about miracles. Like for example, a child named Colton, a young boy who had to undergo an emergency surgery and says that he went from Heaven and back. He can even recall meeting his father’s(Todd Burpo) grandfather and remembering how he looked like back when he was young, as when you are in heaven everyone is young.

Fourth, there are laws in science, including laws of physics. But, if those laws never existed or debunked, then, it would be the end of the world. But it isn't, some say that there is a person who holds things together which prevents his creation from fading away. For example, if there was no gravity, then the earth wouldn't be here anymore. Without gravity, we would be weightless and everyone and everything floating everywhere. Also, there would be a change in air pressure because of the disappearance of the earth’s atmosphere. In other words, the earth will be losing its oxygen, and we will die eventually.

Fifth, people believe that faith is one of the things that make us believe in Jesus. It's hard to actually believe in something we can't see, but if we have faith, we can believe in the most unlikely thing in the world. There is one study(https://adrenalfatiguesolution.com/faith-and-stress/) which says that faith can reduce stress and improve physical and mental health. And so, even though God is an intangible creature, the faith God has given us affects the world in different ways.

Sixth, the concept of moral values. During the primitive times, people never really understood what is good or bad. As they had the freedom to do anything, like killing and stealing. But when God was introduced to us, we already thought of the idea of morality and what is supposedly right or wrong so we can assume that our morals must have been given by someone who acted good upon us and helped us understand humanity.

More reasons by Matthew Santoro-10 most popular arguments for the existence of God.

But let's look at the other spectrum just so we could compare these arguments and choose which of these are more believable. What if Jesus is fake?

People who believe in this or the non-theist have two variations. The Agnostics, who claims neither faith nor disbelief. And the atheists, who don't believe in a God or God's.

One man named C.S Lewis was a professor at Cambridge University who before was an agnostic, he claims that Jesus is just a good moral man but not God. So he wrote different arguments on this website (https://www.cru.org/us/en/how-to-know-god/who-is-Jesus-God-or-just-a-good-man.html) why Jesus is just a good man.

First, he said that Jesus might be a demon (even though he presumes that he is a GOOD man), believing that when Jesus said to trust him in our eternal destiny. And if he couldn’t back up his claim, then he is both evil and a hypocrite. The ninth commandment in the ten commandments reads “ Thou shall not bear false witness”, or in other words, no lying. If God lied about his promises, then he sinned and is a hypocrite, considering he was described as perfect or lived perfectly. So if he lied about all of his promises, then he isn't the son of God.

Second, Jesus claiming to be God or anyone claiming to be god is certainly a lunatic. Noyes and Kolb described the schizophrenic as a person who is more Autistic than realistic. People with Schizophrenia desires to escape from reality. And claiming to be God, might be an escape from reality.

And to conclude, he asked these three questions to jews, and hopefully, you could answer all of them. The first question, Is Jesus a liar? The second question, Is Jesus a lunatic? Third, do you believe that Jesus is God? These people believe he is both not a liar and not a lunatic. But believes he isn’t God. But the writer asked one more question, as the three are possible, what is more probable?

For the first argument, God never really lied to anyone yet, which doesn’t conclude that he is a demon; because fulfilled all his promises. I even remembered my pastor telling me that God only responds to us in either one of these three responses. The first response, is yes, second, not yet, and third, “I’ll give you something better in return.”

For the second argument, not all people who claim to be God are not lunatics. We can say those other people who don’t have any evidence of him/her being God/Goddess, but Jesus has proof. He sacrificed his own life for our sins, rose from the dead three days after, and appeared to almost 500 people in his time. And him doing that already proves he is God.

But, even though non-Christians try to test me or debunk my belief. It won't affect me. God shaped me into who I am and who I will be. I have a great amount of respect and faith in him. And I'm thankful for it. I'm not here to judge your beliefs, but here to hopefully believe in mine.

Based on this article, the evidence of Jesus Christ’s existence is stronger or more powerful than the arguments about Jesus never existing. But there are still many atheists in the world right now believing in what is wrong. And us Christians should make a move about it. We were given an opportunity to share the word like what Jesus’s followers did in the Bible, and in the future maybe our world would turn out like what God wanted it to be.

0 notes

60b3r · 8 years ago

Text

How I Became An Agnostic #4: Questions and Checkpoints

This post will be different. For this round, I post several questions and some remarks for believers (if you are one, be sure to also ask yourself). Highlighted key topics will serve as a checkpoint for your journey on faith and to help keeping yourself on track. Again, I am NOT an atheist (or maybe at least not yet), but several questions taken from the-militant-atheist are actually the same questions I have been asking myself. These questions are actually very simple in concept and are actively directed to almost every believer around the world on a daily basis. If you happen to came across logical and rational explanation for these answers coming from your religious leaders, or even you might come to an answer yourself, feel free to ask more questions. I am 100% sure that you’ll eventually stuck on something like “Do not question God’s authority!” or “That’s God’s prerogative right.” So now I think the title should’ve say “How To Become An Agnostic Yourself” LOL

General Religion

If religion claims that others have to be wrong for yours to be right, how do you know that yours is the right one?

If your parents had belonged to a different religion, do you think you would belong to that religion too?

If people from different religions are each told conflicting information by their respective gods, should any of them be believed?

Morality

When an atheist is kind and charitable out of the kindness of his heart, is his behavior more or less commendable than a religious man who does it because God instructed him to?

If your interpretation of a holy book causes you to condemn your ancestors for having a different interpretation, will your descendants condemn you in the same way?

Do lions need 'god-given' morality to understand how to care for their young, co-operate within a pack, or feel anguish at the loss of a companion? Why do we?

If organized religion requires a civilization in which to spread, how could this civilization exist without first having a moral code to make us civil?

The Characteristics of God

An all-knowing God can read your mind (concept of foreknowledge), so why does he require you to demonstrate your faith by worshiping him?

If God is all-knowing, why do holy books describe him as surprised or angered by the actions of humans? He should have known what was going to happen.

An all-knowing God knows who will ultimately reject him. Why does God create people who he knows will end up in hell?

If God is all knowing, then why did he make humans in the knowledge that he'd eventually have to send his prophets? Does God expect his creations to heresy and then play tha salvation game? Does that make God a colossal playmaker?

The Scriptures

Why are Churches filled with riches when Jesus asked his followers to give their wealth away?

While fasting in the desert, Jesus rejected the temptations of the Devil. He didn't censor or kill the Devil, so why are religious people so in favor of censoring many Earthly temptations, especially porn, gambling and warung makan during fasting month?

If religious texts are divinely inspired and still co-authored by men, what is the justification of making it the source of all laws? Even if God reveal the text in its pure form by Himself, how can you be sure that it has not been corrupted by its recipients during duplication, distribution, and transliteration?

Religious Conversion

If religious people don't respect their children's right to pick their own religion at a time when they're able to make that decision, how can society expect religious people to respect anyone's right to freedom of religion? How do you justify child baptism, as an act of forceful religious admission, considering the fact that the baby is still incapable of understanding any religious ideas?

When preachers and prophets claim to be special messengers of God, they often receive special benefits from their followers. Does this ever cause you to doubt their intentions, while we have seen ever growing sects who claims mysterious healing and wealth replication in order to attract followers and gain offerings?

If you can ignore people who are recently claiming to be a prophet sent by God, how do you think people in the past would react if your prophets were declaring themselves before? How do you think Jews who refuse Jesus as their Messiah would think when a man from Nazareth claims to be The Son of God? How do you think Christians who refuse Muhammad as the final prophet from Allah would think when a man from barbaric Arabia claims to be the Comforter that Jesus promised?

Miracles

When you declare a miracle, does this mean you understand everything that is possible in nature?

If a woman was cured of cancer by means unknown to us, and everyone declared it a miracle, would the chance of scientifically replicating this cure be more or less likely?

If humans declared fire to be a miracle thousands of years ago, would we still be huddling together in caves while we wait for God to fire another lightning bolt into the forest?

If God gave a man cancer, and the Devil cured him to subvert God's plan, how would you know it wasn't a divine miracle? What if he was an unkind, atheist, homosexual?

Hell

Should an instruction to convert to your religion upon the threat of eternal torture in hell be met with anything other than hostility?

Can a mass murderer go to heaven for accepting your religion, while a kind doctor goes to hell for not?

How can we know what is right when we don't know for sure who makes it into heaven and hell?

If aliens exist on several worlds that have never heard of your god, will they all be going to hell when they die?

The Promises of Religion

If someone promised you eternal life, the protection of a loving super being, a feeling of moral righteousness, a purpose for living, answers to all the big questions, and a rule book for achieving the pinnacle of human potential... and all in exchange for having faith in something that wasn't proven, would you be suspicious?

If someone promised to give you a billion dollars after ten years, but only if you worshiped them until that time, would you believe them? If someone promised to give you eternal life upon death, but only if you spent your life worshiping a god, would you believe them?

Why does religion appeal more to poor, weak, vulnerable, young, ill, depressed, and ostracized people? Could religious promises be more of a temptation to these people?

Stay tuned for future updates. Also read another posts in the series: Background Reason for Nones Political Analysis Societal Construct and Psychoanalysis

#religion #atheist #question #checkpoint #bigot #freedom #free will

0 notes