The Philosophical Impact of Jesus Christ
(lifted from an email by Ken Freeland)
The Old Testament books are themselves a hodgepodge of many, sometimes very contradictory, beliefs and opinions (not to mention problematic histories). But essentially there is one contradiction that especially concerns Christians: The Old Testament god is of course vindictive, jealous and extraordinarily violent - an all-punishing kind of god. His "chosen people" are steeped in what must be termed exophobia, fear and hatred for all that is different from their own belief system. In the course of time, however, a second tradition springs up alongside of it, which is called the "prophetic" tradition. While this is also a mixed bag, in the fullness of time it develops a kind of cohesion around principles of social justice, equality before God's law, and preaches a causal relationship between the virtue of the Israelite citizenry, and the ultimate success of the state. The ancient belief was that military success was given by Yahweh, and that social welfare followed as a consequence. The prophetic tradition increasingly argued the opposite: that it is precisely the level of social justice manifest by the people that determines the social integrity and therefore ultimate success of the state, the outward manifestation of the people. Still, these two tendencies subsisted side by side in the Judaic tradition, and the social justice mandate itself was limited in its application to the traditional tribe - one's fellow Hebrews. Now Jesus does certainly assert that he, like the John the Baptist before him, stands in succession to the prophetic tradition, but unlike all of the earlier prophets (from some of whom he freely borrows), he is NOT willing to tolerate the opposing school of thought. It is in this light that we best understand his often misunderstood statement that he came "not to bring peace but a sword." These two traditions, in his view, are incompatible, and one must clearly separate them and choose between them, even though this will lead to serious social division. And so he maximizes the social justice ethic of the later prophetic tradition to the point where it alone has ethical value (and in fact a universal, not merely tribal, ethical value) so that exophobia is categorically and explicitly rejected, and exophilia takes its place. The agape of Christianity is exactly that: universal love. All mankind are included in its sweep, and there is no ground left for the old exophobia. Jesus warns that those who continue the old tradition (and he knows many will) must face calamity in the inevitable clash with stronger outsiders, such as the then-dominant Roman empire. And this comes to pass, exactly as Jesus has prophetically predicted, in 70 AD.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Two Gods
The importance of Christian Heresy
(lifted from an email by Ken Freeland)
Those who conspired against Jesus and brought about his execution, the Pharisees in particular, gained de facto political control of Judaism after the destruction of the Temple, which destroyed the power base of their rivals, the Saducees and their sacrficial cult. The new Judaism was based on the oral traditions, the same ones Jesus had remonstrated against because they were used to supplant the Law of God, and these were eventually formulated in the Talmud, which is now the principal scriptural authority of Judaism. Its essence is exophobic, and it represents the survival of that branch or tradition of Judaism which Jesus categorically rejected, and which in turn, necessarily, rejected Him. It harks back to a god of ethnocentrism and malevolence towards all who are not part of their biblical "tribe." The same god that tells them to love their friends and hate their enemies, and not only hate them but exterminate them root and branch. That Jesus explicitly repudiated this posturing tells us that Marcion was not far off the mark - the same god that tells his people to exterminate all their heretical neighbors cannot be the same Father of Jesus who commanded us to love our enemies. There is just no way to reasonably reconcile these two gods. It is remarked in the Gospels that the people hearkened to Jesus because he did NOT teach as the scribes and Pharisees (i.e., by citing unchallengable precedent), but "as one having authority," in other words, as one whose teachings were independent of that entire legal tradition. This is the moral revolution wrought by Jesus for everyone who had eyes to see and ears to hear. But of course, insofar as he moved people AWAY from the desire for the violent conquest of power, he was, in the view of the traditionalist leaders, an "anti-messiah." Because they were seeking a military hero/leader, one who would vanquish the Romans and the rest of the gentile powers. And Jesus had not the slightest interest in that (as he tried to convey to Pilate). In any case, we must see that both of these traditions, the late prophetic tradition revolutionized and universalized by Jesus of Nazareth, and the contrary exophobic tradition amplified by the Pharisees and their allies, continue today in the form of radical Christianity on the one hand, and Talmudic Judaism on the other. These two make OPPOSING claims to the nature of God and to the moral obligations of man, that form the real "clash of civilizations" in today's world. It is, at base, less of a political struggle (though its poltical ramifications are real enough) than it is a moral struggle between two diametrically opposed world views which are, as Jesus was the first to argue, totally incompatible. The universal ethic of Christianity, however much breached in practice, can never be reconciled with the exclusivist, particularist mania that permeates the Talmud. And while it is certainly important to examine contradictions that may be located within Christian doxology, they pale by comparison with this far more important OPPOSITION that must never be lost sight of. It is a foundational truth of Christianity, and is still playing itself out in the contemporary world.
(lifted from an email by Ken Freeland)
Those who conspired against Jesus and brought about his execution, the Pharisees in particular, gained de facto political control of Judaism after the destruction of the Temple, which destroyed the power base of their rivals, the Saducees and their sacrficial cult. The new Judaism was based on the oral traditions, the same ones Jesus had remonstrated against because they were used to supplant the Law of God, and these were eventually formulated in the Talmud, which is now the principal scriptural authority of Judaism. Its essence is exophobic, and it represents the survival of that branch or tradition of Judaism which Jesus categorically rejected, and which in turn, necessarily, rejected Him. It harks back to a god of ethnocentrism and malevolence towards all who are not part of their biblical "tribe." The same god that tells them to love their friends and hate their enemies, and not only hate them but exterminate them root and branch. That Jesus explicitly repudiated this posturing tells us that Marcion was not far off the mark - the same god that tells his people to exterminate all their heretical neighbors cannot be the same Father of Jesus who commanded us to love our enemies. There is just no way to reasonably reconcile these two gods. It is remarked in the Gospels that the people hearkened to Jesus because he did NOT teach as the scribes and Pharisees (i.e., by citing unchallengable precedent), but "as one having authority," in other words, as one whose teachings were independent of that entire legal tradition. This is the moral revolution wrought by Jesus for everyone who had eyes to see and ears to hear. But of course, insofar as he moved people AWAY from the desire for the violent conquest of power, he was, in the view of the traditionalist leaders, an "anti-messiah." Because they were seeking a military hero/leader, one who would vanquish the Romans and the rest of the gentile powers. And Jesus had not the slightest interest in that (as he tried to convey to Pilate). In any case, we must see that both of these traditions, the late prophetic tradition revolutionized and universalized by Jesus of Nazareth, and the contrary exophobic tradition amplified by the Pharisees and their allies, continue today in the form of radical Christianity on the one hand, and Talmudic Judaism on the other. These two make OPPOSING claims to the nature of God and to the moral obligations of man, that form the real "clash of civilizations" in today's world. It is, at base, less of a political struggle (though its poltical ramifications are real enough) than it is a moral struggle between two diametrically opposed world views which are, as Jesus was the first to argue, totally incompatible. The universal ethic of Christianity, however much breached in practice, can never be reconciled with the exclusivist, particularist mania that permeates the Talmud. And while it is certainly important to examine contradictions that may be located within Christian doxology, they pale by comparison with this far more important OPPOSITION that must never be lost sight of. It is a foundational truth of Christianity, and is still playing itself out in the contemporary world.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
To Be Against Race
What does it mean, to be against race?
First, we must define race. Let's check the wiki:
The term race or racial group usually refers to the concept of dividing humans into populations or groups on the basis of various sets of characteristics.[1] The most widely used human racial categories are based on visible traits (especially skin color, cranial or facial features and hair texture), and self-identification.[1][2]
Conceptions of race, as well as specific ways of grouping races, vary by culture and over time, and are often controversial for scientific as well as social and political reasons. The controversy ultimately revolves around whether or not races are natural types or socially constructed, and the degree to which perceived differences in ability and achievement, categorized on the basis of race, are a product of inherited (i.e. genetic) traits or environmental, social and cultural factors.
Some argue that although race is a valid taxonomic concept in other species, it cannot be applied to humans.[3] Many scientists have argued that race definitions are imprecise, arbitrary, derived from custom, have many exceptions, have many gradations, and that the numbers of races delineated vary according to the culture making the racial distinctions; thus they reject the notion that any definition of race pertaining to humans can have taxonomic rigour and validity.[4] Today most scientists study human genotypic and phenotypic variation using concepts such as "population" and "clinal gradation". Many contend that while racial categorizations may be marked by phenotypic or genotypic traits, the idea of race itself, and actual divisions of persons into races, are social constructs.
That's right, I agree with the wiki. Race is bullshit. I am against it.
So what is racism? Let's check wiki again:
Racism, by its simplest definition, is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
Yes, but it's simpler, and bigger than that. A racist is someone who believes in race. Someone who believes that race is "a valid taxonomic concept" for humans. You see, race is founded on bullshit pseudoscience. If you were taught to be a racist, you will think like a racist. We all were taught to be racist, and today it is still being reinforced via government programs and the media.
The origins of race can be found in the bible: "Shem, Ham and Japheth, the three sons of Noah, producing distinct Semitic (Asian), Hamitic (African), and Japhetic (European) peoples."
To deny race is to deny the racial sciences of the 19th century, and the eugenics of the 20th.
To deny race is to deny the racism of the ancient Hebrews and their modern cousins.
Do Brahmins believe they are a different race than the Dalits? No. They believe they have been assigned a cultural role from birth by God, and they are determined to play that role out. Every group has rules they follow, that's what sets them apart - nothing there about race science, skin color, hair analysis, bumps on the head, etc. You begin your role when you are born, but that is a long way from attempting to forge a heritage in the way the Hebrews did in the bible.
As far as I know, there is only one religion left that is based on the notion that they are a race apart, a "chosen people." It is not a major religion; in fact, it is quite a small cult. However, they are in possession of fabulous wealth, enormous political power, and an unknown number of nuclear weapons. They sit atop the holy land and have now walled themselves in. The name we speak in whispers. Opposition to the behavior of this group will be instantly placed onto a racial platform, where the crimes of the 20th century are replayed for their emotional impact.
Race is their primary weapon; an imaginary weapon, but no less dangerous. A mere accusation will shut up the most stubborn opponent. I would like to defuse this weapon. It is a method of censorship, like calling your opposition "evildoers". It means nothing, but it could cost you your job, your social network, your life.
First, we must define race. Let's check the wiki:
The term race or racial group usually refers to the concept of dividing humans into populations or groups on the basis of various sets of characteristics.[1] The most widely used human racial categories are based on visible traits (especially skin color, cranial or facial features and hair texture), and self-identification.[1][2]
Conceptions of race, as well as specific ways of grouping races, vary by culture and over time, and are often controversial for scientific as well as social and political reasons. The controversy ultimately revolves around whether or not races are natural types or socially constructed, and the degree to which perceived differences in ability and achievement, categorized on the basis of race, are a product of inherited (i.e. genetic) traits or environmental, social and cultural factors.
Some argue that although race is a valid taxonomic concept in other species, it cannot be applied to humans.[3] Many scientists have argued that race definitions are imprecise, arbitrary, derived from custom, have many exceptions, have many gradations, and that the numbers of races delineated vary according to the culture making the racial distinctions; thus they reject the notion that any definition of race pertaining to humans can have taxonomic rigour and validity.[4] Today most scientists study human genotypic and phenotypic variation using concepts such as "population" and "clinal gradation". Many contend that while racial categorizations may be marked by phenotypic or genotypic traits, the idea of race itself, and actual divisions of persons into races, are social constructs.
That's right, I agree with the wiki. Race is bullshit. I am against it.
So what is racism? Let's check wiki again:
Racism, by its simplest definition, is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
Yes, but it's simpler, and bigger than that. A racist is someone who believes in race. Someone who believes that race is "a valid taxonomic concept" for humans. You see, race is founded on bullshit pseudoscience. If you were taught to be a racist, you will think like a racist. We all were taught to be racist, and today it is still being reinforced via government programs and the media.
The origins of race can be found in the bible: "Shem, Ham and Japheth, the three sons of Noah, producing distinct Semitic (Asian), Hamitic (African), and Japhetic (European) peoples."
To deny race is to deny the racial sciences of the 19th century, and the eugenics of the 20th.
To deny race is to deny the racism of the ancient Hebrews and their modern cousins.
Do Brahmins believe they are a different race than the Dalits? No. They believe they have been assigned a cultural role from birth by God, and they are determined to play that role out. Every group has rules they follow, that's what sets them apart - nothing there about race science, skin color, hair analysis, bumps on the head, etc. You begin your role when you are born, but that is a long way from attempting to forge a heritage in the way the Hebrews did in the bible.
As far as I know, there is only one religion left that is based on the notion that they are a race apart, a "chosen people." It is not a major religion; in fact, it is quite a small cult. However, they are in possession of fabulous wealth, enormous political power, and an unknown number of nuclear weapons. They sit atop the holy land and have now walled themselves in. The name we speak in whispers. Opposition to the behavior of this group will be instantly placed onto a racial platform, where the crimes of the 20th century are replayed for their emotional impact.
Race is their primary weapon; an imaginary weapon, but no less dangerous. A mere accusation will shut up the most stubborn opponent. I would like to defuse this weapon. It is a method of censorship, like calling your opposition "evildoers". It means nothing, but it could cost you your job, your social network, your life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)