|
|
|
|
|
| | Can culture advance without religion?Page 38 of 39 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39) | This whole debate is silly and pointless.
Culture is just the sum of the beliefs, values and traditions of a society.
"Advancement" is a completely subjective term.
While religion can influence the existing culture, so can philosophy, scientific discovery, and ideas that are popularized for any number of reasons. It is still essentially PART of the culture of a society.
The Pet Rock is part of our "cultural" fabric. Did it advance it or not?
Can Culture advance without Pet Rocks?
Manufactured argument that can ultimately never be resolved through philosophical or logical discourse is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation. Satisfying on some level, but ultimately meaningless. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 6/30/2012 9:29:46 AM | Msg 945
Ditto.
The most likely end result will be suffocation of all ideals due to increasing population pressure, while we wrangle over the beginning of history, the epitaph is being read.
Monotheist, multitheist, atheist, every voice is increasingly strident with the rhetoric ranging from God/Allahs will be done, to the atheist's, hang every Priest with the guts of every Imam.
Ms. Merkels observation that multiculturalism is a failure is written ever larger across the face of multi-faith, including the devout faith in self, represented by atheism.
Until we can achieve unlimited expansion, our options seem to be reduced to serial conflict, or carefully managed isolationism. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 6/30/2012 9:31:05 AM | Culture advancing and what that looks like isn't silly and pointless though.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp=48017298�
First time reported on State Media. So, what else don't we know? | |
|
| |
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 6/30/2012 12:58:07 PM | 1.
This thread is a perfect example of verbal masturbation
When one speaks for solely the purpose of hearing their own voice.
Sue didn't want to talk with me, she was just practicing verbal masturbation.
2.
Verbal masturbation
n. (v. Verbally masturbating)
Describes a person using (or trying but fails) extremely flamboyant, overelaborate, pendantic, overembellished, pompus, language seasoned with a lot of jargon from a certain discipline, sometimes to the extent that it has to be translated or deciphered to be intelligible for the common man; done with the unnecessary need to be meticulously accurate when communicating completely mundane things. May be done with the intent of making others feel inferior…and/or himself superior, part of role-playing, humour, being an idiot, (trying to) showing off how smart you are, and as mentioned an unnecessary need to be meticulously accurate. The true verbal masturbators are the pretentious ones who try but utterly fail because they use words they do not understand and use words across a jargon (inconsistency). Verbal masturbation may or may not appear redundant; however the redundancy is from the choice of words used and not necessarily by its meaning. Additionally, some may feel others are verbally masturbating but do so wrongfully because the situation requires being meticulously accurate
Non exhaustive examples of jargon used are:
Scientific: (star trek, professor Frink from The Simpson’s),
Forensic: (CSI, Sherlock Holmes),
Arcane: (old language, medieval, lord of the rings, star wars),
Prose/poetic: (rhymes, poetic symbolic uses etc. of language usually belonging to the literature world)
dictionary: (sounding like one…)
Leet (1337): sou...
3.
verbal masturbation
Verbal Masturbation is commonly found amoung the arrogant, highly self absorbed people.
when you verbally masturbate, you essentially puke out the most disgustingly boring things about yourself, and you only ever talk about how great you are, or how great your life is, blahblahblah.
a common feeling amoung the ill-faited audience of a verbal masturbater is the hard to ignore urges to slice off the offenders head, put it in a blender, and then feed it to dogs. and if they are REALLY not worth it, feed the head to homeless people, as they will take anything.
"That prick over there kept verbally masturbating, and had me snoring for an hour."
OR
"Man, that chick is so hot, i'm gonna do the verbal masturbation all over her to show her how HOT i am"
4.
Verbal masturbation
The stretching of something being said to make it much longer than it could easily be. It is usually done because the speaker feels what they said is not enough, wants to hear them self talk or wants to make what they say more confusing.
The way they stretch it is by adding similes and metaphors that basically say the same exact thing as what they originally said.
Verbal masturbation
The inquiring man is not liked for he is the hungry lion who wants more food. It is the people who are unwilling to feed his mind like there are only so many gazelle. His hunger makes the other lions tremble and begin to hate his lifelong quest for knowledge. He will never have enough and the others do not wish to put up with him, so he is always alone. Like a man who steals the money of his peers and has become rich, and hated by others. Though the others could have easily become rich because the money was up for grabs. The rich man benefits from his quest for knowledge and is hated for doing better.
Translation
An intelligent and curious person is not liked. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 6/30/2012 2:25:54 PM | I think religion has already played it's role in history. It was our first attempt to make sense of things, and the world we live in. Given the technology that we have now though, I think it is time to move on. Religion now holds back advances in our society. Gay rights, women's rights, and stem cell research, for example.
Also, I think MOST threads/posts on POF are just about verbal masturbation. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 6/30/2012 3:02:43 PM | What do wildfires have to do with culture?
!Doh
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nightly-news/48017298
Fen Jianmei was seven months pregnant when she was forcibly taken to hospital and her child aborted, because she and her husband couldn’t afford the fine imposed in China when couples have a second child. NBC’s Angus Walker reports from the Shanxi Province, China.
For the culture refrence of this pay attention to how pissed off people are... not about it happening but about it being put out in media.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/jun/30/as-china-forced-abortion/
The Chinese father of a forcibly aborted baby whose case prompted an international outcry has been beaten and forced into hiding, while his wife and other family members have been labeled traitors by fellow townspeople, the man's sister said Tuesday.
Doesn't it have that quality that this thread has associated to religion? | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 6/30/2012 7:15:28 PM | Where did I say they were mindless zombies? You know one guy? Is that like your token friend to prove you are not racist?
The soldiars in the youtube incident a while back. They had lost their sense of moral compass. Vietnam has its share of orders followed that should have been questioned. Not following orders is s severe crime if you are wrong about it being an illegal order. It isn't black and white and easy to tell.
I think you are being more insulting. You don't think that if it can be used as a weapon the military hasn't tried it?
I see, I'm the one that's being insulting, by indicating that soldiers aren't just brain-washed killing machines but actual thinking human beings. And I would rather you not slander my friendships as well, someone who is a friendly and decent person who just happens to be in the military. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 6/30/2012 8:39:05 PM |
Doesn't it have that quality that this thread has associated to religion?
Okay, that makes a lot more sense LOL. To answer you're question: yes. Which I guess illustrates another angle to the OPs question.
Can culture advance without religion? Perhaps a better question is : Will advanced cultures have religion anyway?
It seems to me that we will always have people in our midst that poop their pants when the status quo is threatened. We will always have people that love to be told what to do by an authority figure. We will always have magical thinkers, whether its the traditionally religious, New Age, the Amish, or guys selling lucky rabbit's feet or belief in psychics. There are people whose minds, for one reason or another, will never change. all we can hope is that their kids know better.
If a culture is truly advanced, it will accomodate these folks- provided no one gets hurt. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 7/1/2012 2:32:06 PM |
And I would rather you not slander my friendships as well, someone who is a friendly and decent person who just happens to be in the military.
How can I slander what I cannot know? That is why anecdotal stories are pretty much not relevant as material evidence. I also have known many people that have served. If you want a comparative anecdotal story and one that probably has influenced what I think it...
My "friend" had wanted to be in the military since he was a small child. All through high school he couldn't wait to enlist. It was his dream and he was a very bright and caring guy. He got his wish. He loved it. I caught up with him a few years later and he was a very different person. What happened to him? Why did he drop out? You may not remember but many years ago under Clinton there was an incident in Haiti http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1994-09-16/news/9409160307_1_leave-haiti-gen-raoul-cedras-president-jean-bertrand-aristide Well, my friend was charged and primed and on the runway when his plane was pulled off the tarmac. The training and buildup that he went through to prepare him for this had him pumped and charged to capacity and he was ready to rock. When they pulled the plug he had no outlet for that. He did not handle that well. It is not the same as any job I may have and I give them credit for taking on that significant responsibility and for doing so willingly. For some time afterwards he did not cope well from the psychological training aspects and then sudden change in direction.
I don't discount your friends case nor your friendship. However, like my story... it is factually irrelevant. Just as you keep insinuating that I am calling them brain-washed killing machines. They are soldiers. Ask your friend... It is not the same as working a job.
I do find it interesting how defensive you are that you think your character is being maligned by a challenger of beliefs. Why would it be so offensive to challenge you when it was you that challenged me. I am not personally insulted by your questioning but I think your position is more insulting of the military than mine. I don't think they are dumb enough to not know what they are doing but that the environment they find themselves in is beyond comparison to daily life of knowing the difference between what is right vs what is wrong. It isn't a logic exercise. It's a real world issue that I hope to never be required to gain firsthand experience.
We probably mean the same thing but are expressing it differently. Although I seem to be giving more credit to the people that run the military for actually having a clue about how psychology works and how to use it to advantage. If you think that’s me calling soldiers mindless zombies than I can't help you with that opinion. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 7/1/2012 6:02:01 PM | There is a reason why most soldiers are in this age range. They can be taught to not question.
this military thing is a diversion from the thread but it is worth pursuing a bit - much as the main thrust of the thread is not worth pursuing much further!!
i want to take issue with your original premis and see how far i get with your follow on posts, to try to explain that the military, in our western nations, isn't really the thing you believe it is.
on your original point - taught not to question - yes in part, but in sum, no. the short version of my answer is that soldiers are taught to understand that they should be able to trust their superiors - their corporal, not their general - to make quick decisions using their greater experience and to get their small team to react quickly for the benefit of all.
for example, your squad (4, 8, 16, 32 guys) is chasing some baddies into a small village. your leader has some quick thinking to do. everyone is very busy getting into position without being seen or killed, reloading, signalling, receiving signals, calling up some air in case it is needed. everyone is very tired, they have been on this patrol since yesterday and it is very hot by day and cold by night. everyone is physically and mentally exhausted. this is not a time for debate. this is not a time for a democracy or a chinese parliament. this is the time for the team to trust the leader and his deputies, with whom you have lived and trained for... for weeks, months, years. you know these guys, you trust them and you know you will shortly have your part in their plan. if, inexplicably, the boss says 'actually, **** them, lets just napalm the damn village', even though tired, wet, cold and hungry, the sergeant, or one or two of the corporals will say 'no, boss, not on my watch...that aint gonna happen'.
and very very occasionally it does happen. very very occasionally. and when it does, it is not a symptom of the army training coming through, instead it is a sign of the failure of army training. it is also a failure of leadershp and of moral courage, the courage we all have instilled in us to say - 'actually, no. i wont do that.'
and my point is we train our young soldiers to obey orders fast and effectively but we cannot do that unless we demonstrate leadership over and over again to them and instill in them the confidence in us, their leaders and trainers, so that they know what they are doing, they know why they are doing it and they know it is something that must be done.
you cannot send a 19 year old into the oppositions' field of fire at the very real risk of him being killed if he doesnt believe that what you are telling him is right.
the other bit is the age thing - yes of course we mature and develop stamina and are at our peak probably between our mid twenties and our mid thirties... if, seriously, if we are in any kind of physical shape at all and very many of us are in no physical shape by then. also, we need lots of young soldiers for maybe 5 years and then we need perhaps 1/3 of them to go through to 30 then 1/2 of that lot to go onwards and upwards, so soldiering has to start as a young man's game so they can do their stuff then get out and get on with the rest of their lives. it is not because they are suitably gullible at 17.
my final point addresses the combat stress issue. i spent 6 months in the desert in gulf war 1, just next to 1st Armd Cav Regt - stressy enough because 1st Armd Cav didnt even know the brits were there righthand neighbours and hadnt seen our kit till we crossed into iraq (yes, iraq, a left hook into kuwait) and i got shot at twice by abrams - thank god for 60kph warriors...and by various rpgs and a bit of artillery. i was awake for the whole 100 hours of combat, i suffered no stress whatsoever. i remember hearing on the radio when i got back to UK a chat show where a guy was saying he was stressed witless by the war - turns out he was an airforce chef in bahrein for the whole war - ****ing wanker - what a complete loser, what a tosser. actually, no. i was wrong. i commanded my vehicle, i had excellent vision of the battlefield and excellent comms so i got the scud launch warnings and i knew they werent aimed at us but at the rear areas - i could manoeuvre fast away from artillery (its my subject so i know how to avoid it) and effectively, barring some lucky enemy shot, i was the master of my destiny. the chef in the hotel in bahrein was not. he was in the cellar kitchens and was entirely at the mercy of the luck of the gods (ugh) whether the hotel came down on his head or not. and that stress is real. it is very real. it is the same as the stress your friend suffers - you get wound up, you mentally prepare for all sorts of things, you know you are potentially saying goodbye, you ponder your young life... and then.... well something, nothing, whatever, but you dont get the release.
we are much better now at dealing with this, and my footnote is that your friend should now seek help through his veterans organisation. and he will find help and he will get through whatever it is. PTSD has a number of forms and its average time to appear is 9 years after the event - 9 years... so thats anything from almost instantly right up til you are virtually dead. if he hasnt sought help, even if he thinks he is through it, he should go and ask. now. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 7/1/2012 6:41:53 PM |
There is a reason why most soldiers are in this age range. They can be taught to not question.
And on a similar vein, there is a reason why most children are 'indoctrinated' into religion at an early age.
They can be taught not to question.
And then the proponents of such, such as this jem from Texas, make their political platform:
Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
We don't want to challenge those 'fixed beliefs' there, do we? I mean, (Deity of your choice) Forbid we let them actually decide for themselves what they want to believe!
Now, if I were to use the military analogy here - I have no issue with grown adults who have chosen, of their own free will, to believe in a 'higher power', and gain some moral/spiritual comfort from that. I do have to wonder, when I see something like that - being against "critical thinking skills" (questioning things - such as "challenging fixed beliefs"), what exactly are "they" afraid of? And while I agree, Fred, on your comment on the military - belief in your leaders and the objective at hand is necessary on the battlefield... when religion demands "blind obedience to authority, and questioning it is wrong", doesn't it rather make it sound just as much like an "army" as say the Marines? And if the function of the military is to "dominate the battlefield", what then is the "battlefield" of religion - the world? | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 7/1/2012 7:01:54 PM | And on a similar vein, there is a reason why most children are 'indoctrinated' into religion at an early age.
They can be taught not to question.
And then the proponents of such, such as this jem from Texas, make their political platform:
I'm glad someone gets the relationship. You can point to religion all day long because it isn't mysteriously hiding. Can you see it everywhere else that it lives? Is it not religion and actually an issue with how humans believe and maybe loyality?
The attempt to excise religion out of society is only dealing with a symptom of being human. It does nothing to the source that lives in all of us. Most affected will never realize it. They are just 'right,’ and they have no idea why. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 7/1/2012 7:10:57 PM | | The biggest difference between religion and the military is an independent pov. Always. The military always fall into man's province, the ability to sustain a god demands that you let go of human wants and needs and dictates,politics, etc, etc, etc. Always. Those that don't and camouflage and declare themselves religious are as deluded as those who declare themselves "free" of any delusion re: no belief in god. Hoo boy. Indeed. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 7/1/2012 7:17:23 PM | The biggest difference between religion and the military is an independent pov. Always.
I think this is almost entirely missing the real case. If people think religion and government are dangerous that is nothing compared to religion and military. They are perfect partners and incredibly dangerously. Both of them lead directly towards the harshest authoritarian rule as being the best of all possible outcomes.
Religion and law and government is the weaker version of religion and the military. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 7/1/2012 7:23:42 PM |
when religion demands "blind obedience to authority, and questioning it is wrong", doesn't it rather make it sound just as much like an "army" as say the Marines?
obedience to authority in the forces is absolutely not blind. you obey orders because you understand them, you understand the context, you understand the desired outcomes and their aims. orders in the forces are not simplistic 'do this, do that, do it now', even if that is what you will see in the most basic training, especially drill. on the battlefield with trained soldiers - trained for months specifically for the deployment, orders are a lengthy process starting with outlining the whole plan from end to end, ie the strategy of the job - to remove the taliban from helmand (good luck, its their home), then the lower level tactical intent - to dominate this valley so the insurgents are kept in the next valley where other forces can engage them without civilians in the way - down to this week's orders... to maintain observation on this or that area and identify insurgents infiltrating back into our valley - down to the immediate operation... to secure and enter that compound where we have seen the insurgents going... etc
or quick battle orders reacting to a situation happening right now right where you are.. 'you two, go left and up the ditch line and give the rest of us covering fire in 2 minutes - go, you four, keep your eyes on the enemy, identify their firing positions and return fire to keep their heads down (neutralise) while we move to our assault position... remainder, follow me.. everyone understand? any questions? right, move now.' all done with an understanding of the situation, a trust in the experience of the team leader and his deputies but still with the same rules - don't shoot at or endanger civilians, let a taliban escape rather than kill a civilian, etc etc etc. it's all in context. you could very easily hear, in the scenario above, an experienced sergeant say to his young officer, as the young officer considers his options...'no boss, this pln leaves us too exposed. they are isolated in that compound, we don't need to rush in and die trying, we can stand back, get some imagery from above, we have time and we have them boxed in...'
the soldier or marine does not step off the plane and get told 'shoot that raghead over there now'.'hoooarrrgh, sir yes sir'
orders, where there is time, are frequently questioned - it is part of the orders procedure, particularly towards the end, with that give away phrase 'are there any questions'.
so no, the army and marines would not recognise themselves here. blind obedience to authority and wrong to question went out with the nazi concentration guards.. in the forces at least, if not the armies of god. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 7/1/2012 9:09:55 PM | The diferance between Church and State in Western culture is a part of our culture , the freedom to choose , and getting away from controle by religions ,is also part of a new found freedom of mind and being , where guilt is no longer the norm , and where life is what you make it , not what some one dictates it should be , respect your elders , but remember they are human and not gods. Any one can read the books of wisdom , but like most wisdom it changes over time , the gods names change as the culture changes . Most is ritual and some what meaning less tradishions .
And it realy doesn't matter what your god's name is , but how you treat your fellow man , with out love you are nothing.
George | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 7/1/2012 9:43:44 PM | O.k. nothing is more dangerous than the military and religion combined. I am not stupid...my point is that like George Dontigny remarks...you are nothing without love. Period. Prove us wrong, smile. You won't in one million more years of evolution and science and technology and more of the same song .....etc. smile.
Culture can never answer a need for the deepest and most profound meaning for life. Ever. Figure this out from this standpoint and then lets talk. Oh wait. I forgot. I am in dialogue with men. So there you go. I am wrong. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 7/1/2012 10:00:37 PM | my point is that like George Dontigny remarks...you are nothing without love. Period. Prove us wrong, smile.
That is the difference between me and the other atheists in this thread. I agree with you. I also have no problem with that sense of being coming from a long established sense of religion and God through westernized religions. Other religions have not promoted this aspect and are not so allowing for societal advancement. The crazy side of western religions is coming out but I do think that is only a temporary reaction to the new atheist movement.
IOW... I agree with you and support your freedom. I also support the judgment that not all religions are equal in practice. For the most part that follows common sense and common sense morality beyond the issues of abortion.
| |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 7/1/2012 11:14:23 PM | | Aries.....abortion? Where did that come from? Abortion is something to be avoided at all costs. And that is very easy to do these days, ain't it?? Not a very productive or creative solution to the problem of conception. Yep. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 7/2/2012 7:21:52 AM |
I don't discount your friends case nor your friendship. However, like my story... it is factually irrelevant. Just as you keep insinuating that I am calling them brain-washed killing machines. They are soldiers. Ask your friend... It is not the same as working a job.
The nature of the military is such that you must follow orders since it's critical to your life and the lives of your fellow soldiers. Certainly there is a stronger psychological impact from such a job, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about whether these people are intelligent and/or capable enough to know right from wrong or if they're just blindly following orders and doing a job.
I understand that the nature of the military is a unique one (which is why I admire those soldiers so much, even when they're fighting a wrong war). But no matter how indoctrinated they are, they still retain their humanity. My opinion is that soldiers following orders stems more from their sense of duty, pride and loyalty more than indoctrination. For example, even the soldiers of the Imperial Japanese army/navy (who can probably considered the most indoctrinated of all modern armies) mostly did what they did out of a sense of honor, including the kamikaze pilots. Kamikaze pilots who survived explained that no one would willingly go on such missions, but they felt they had to in order to preserve their honor. By turning them down they would be labelled as cowards and it would bring shame on their families. This in itself is not military doctrine, but normal concepts of honor and shame, which even to this day largely defines asian societies (my Japanese professor once told me that the Japanese culture is a "culture of shame").
I do find it interesting how defensive you are that you think your character is being maligned by a challenger of beliefs.
You claimed that my friend was just a token friend, like it wasn't a real relationship but something I trot out to win arguments. As far as I'm concerned, that was a direct attack on me, having nothing to do with the argument itself. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 7/2/2012 8:37:13 AM |
Aries.....abortion? Where did that come from? Abortion is something to be avoided at all costs. And that is very easy to do these days, ain't it?? Not a very productive or creative solution to the problem of conception. Yep.
Specifically think abortion should be left out because it is an unwinnable argument on both sides. Both sides are right and both sides are wrong. That debate is going to continue for a very very long time. No reason to hold up the rest of the world to wait for agreement on it. It isn't coming.
You claimed that my friend was just a token friend, like it wasn't a real relationship but something I trot out to win arguments. As far as I'm concerned, that was a direct attack on me, having nothing to do with the argument itself. Yeah, that does sound like a****thing to say.
My overall point and one you brought up with the Japanese culture is that adherence to religion is everywhere including places that religion is not. It is a human function. It is why religion will not go willingly. So far the only successful way for it to reduce its hold is by naturally taking its course in the background until it becomes cultural tradition and heritage. Anything else will dig it in deeper and more unrealistic. Some parts of it will always live and that may be a belief in God and basic values of 'loving thy neighbor'.
This advanced society will just became exasperated trying to win logic wars through humiliation. It may win the logic but it will never win the war. Just create a more deeply entrenched resistance. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 7/2/2012 9:29:47 AM | In response to the first question, no. Atheists use a physical referent which shows real cause an effect to determine morality.
And as for your second question, it depends how you define "western culture". If you mean in its current form, then religion is deeply interwoven and is deeply influenced by it. Removing religion would require a shift in value systems. In terms of human behaviour, religion is not persuasive enough to determine total human behaviour because not all people are religious. It is the socio-economic system which has the most dominance to determine behaviour, since regardless of whether you believe in money or not, you still to a certain degree have to submit to it. Religion doesn't have this power anymore.
But if you mean people who live in western society, then religion has to be seen for what it is. An outdated and obsolete set of doctrines and values. | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 7/4/2012 12:45:05 AM | | I think the sooner all religious people are bred out of the world the more steadily and comfortably we can advance as the greatest speacies in the universe | |
|
| Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 7/4/2012 6:39:57 AM | These are the kind of fundamentalist terrorists who will ensure that culture will continue to struggle to advance.
http://skepchick.org/2011/01/christian-identity-the-scary-religion-you-don%E2%80%99t-know-about/
snip.more at link.
These racists are actually a special flavor of creationist. Here’s a brief outline of one of their core beliefs:
◦ Anglo-Saxon-Celtic peoples (whites) are God’s real chosen people, and descend in an unbroken line from Adam and Eve. They are by nature a superior race.
◦ Jews derive from Cain, himself the product of a sexual liaison between Eve and the Serpent (the original sin) in Eden, and so are biologically evil, the synagogue of Satan.
◦ Non-whites are pre-Adamic beings, soulless and akin to the Biblical beasts of the field. Cain mated with these peoples to produce today’s Jews.
◦ Jews are part of a Satanic plot to unite the world under a single government, to be taken over ultimately by the Devil himself. The plot is thousands of years old.
◦ Whites in America (the true House of Israel) must battle bloodily to usher in a period of Godly rule prior to the Second Coming. That means a race war.
There are many different flavors of the Identity creation story that lays out exactly how the origins of emud people are separate from (white) Adam and Eve but the gist is the same. Jews, Folks of Color, Homosexuals, and whoever else you happen to hate today are Demonic in origin. Or soulless animals. In other-words, non-white people are literally spawn of the devil. And, so, it’s your CHRISTIAN DUTY to kill them.
Christian Identity theology neatly sews together the idea of a religious base for racism and antisemitism, and an ideological rationale for violence against non-whites and their allies. It’s a two-fer!
You almost always see the words paramilitary or militia associated with Christian Identity believers. Why are they so violent? Their world is an absolute dichotomy: God or Devil. Angel or Satan.
There is no nuance, no compromise, no coalition building when you see your opponent as Lucifer Incarnate. People that oppose you are dupes. The federal government is controlled by the Devil. It’s a conspiracy you must resist. And resist violently.
Because, as mentioned above, a race war is needed to bring Christ back. It’s even got it’s own name: RAHOWA” Racial Holy War.
Why would someone buy into this? Generally, these sorts of racist, anti-governmental groups swell when economic times are bad. It’s a handy explanation for why there is so much Evil (and unemployment) in the world, despite the promises of a loving and caring God: the Devil is responsible. These Christians have lost control of their lives but they can take control back with sufficient ammunition and mayhem.
| |
|
|
|
|
Page
38
of
39 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39)
|
|
Home
login 
