Thomas_More
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
In fact, do not the Jews take their name from Judah, not a religion but a country.
Kautsky explains all that.
When the rulers, warriors and officials of Judah were taken by the Babylonians as hostages into Babylonia, they had no longer anyone to rule and no subordinates, no slaves, and no country. All they had was their religion, which we call today Judaism. Which is why the term Jew has been conflated with the religion.
This became, in exile, a new religion. The Jews left behind in Judah, being the harmless peasantry, were freed by the Babylonians from the slavery their Jewish masters, now in exile, had subjected them to. The religion of these peasants remained that of the monolatrist, semi-polytheist, old form of the religion of the Hebrews.
When Cyrus freed the Jewish aristocracy, it returned to Judah, and unleashed religious tyranny on the peasantry, subjecting all Jews to the monotheism their exiled priesthood had developed while in exile. The priests took over, further conflating the religion with the nation.
(See Foundations of Christianity).Gibbon on Christianity.
In his monumental work, Edward Gibbon, in his chapters on Christianity, has to pay lip-service to the “truth” of the mythology, yet his brilliant sarcasm throughout, but thinly veiled, makes reading him a real pleasure.
I know. Tell it them then.
I wrote to Carl Sagan in 1988 about socialism. He didn’t reply, but I wrote, and I think it’s important to do so.
And what Dawkins should be looking at, rather than at the stupidity of creationists, is WHY are people still choosing such paths.
Yes. I have left a comment on that.
Party members should leave comments. Even if Dawkins doesn’t see them, others watching the video(s) will.“the idea that the senses provide us with direct awareness of objects as they really are”).
I never said that and I would be wrong if I did.
” I just thought you might be in view of your seeming rejection of any active role for the mind in understanding the world of reality.”
I would be wrong to do that too.
“Pannekoek understood material reality to be a ‘continuous and unbounded stream in perpetual motion’”.
Something I have always said too. Even Taoism says that.
Good ol’ Heraclitus. He is right.
Marx too much for me? Rude!
Well, I’ll be an Heraclitan, thank you.
I will read this, but I just wonder if many of you are so engrossed in Marx that you confuse that with everything, even the natural sciences like astronomy.
Atoms exist, even if the word atom is invented by humans to assist understanding and converse.
Why am I a “naive realist”?
I’m a party member, aren’t I?
I just don’t put Marx into everything.
(I wondered the other day what a suspicious character who resembled him in my Asterix book was up to).What’s next? “A Marxian Analysis of the Planets”?
