Belinda wrote: ↑March 25th, 2024, 8:22 am
Gertie wrote: ↑March 24th, 2024, 5:26 pm
Belinda wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2024, 6:49 am
Gertie wrote: ↑March 21st, 2024, 5:11 pm
Hi Belindi, just to clarify that's my own attempt at a relevant potted history - not to be taken as 'gospel' 
. I studied the Old Testament and have retained an interest in theology. Only the last two lines about the ghoul Kushner are quoted from The Guardian. (Ironically The Guardian site often deletes my comments on the current genocide!).
Right. I'd say by and large trade has superceded invasion as an obviously better way of getting your hands on other peeps' resources, and that if you have trade dominance you can 'peacefully' exploit. The Middle East sits on a ton of oil, which keeps dominant interests greedy eyes' fixed on it. Giant multinationals are the new colonisers. When 'we' invaded Iraq, the idea was it would be ''settled'' by our corporations.
How do you mean?
I think you're broadly right.
Thanks for your elucidation. I cannot imagine why The Guardian would delete your comments.
For a while at least,any comment using the words ''ethnic cleansing'', ''anti-semitism'' or ''genocide'' seemed to be auto-deleted. The Guardian is sensitive to racism, and especially anti-semitism since it went gung-ho after Corbyn for that like the rest of the media. Of course now with what's going on in Gaza becoming more obscene by the day, it's getting increasingly harder to disappear such terms and opinions about Israel. But the attitude that it's a worse crime to say something which could be interpreted as anti-semitic than to silently watch the mass slaughter of civilians, including thousands of children, is out there. Which suits Israel of course.
What I mean by my second last paragraph is unclear because my thinking on the topic is a little muddled, and that is why I read others' posts, to try to find ideas that make sense to me.
The connection between my last paragraph and the penultimate one is that Judeo-Christianity is strongly doctrinal especially its moral code.['quote]
I'd say Judaism (and Islam from the little I know) more-so in principle than Christianity. Paul's version of Christianity, which largely won the day, moves away from endless Judaic laws and prescription, to a relationship with Jesus as saviour. Salvation by Faith in the resurrection, rather than through 'moral' Works/Law. But when it comes to Church history, that's a different matter. With Jesus's prophesied imminent transformational institution of Yahweh's Final Judgement and the institution of Yahweh's Kingdom on Earth ruled from Jerusalem never showing up, they've fallen back on interpretation and doctrine. In the end it's always down to the people who run and constitute the religions, and doctrine becomes the religion.
Doctrines can be and are interpreted liberally or conservatively , and the several interpretations are reflected in the various religious dogmas of the different sects. Insofar as I'm a follower of Jesus of Nazareth I interpret the Gospels liberally , bearing in mind that Jesus of Nazareth was a human being not a supernatural god. So people today fall into one of two broad categories: The followers of old and often outworn traditions, or dissenters to old traditions i.e. liberals and pragmatists.
These two categories of moral mind sets are reflected by political parties and their respective home and foreign policies.
Ah I'm with you now. Yes I'd agree that there tend to be certain broad dispositions where-by you can make a pretty good guess that if someone is dispositionally religiously conservative they'll tend to be socially conservative too, and drawn to Right leaning politics. And vice-versa. My view of Jesus largely fits my own dispositions too and it boggles my mind how people get some interpretations. That room for interpretation is part of what makes for a successful, lasting religion I suppose.
By the way, is it true that in the USA there is no proper Labour party , and US Democrats are equivalent to UK Conservatives?
Historically I think so. But I'd say the same for the UK at the mo. Since Clinton and Blair came up with their pragmatic centrist Third Way doctrine the voting choice in both countries has pretty much become a failing neo-con status quo or an ever-more radical right. There looked to be a moment when Corbyn and Sanders could have offered a real Leftist alternative, but both were effectively stomped out by their own parties, as much as the other vested interests which they threatened. Now we're left with defending the status quo again, which won't hold long term imo, while the Far Right continues its rise across the wealthy west. The nationalist UK Reform party, which is becoming mainstream, isn't much different to the ''The Jews will not Replace us!'' neo-fascists.
What do you think?
Referring to your reply to me regarding trade. Can we accept that trade brings peace as much as it brings exploitation? What is it exactly about multi -national corporations that is 'unchristianly' ?
Yep. Trade can be ethical or exploitative, but it beats invasion.
I didn't say multinationals are unChristianly, I said they've largely replaced colonisation as a way of aquiring the Others' resources. I'm on dodgy ground here but my view is multinationals tend to get to be multinationals often through under-cutting competitors and using their financial power to exploit weaker workforces and influence governments. Like powerful trading blocs use deals and tariffs to exploit weaker nations. It's better than armed colonisation of course, but 'free-marketism' is essentially Might makes Right. Now globalisation and emerging blocs are threatening the hegemony the rich 'west' had. We're in ''interesting times'', and we're seeing how wealthy 'western' nations are responding in real time.
Is there a modern interpretation of the story of Jesus and the money changers in the Temple and their misuse of traditional Jewish temple behaviour ? I admire Jesus for his initiative to clean up traditional Judaism when some Jews profiteered from the Roman occupation.
There are always interpretations! From did it happen at all, to it being an accurate account which was a significant step towards execution, resurrection and all that entails. But you always have to bear in mind the people writing the gospels had a very different world view to ours, had their own proseletysing mission, and a way of telling stories which fit into (and was 'credentialled' by) allusions to historical and theological context. The money-changer story is in all four gospels, so there's a good chance something like that happened imo. But what the gospel writers hoped people will get from the story will be part of their overall message about who Jesus was and his life and death meant theologically, rather than social commentary.
Having said that Liberation Theology takes this approach seriously as relevant to the here-and-now.
The connection between the political situation in Palestine at the time of Jesus, and the exploitation of peoples in modern times is not that Jews are all guilty but that some people of all ethnicities are not attached to the Golden Rule.
Absolutely.
A version of the Golden Rule is found in Leviticus btw, along with all the shellfish eating, sacrifice making, menstruating Sabbath resting, etc stuff. And Jesus is reported as saying “'You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. A second is equally important: 'Love your neighbor as yourself. ' The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.” (Tho 'Love your neighbour/friend' would likely have meant fellow Jew to them then).
Pauline Christianity is certainly something else!.
That it is. From what we can tell (mainly from Acts) it was Paul's shift from Justification by Law/Works to Justification by Faith inspied by his vision of the risen Jesus, which led to the rift between him and the remaining disciples who actually knew Jesus, led by James and Peter in Jerusalem. The upshot of their theological disagreement seems to be the disciples gave Paul permission to go away and spread his version to the Gentiles, while they remained the carriers of Jesus's message amongst the Jews.
This set Paul off on his journeys around the Mediteranean setting up new churches and preaching his Salvation by Faith message. He still threw in a few of his own rules mind, but without the burden of converts having to subscibe to all the tedious and wacky Leviticus stuff, and most notably male circumcision. (This was a biggie for Jews as part of the covenant Yahweh made with Abraham who he gave the Promised Land to). Anyway I'm guessing circumcision might be a bizarro and tough sell in recruiting adult Gentile males to his new religion! That bit of foreskin might be what 'tipped' Christianity into a world religion, bless it.
One of the benefits of Judeo Christianity is its capability to evolve, the whole thing held together by a human life lived in real time. I went to a public discussion by three theologians holding responsible jobs. One of them described Judeo Christianity as a filthy rusty old ship which in all its voyages throughout the storms of change had carried its cargo of The Golden Rule. I believe the speaker was C of E.
Another meeting I attended answered my scepticism about Jesus, who was tortured to death two thousand yours ago by the Romans, knowing anything about me. The speaker, a Methodist , replied "It's a moving icon". It seems to me both images make sense.
Those are nice metaphors. My own experience of Christian churches (small town methodist chapel) has been mostly gentle, well-meaning and benign. Since then I've known lots of lovely people from different religions. I reckon if we exclude the effects of indoctrination, good people take the good from religions, and bad people the bad. Like most things. Some horrific things have been done in the name of religion too, and it's especially hard to reason with people who believe they have special access to eternal truth, are beyond our mortal worldly concerns, and 'the other' is literally evil. There are pros and cons to the licence interpretation gives. I take a ''by their fruits ye shall know them'' approach to religious people.
I do understand many of us feel a need for a structure or narrative framework to hang a meaningful world view on, and give it a shape which resonates with us. You just have to hope the kinder ones win out. To take Jesus as an archetype or exemplar of how to lead a good and meaningful life seems like a fine interpretation to me.
Regarding the whole political mind sets of both UK and US, thanks for your elucidation. My late friend who had dual US and UK citizenship some years ago alerted me to how well Obama and Cameron got on together.
Interesting! Did you see Obama was spotted dropping in to see Sunak the other day? Gotta wonder what that was about.
The thing about the Blair-Clinton meeting of minds was how soon Blair switched to best buds with Clinton's successor Bush. Becoming Bush's poodle, then his Iraq attack dog. That's political pragmatism I guess, little room for principles. If the international community had the wherewithal to try War Crimes no matter who does it, even the likes of Blair and Bush, rogue governments like Netanyahu's might have had second thoughts if they believed they would personally suffer.