End the Scourge of White Supremacy

Looks like one of those new rubber **** dolls if you ask me.

 

Difficult to tell, just from the picture.

Quite possibly, but not definitely.

Oh dear, I should have ignored Zorro's 'catchy' picture. No-one is saying anything about "evil" white or black women.

Not into identity politics, or rather, PC.

I'll let "society" speak for itself.

Meantime, I hope I have enlightened you re OT mythology (in post 616). Marcion certainly had good reason to reject the OT.

 

The German people never suffered racial discrimination (except German Jews, by the Nazis), whereas MLK was still exposing systemic racism in the 60's, and is recognised for his efforts, even now.

 

That thought crossed my mind, but not for long....

 

What a joke. You need to read up. Have you no clue how both wars ended for Germany? Of course liberals today would say it is worse today for blacks than it was for Germans in 1945. The rewriting of history before our eyes.

 

You can be proved wrong. That was easy lol

 

Neo liberalism might but a free market republic with checks and balances has worked pretty good so far.

 

Don't waste your time. That one is lost. Too smart for his own good.

 

The issue for blacks was discrimination based on race, changed today into discrimination based on poverty. MLK was still railing against both manifestations of that discrimination as late as the 1960's. Today it's mainly based on economic rank...where poverty is both a cause and an effect of employment discrimination, in black ghettos.

Nothing at all to do with the defeat of Germany in the 2 world wars.

 

I wish you had 'unpacked' issues of more recent vintage instead, which could be clarified more easily! But since you ask, using small fonts to make the message 'appear' shorter:

For any non-dogmatic scholar, the Old Testament is a collection of myths and legends recorded (with few exceptions, the most important exceptions arguably the ones from the Book of Ezra/Nehemiah) subsequent to the events they describe. Usually, recorded many centuries (and more) after the events, ethical beliefs, and norms, they ascribe to the people (many/most mythical or fictional characters and some of slightly historical origin) they are describing. This is understood even if you are writing from within the tradition that gave rise to these myths and legends. See, for instance:
https://www.ias.edu/ideas/2018/schmid-torah
Who Wrote the Torah

To be sure, much of the issues regarding these myths and scripture and their origins are subject to serious scholarly debate, since we aren't talking about issues that can easily be established today. However, in light of the fact that a good chunk of these myths, legends, ethical stories (the one that give rise to what is called "new Judaism") were recorded during and after what would be called the "Persian period" in "Jewish" history (and a few afterwards, under a combination of Hellenic and Iranian influences), several things stand out more clearly than others.

First, that "Jewish identity" is a product of the Persian period and, most likely, an attempt by the Persian administrators to better rule the area by favoring tribes more loyal to Persian rule over others, in an area which had been somewhat unruly. I cite this book for its title but the outlines of the story aren't all that different even when presented by academically qualified 'biblical' historians and scholars.

Second, that correct "Law" that Ezra was recounting and supposedly reading from for the would be 'new Jews" were themselves hugely influenced by the both the ethical norms as well as political dictates of the Persian empire. Many of these concepts changed dramatically as a result, with the what emerged from the process what can be called even a "new religion" (new Judaism). While some "biblical scholars" like to claim that Ezra was passing along the priestly writings during the "Jewish exile" in Babylonia, and others even cling to notions that he was recounting the "law of Moses", the actual scholarly evidence is not favorable even to the former and totally at odds with the latter for sure. Why: Because the teaching and concepts change dramatically! Some of those changes and influences are reviewed for more popular consumption in this video:


Finally, and more broadly, the influence of Iran in shaping in pretty much all of the world's major religions is the subject of more than a few scholarly books and articles. This one bringing together some of the narratives.

https://www.amazon.com/Spirituality-Land-Noble-Shaped-Religions/dp/1851683364

p.s.
No narration of past events, much less those which relate to times about which the evidence before us is at best 'scanty' will be anything but a 'new mythology' either. And, as far as mythology goes, I honestly believe that anyone who dispassionately studies of mythology of Iran, put together in Iran's national epic, the Shahnameh (which is called by some the "Bible of Iran" and which has had an enduring influence on Iran and Iranian identity and history), they would find it simply incomparable in its enduring ethical lessons and more. Sadly, however, the mythologies of the so-called "Arbrahamic religions' instead prevailed, even if they were influenced to some degree by the mythologies of Iran.

 

Not only the "modern mind", but no less than Marcion, one of the early compilers of the evolving NT, active around the turn of the first century AD.......

Some of them, possibly.

The Jews were commanded by 'god' to commit genocide. Nothing to do with a promise, or failure, by Jews.

 

Unfortunately, neoliberalism is the basis of your free market. No economic checks and balances there, just an assured level of unemployment as measured by the NAIRU (google it if you don't know).

 

Yes it's a pity the Prophet of Islam didn't look East for his inspiration, to the still surviving (after Alexander's conquest of Persia 900 years earlier) Zoroastrianism of the Sassanian empire..a religion based on principles of good versus evil (and the religion that had informed Darius' liberation of the Jews from Babylon over 1100 years earlier).

 

Yes and not quite.

First, it sad that all major religions (including Christianity and Judaism, but also Islam) were formed from the mythologies I alluded to and not the mythologies of IRAN.

Second, all of them were nonetheless influenced by the mythologies of Iran in very profound ways. Including, Islam being turned from an "Arab tribal religion" to a 'universal one" and, then, within Iranian Islam, moving away from many of its dogmatic aspects towards things which are far less dogmatic than the mere label will tell you. The Islam that developed within Iran, is not the "tribal religion" of the Arabs and while there are dogmatic forces who cling to some aspects of that Islam still, the prevailing methodology and ideology of Iranian Islam is too influenced and imbued with Persian culture, philosophy and traditions to fit the 'propaganda narratives' even 'secular westernized' people like to associate with it.

Finally, the divide between IRAN and the rest of the world is as much a divide between IRAN and the West as it is a divide between IRAN and the "Abrahamic religions". And even on that issue, IRAN had the better answers and philosophy than what 'secular western' ideology likes to push.

 

Typical liberal verbosity. Explain everything away until the point is lost...

 

Bumper stickers usually don't tell the story accurately. But if you like me to be short and to the point, and not worry about distinguishing things in the narratives such as this one which I might not totally subscribe to myself, take the "how" out of the title of this article, and use the rest for your bumper sticker.

HOW PERSIA CREATED JUDAISM
https://katehon.com/article/how-persia-created-judaism-persian-and-jewish-religion

 

I take it Islam split into two strands - shia and sunni - c. 630AD, before its development within Iran?

Meanwhile the Prophet (correctly) recognised Christ as a biblical prophet, rather than God himself (Allah).

Nevertheless I think Marcion's NT still had its followers in Muhammad's time, so instead of following the OT tradition with its "jealous god", Islam 'could' have been based on Jesus Christ the Prince of Peace, or on Zoroastrianism, both of which are far more transcendent of this world than the OT god (who the post-Aristotle Marcion rejected as a demigod).

 

Islam is definitely part of the Abrahamic religions. That aspect is significant because some of the Abrahamic traditions and mythology became the tradition and mythology that also influenced the "Muslim world".

That said, I would advise against is being too attached to a 'scripture" based understanding of religious cultures. Until the modern era, most people were illiterate. What people 'understood' from these labels in different times, meant very different things, based on various different influences on them. But it was mostly like a 'tribal flag' that distinguished them from other tribes. As for the literate members of these societies, there was always a division between 'literalists' and those who worked very hard to find ways to escape any literal understanding of scripture. The latter, the dominant influence in Iran. Both before Iran became officially Shia in the 16th century, because of Iran's Sufi poetic and philosophical traditions, and afterwards by virtue of a host of "Shia" doctrines that ultimately seek to take any literal reading of religion and guide it towards understandings its inner meanings, forms, through a process called "ijtihad" and by virtue of a host of ideas. Some of which, as expounded even by Iran's most 'orthodox' figure, such as Ayatollah Khomeini, might shock you.

For the same reason, the story is also more complicated than just the "Shia" and "Sunni" divisions in Islam. Labels aren't very telling by themselves. Although "Shia Islam" (originally, an inter-Arab division in Islam over a specific issue about succession), became more imbued with the culture and traditions of Iran by virtue of it becoming the sect Iranians rallied under and by virtue of Shia Islam becoming Iran's state religion in the 16th century, Sunni Islam itself had already been transformed by Iranian influences as well.

Some of the things you associate with "Islam" are simply a question of 'modernity' in battle with more ancient 'traditions'. Other things are how propaganda and dogma (both for and against) can corrupt the path to the truth. And, in the process, make our journey as humans in our evolutionary path a much longer one than it would be otherwise.

In the meantime, too much of the actual story of IRAN has been buried under ancient, medieval, and contemporary polemics and propaganda. IRAN has had too many enemies! The actual story would require a 're-telling' in many ways. For now, the 'divide' that exists between IRAN is a divide between IRAN and the West (Greco-Roman plus the "Biblical traditions" after the West became "Christian" and more recently, 'secular creed' that arose most clearly after the French revolution) on the one hand, and IRAN and tribal religions (e.g., Abrahamic ones that stick to their tribal intimations, and Arab-Islam in particular).

 

Incidentally, "Christian mercy" type ideas aren't either alien to IRAN nor a real reflection of Iranian ideology either (though concept of "justice" are imbued in both preIslamic and a part of Shia Islamic doctrine). Fundamentally, however, Iranian ideology is neither punishing nor merciful.

In Iranian ideology, "God" is a path (path of truth), fighting against evil (falsehood and dogma). God is involved in a very distant way in this battle between "good and evil', and the universe is created from that battle. But you do have free will and while, to encourage you to pick the right path, you (meaning the masses) might even be offered promises of rewards in some paradise (allegorical and, except for the uneducated, not meant as being anything more), the truly faithful follower is enlightened enough to just want the path of "truth" to prevail regardless of 'rewards'. In fact, there is a debate whether Zoroastrian ideology is 'monotheistic" or "dualistic" because, frankly, the victory of forces of good over evil is not even really pre-ordained.

 

"evolving NT" ????? The NT is just the Matthew and Mark's account.
Written by one of the disciples and a companion or secretary to a second.
Then there's a collection of letters, followed by Luke's compilation and his
account in Acts. Then John wrote a follow up to the Gospels circulating
at that time and also his Revelations.
Not sure where "evolving" fits in - unless you are referring to the early
Catholic Church, which is a different thing.

 

There's some on-going excavations at a place called Shiloh, north of Jerusalem,
Here in the book of Samuel we read the Ark of Covenant was captured by the
Phillistines and the sons of the High Priest killed. In ACTUAL HISTORY the center
at Shiloh was also destroyed. Here we have found the shattered "horns of the alter"
and evidence for the animal sacrifice of Moses - butchered on the right side of the
animal.
This is typical in archaeology.
The story of Israel in the late Bronze Age is slowly coming to light. It wasn't some
thing written seven hundred years later in Babylon. Many "scholars" would like you
to believe that.

 

I am quite familiar with what you are referring to. I am also quite content that no serious scholar would imagine what you wish to find through these excavations. They might have relevance to some more historic aspects of the mythology, but they don't change the overall picture that is beyond any reasonable dispute.

 

Are you saying what I wrote about Shiloh is wrong?
They didn't find the sacrificial animals?
No Horns of the Altar?
Maybe Shiloh wasn't destroyed at all?

 

I am saying you are looking to find "black sparrows" to prove "all sparrows are black". Even finding these 'black sparrows', you aren't going to prove 'all sparrows are black" because I have already found many white sparrows regardless.

I am also saying that Iranian mythology, represented in Iran's national epic, the Shahnameh, also contains (in the midst of its stories) some things that might have had some resemblance to facts. But even the 'historical period' in the Shahnameh is not real history in the conventional sense. Still, if you like mythology, I promise you that the mythology of the Shahnameh better withstands the test of time. Its story of creation isn't like the one in Genesis: creation is the result of a cosmic battle between the forces of good and evil, resulting in something akin to a huge explosion that causes the beginning of the universe. Its story of evolution, from early things to animals, to half animals, half humans, and such, is also a lot more amenable to modern interpretation. And the values it extols -- truth over falsehood, courage, loyalty and good over evil -- are timeless. There is no specifically culturally defined concepts about sin' and such. Even when it gets to more historical narratives, and deals with Iran's enemies, it doesn't treat them with much anger or venom either. Indeed, this is pretty much how it deals with the two competing cultures it faced, one in the East and the one in the West, seeing hem ultimately from one common ancestor or father, who assigns his 3 sons different parts of the world (which, in turn, caused Gobineau to come up with the nonsensical idea that all civilizations, even those in the far East, were actually the work of the "Aryans"...):

And even when it tries to point a finger of blame on these enemies, it does so gently, with a much less hateful propaganda than its enemies used against IRAN:

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/iranian-identity-iii-medieval-islamic-period

 

Regardless being buffeted by external enemies. Iran makes endless threats to destroy Israel.
Israel does not make endless threats to nuke Iran - though it can at a moment's notice.
Here Iran is the enemy of peace.
The story of the high priest Eli at the cultic center at Shiloh I take to be an historic account.
It was not something invented 700 years later. That's the mythology of "scholars" who hate
the bible.
And Daniel lived in Babylonian times. Did HE write in Babylonian times? Well, say the scholars,
this was written four hundred years later. You can't win, can you? So I say, "prove that."