Individualism and Judachrislam

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm not trying to make that claim. I'm responding to Ben, who is claiming that the poor shouldn't struggle against the rich.

It works both ways. The rich and poor should serve each other, as they are brothers.

So since we are all equal we aren't allowed to have any conflict at all? So you are against all war?

A class struggle is pointless because you tear at yourself. Maybe you haven't figured it out yet, hopefully you will soon. There are no classes Kid. There are people. The sooner you see them as people and not 'the poor' or 'the rich', the sooner you will understand.

[Theben]

Way to threadjack.

[Elok]

Yeah, now we have a people-arguing-with-BK waste of bandwidth instead of the wonderful Aneeshm-using-strawmen-to-illustrate-Hindu-superiority waste of bandwidth this might have grown into. We need diversity in bandwidth waste.

[DaShi]

Did someone say waste of bandwidth?

[Jon Miller]

What would happen if we had a combined Aneeshm+BK thread?

JM

[Theben]

Originally posted by Elok
Yeah, now we have a people-arguing-with-BK waste of bandwidth instead of the wonderful Aneeshm-using-strawmen-to-illustrate-Hindu-superiority waste of bandwidth this might have grown into. We need diversity in bandwidth waste.

Oh, I thought he was going to admit to Hindu inferiority. It's well-documented anyway.

[Zevico]

What would happen if we had a combined Aneeshm+BK thread?

The posnidacknitrons would go mad, killing us all.

[aneeshm]

This isn't really a matter of superiority any longer. I'm asking because I'm simply curious. I've never come across a coherent treatment of what position individualism, in the two senses I've used it here, has in the traditions I mentioned, and so I have no idea.

From this thread, it seems that nobody else does, either.

[Elok]

As we've told you, there tends to be some diversity of thought among three separate religions that between them make up more than half of the Earth's population.

[Pekka]

I should also point out, the relation of Church to the handling of the poor, a group, that was confined at some point, group consisting of all unwanted, the mad, drunkards and so forth, that it saw idleness as the open gateway to evil... but this changed.

And the point with Christianity and the poor, because the madness for example, it was seen as ... it was seen as if the animal evil was in that man. Yes? So it was much afraid, as it was evil. Evil in that man. And evil had to be brought into public in order for it to be won against, that is they weren't hidden, they were punished in public. Because evil shoudln't be hidden, there, in the dark it wins.

But then evil didn't have much to do with it, as thoughts progressed, that the man just went mad, period. Earlier, it was evil, and that evil was in all of us, but in that man the evil had won. But then the concept of evil was separated, as man simply went mad. It became an animal. THis is why they were caged, and disciplined as if they were animals. This is when they became a show, you could pay money to see these madmen performing. They truly were a spectacle and considered as animals more than humans. But evil didn't have much to do with it. But the simply insane, the ones with no berzerker abilities, they were hidden. Now they could be hidden, because they weren't evil per se, but they shamed their own profession and their families, so they could be confinied and hidden. And what else would you do with them anwyay.

But thne, the Church did change their position later on. They saw that Jesus was surrounded by madmen and the likes, the unwanted. That Jesus himself accepted that he was seen as mad. So therefor the mad and the insane weren't seen as evil, nor a show for others. But they were seen as the image of God, even more so, because the way of Jesus. This was sort of a late change in Church, but it did come. And so the poor and the likes, confined people, they weren't evil anymore.

So poor versus rich did change as well. Poor could be seen as images of God, and in fact what Jesus was surrounded by and was seen as by many others. They weren't praised, but let's just say they got rid of that negative image.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Aneeshm, will you answer my questions about Tao-buddho-hinduism?

Aww, you can do better than that.

Buddihintaoism

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It works both ways. The rich and poor should serve each other, as they are brothers.

I know that in the Bible Jesus says to serve the poor and you will serve him. I'm not aware that he says to serve the rich. Now that's what I call Supply Side Jesus. Can you provide verse to show where you are getting this?

A class struggle is pointless because you tear at yourself. Maybe you haven't figured it out yet, hopefully you will soon. There are no classes Kid.

There are classes. You've been talking about them as though they exist.

There are people. The sooner you see them as people and not 'the poor' or 'the rich', the sooner you will understand.

I understand that they are rich and poor just as you do, just as Jesus did.

[Kidlicious]

Also Ben my response to your PM is that, yes Christians have been hostle towards communism, and communists tend to be athiest often, but the Bible does not make class struggle a sin. Only Christians themselves have done that.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Pekka
But thne, the Church did change their position later on. They saw that Jesus was surrounded by madmen and the likes, the unwanted. That Jesus himself accepted that he was seen as mad. So therefor the mad and the insane weren't seen as evil, nor a show for others. But they were seen as the image of God, even more so, because the way of Jesus. This was sort of a late change in Church, but it did come. And so the poor and the likes, confined people, they weren't evil anymore.

So poor versus rich did change as well. Poor could be seen as images of God, and in fact what Jesus was surrounded by and was seen as by many others. They weren't praised, but let's just say they got rid of that negative image.

What christians praise the poor as images of God? Only liberation christians do that. Every other christians see the poor as sinners. They believe that people are poor because of sin.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Kidicious
What christians praise the poor as images of God? Only liberation christians do that. Every other christians see the poor as sinners. They believe that people are poor because of sin.

...no. I'm certainly not a liberation theologian and I don't think it's necessarily a poor person's fault that he's poor (I say necessarily because if a guy gambles his wages away in Vegas, it is indeed his own fault he's penniless). The poor are sinners, but only in the same sense that all humans are.

For scriptural support for the idea that poverty is not evil, see the parable of Lazarus in Matthew, etc., etc. I'm sure Nikolai can do this better than I can.