Oh dear, David F., You appear to have draped the stage with your usual props.

Found this by Krishnamurti from "Truth is a pathless land".

Man cannot come to it through any organisation, through any creed, dogma, priest or ritual; nor through any philosophical knowledge or psychological technique. He has to find it through the mirror of relationship, through the understanding of the contents of his own mind, through observation. Man has built himself images as a sense of security - religious, political, personal. These manifest as symbols,ideas, beliefs. The burden of these dominates man's thinking, relationships and his daily life. These are the causes which divide man from man in every relationship.

davidf:

<That is reductionism to a we/they idea. The Marxists decided who was a have and who was a have not. The result of that decision was mounds of corpses. In Cambodia a criterion for being a have was being a university graduate so they killed them.

Your real world is not a real world but a world defined by ideology>

davidf,
"that" is a reductionism (ad absurdum) of what I said in the context of previous threads.

You know nothing of my real world, but are like a worn out stylus stuck in a groove.

ideology is a perennial theme of mine, is it not?

But this is your thread, please feel free to dictate the ideology..

Dear Poirot,

Yes, my usual props. I am appalled by mass murder. Marxists would rather not discuss the mass murders but talk about ideology. That's understandable. I see the murders as a direct result of the ideology. I see Lenin and Hitler as the two evil geniuses of the twentieth century. I see Marx as a Jew hating bigot who used class identification as bigotry.

That was an interesting quote from Krishnamurti, and I thank you for it. We are divided by the images we build up.

Dear Squeers,

This thread will go where it will. I don't own it. I only started it. Upon reflection I see little point in discussing anything with AGIR and runner. Nevertheless I do. There may be no more point in discussing things with you, but we can continue also.

However, the statement: "In the real world the only two categories that counts are _________________" is a we/they statement whatever the two categories are. I would rather not divide people into two categories but recognise we have many sources of identity and power. I would also try to recognise the common humanity between people regardless of what categories are used to divide them up. Whether ideology is a perennial theme of yours is moot but dividing humanity into only two meaningful categories is a statement of ideology.

Implicitly I have employed Russell's paradox. I oppose all we/they ideas. In doing so I have implicitly divided humanity into two groups - those who espouse we/they ideas and those who don't. That in itself can be characterised as a we/they idea. That paradox is resolved by making my statement a metastatement on a different abstraction level. Nevertherless I see Marxism as a we/they idea and oppose it along with other we/they ideas.

Ummmmmm Shintaro... "evangelicals" ?

Police said today his sexual orientation had nothing to do with the killing and that one "robber" had been arrested.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/world/gay-activist-bludgeoned-to-death/story-e6frfkzr-1225995862463#ixzz1CUrvEWKs

DEFINITION. "Evangelical"

Evangelicalism is a Protestant Christian movement which began in Great Britain in the 1730s.[1] Its key commitments are:
* The need for personal conversion (or being "born again")
* Actively expressing and sharing the gospel
* A high regard for biblical authority, especially biblical inerrancy
* An emphasis on teachings that proclaim the death and resurrection of Jesus.

And I would agree with those points of definition.

Given that there is NOTHING within them even remotely suggesting the propensity to murder..as David has clearly suggested we ARE capable of... I remain adamant that David has committed religious vilification and incitement to hatred toward evangelicals Christians.

Evangelical "Euangellion" Mark 1:1 "The beginning of the 'EUANGELLION' of Jesus Christ, Son of God"

From Mark 1.1 to Mark 16:8
From Matthew 1.1 to Matthew 28:20
From Luke 1.1 to Luke 24.53
From John 1.1 to John 21.25

You will not find a syllable of Jesus advocating or commanding his followers to commit the slightest act of violence against unbelievers.
Rather, he commissioned his followers to proclaim and then if rejected, move on.

You WILL however find ample evidence of hatred from unbelievers toward Christians.

and for those thinking about it Matt 10:34.. read the WHOLE passage.
and for those thinking about Luke 19:11ff sorry.. context context context.

correction, in my last post I meant to say "in the context of previous 'posts'", not "threads" (although other threads will bear me out).

Lexi,
I'm bound to say that for such an intelligent person I' occasionally gobsmacked at what you come out with.

davidf,

I was arguing against all the intellectualisng and moralising that goes on among the haves in the place of material considerations. The have nots do not have the luxury of pontificating over their lot.
You seem to find it crass or offensive (or potentially murderous!) in some highly sophisticated sense that escapes me. But I am merely trying to see above the mountain of bullsh!t we've constructed to obscure the simple fact of gross disparities. These disparities are not based on merit and are not unfortunate irreconsiliables, but comprise the one inseparable paradigm--in the context of our "enlightened" values. We occupy the one planet and are the one species, what's more there is a history of unequal, neigh exploitative, congress between the deep-thinking gluttons and the intellectually-challenged ne'er-do-wells. I only ask that we give up professing our "humanity" and admit we are a vicious, self-serving race of ideologues exploiting geographical and historical good-fortune.

You may demonise my comments all you like.

AGIR wrote:

"You WILL however find ample evidence of hatred from unbelievers toward Christians."

There is a lot of evidence of hatred by Christians toward others. You are defined by what you do. As the Evangelical Sisterhood of St Mary pointed out the Christian record of hatred is a sorry one. You ignore the centuries of Christian hatred.

From their website:

http://www.kanaan.org/international/israel/israel4.htm

... our eyes were opened to see the enormity of the crimes committed by our people against the Jewish people. From the depths of our hearts an anguished cry arose, a cry inspired by the Spirit of God:
..
Despite all this, however, there remains a heavy burden on my heart. This burden has to do with our history as the Christian Church in the last 2000 years.

... Yet love has not been characteristic of Christianity's attitude to the Jews these past 2000 years.

After the age of the apostles, the theory arose that God was through with the Jews, that the Church was the New Israel and that the Jews were being punished for the crime of killing God. Later, when Christianity became the state religion, this theology was used as the basis for anti-Jewish policies. In time, the Jews were blamed for every calamity. A case in point is the Black Death, said to have been caused by the Jews poisoning the wells. In the name of Jesus unimaginable atrocities were committed: Jews were humiliated, deprived of their rights, baptised by force, burnt at the stake -- thousands upon thousands of them. Christian festivals, such as Easter, were sometimes chosen as a time to attack Jews. While burning the Jewish population in the synagogue in Jerusalem, the Crusaders sang 'Christ, We Adore Thee'

You keep ignoring the evidence. Is the Sisterhood lying?

You are also using the term unbeliever wrongly. Non-Christians in general are not unbelievers. They merely believe something different.