Jesus was a Jew. Why do some Christians and Muslims hate Jew

[Greatest I am]

Better yet, why do so many Jews hate Christians?
w.

Oh, perhaps because of 2,000 years of persecution, kidnapping, murder, theft, etc.

Yet few Jews show their deserved contempt for the religion that usurped their god and changed him from a decent sort to the genocidal prick that Christians now favor.

Regards
DL

[Meno_]

Maybe, that is because they were too busy to search for safe haven, even back in Anatolia in the Ottoman empire, to think of ways to worsen the situation.

Weakness? Possibly. Sticks and stones ? Perhaps the negated formation of anti-Christ. That may be an early form of moral justification via reversal, or negative thinking , now reverse psychology.

[Greatest I am]

Maybe, that is because they were too busy to search for safe haven, even back in Anatolia in the Ottoman empire, to think of ways to worsen the situation.

Weakness? Possibly. Sticks and stones ? Perhaps the negated formation of anti-Christ. That may be an early form of moral justification via reversal, or negative thinking , now reverse psychology.

Worsen?

You think Jews are into S & M?

Regards
DL

[Meno_]

Maybe, that is because they were too busy to search for safe haven, even back in Anatolia in the Ottoman empire, to think of ways to worsen the situation.

Weakness? Possibly. Sticks and stones ? Perhaps the negated formation of anti-Christ. That may be an early form of moral justification via reversal, or negative thinking , now reverse psychology.

Worsen?

You think Jews are into S & M?

Regards
DL

Very definitely. Victimhood of Jesus up there, front and center. You do not think for a minute that reverse psychology was formed literally? A very large percentage loved Him, and sacrifice was in a sense holy and derivitive to group survival.

In fact everyone was convinced by then of his immortal kingdom.

[Greatest I am]

Maybe, that is because they were too busy to search for safe haven, even back in Anatolia in the Ottoman empire, to think of ways to worsen the situation.

Weakness? Possibly. Sticks and stones ? Perhaps the negated formation of anti-Christ. That may be an early form of moral justification via reversal, or negative thinking , now reverse psychology.

Worsen?

You think Jews are into S & M?

Regards
DL

Very definitely. Victimhood of Jesus up there, front and center. You do not think for a minute that reverse psychology was formed literally? A very large percentage loved Him, and sacrifice was in a sense holy and derivitive to group survival.

In fact everyone was convinced by then of his immortal kingdom.

They would have seen Jesus as a deluded fool who was ff the mark in thinking he was to be the anointed one.

Let his blood be on us they screamed, because Jesus was trying to be their savior, but failed miserably. He just ended as just another wasted sacrifice.

Regards
DL

[Meno_]

Yes the mob.The rabbis saw him as more a political liability, though.
And the disciples did spread some believable word.

He may have been completely insane also, but how about delusive incidents such as the burning Bush?
I think delusion was collusive with normality, as it is today as well.

[Meno_]

Yes the mob.The rabbis saw him as more a political liability, though.
And the disciples did spread some believable word.

He may have been completely insane also, but how about delusive incidents such as the burning Bush?
I think delusion was collusive with normality, as it is today as well.

Jacob's sacrificial love for god , of his son is not just. coincidental either.

[Greatest I am]

Yes the mob.The rabbis saw him as more a political liability, though.
And the disciples did spread some believable word.

He may have been completely insane also, but how about delusive incidents such as the burning Bush?
I think delusion was collusive with normality, as it is today as well.

A literalist would see the burning bush as a miracle.

An esoteric and mystical thinker like Jesus would just see it as Moses reaching his Father Complex, as called by Yung and Freud, by activating his pineal gland and entering a full meditative state.

Most of the O.T. is depicting what is to go on inside our own minds.

That is why the Genesis painting shows god laid upon a representation of our right hemisphere. It also shows Jesus in a womb.

Regards
DL

[Meno_]

Yes the mob.The rabbis saw him as more a political liability, though.
And the disciples did spread some believable word.

He may have been completely insane also, but how about delusive incidents such as the burning Bush?
I think delusion was collusive with normality, as it is today as well.

A literalist would see the burning bush as a miracle.

An esoteric and mystical thinker like Jesus would just see it as Moses reaching his Father Complex, as called by Yung and Freud, by activating his pineal gland and entering a full meditative state.

Most of the O.T. is depicting what is to go on inside our own minds.

That is why the Genesis painting shows god laid upon a representation of our right hemisphere. It also shows Jesus in a womb.

Regards
DL

Or reversely.
The security of our minds if, it is descriptive of that necessity, vis; that such was necessary for literal pieces to integrate with/in the symbolic, than the answer is paradoxically correct.

And that further indicates the intra subjective requirement to/for an interconnected partiality within the whole.

[Meno_]

See the middle is a hard way!

[Greatest I am]

Yes the mob.The rabbis saw him as more a political liability, though.
And the disciples did spread some believable word.

He may have been completely insane also, but how about delusive incidents such as the burning Bush?
I think delusion was collusive with normality, as it is today as well.

A literalist would see the burning bush as a miracle.

An esoteric and mystical thinker like Jesus would just see it as Moses reaching his Father Complex, as called by Yung and Freud, by activating his pineal gland and entering a full meditative state.

Most of the O.T. is depicting what is to go on inside our own minds.

That is why the Genesis painting shows god laid upon a representation of our right hemisphere. It also shows Jesus in a womb.

Regards
DL

Or reversely.
The security of our minds if, it is descriptive of that necessity, vis; that such was necessary for literal pieces to integrate with/in the symbolic, than the answer is paradoxically correct.

And that further indicates the intra subjective requirement to/for an interconnected partiality within the whole.

Ouch.
The language thrown at this Frenchman.

I think I agree, mon ami.

Regards
DL

[Meno_]

Merci, / mercy.

[Greatest I am]

Merci, / mercy.

Bien venu.

Regards
DL

[MagsJ]

We have been civilized for a long time now. Just not enough of us.

I couldn’t agree more.. the state of the world is obviously very reflective of this, and greater progress is hindered because of it. The best and only thing to do.. to find your niche, and live and exist under your own terms, and not be tarnished by uncivil and unprogressive things.

I think they call it.. feeling out of place. ; )

[Greatest I am]

We have been civilized for a long time now. Just not enough of us.

I couldn’t agree more.. the state of the world is obviously very reflective of this, and greater progress is hindered because of it. The best and only thing to do.. to find your niche, and live and exist under your own terms, and not be tarnished by uncivil and unprogressive things.

I think they call it.. feeling out of place. ; )

We cannot but be dirtied when the streets of Eden are full of trash.

If we are to call ourselves moral people, we have to try to drag people up to par.

I see it as our duty.

Imagine if none of us had tried to correct each others evil ways. We would still be in the trees.

Better to girdle our loins and be warriors than to find a niche to hide in.

Cowards can never be moral.

I do not prefer this as my own term. Duty demands it of me.

Regards
DL

[Antithesis]

Better yet, why do so many Jews hate Christians?
w.

Oh, perhaps because of 2,000 years of persecution, kidnapping, murder, theft, etc.

Yet few Jews show their deserved contempt for the religion that usurped their god and changed him from a decent sort to the genocidal prick that Christians now favor.

Regards
DL

Jews were by far and away, disproportionately banksters, communists and libertines, and banksters, communists and libertines were destroying Germany.
Additionally German Jews allied with the UK and US against Germany in WW1.
Jews are not innocent victims, now as then, they are disproportionately wealthy, powerful and will crush anything that stands in their way.

[Greatest I am]

Better yet, why do so many Jews hate Christians?
w.

Oh, perhaps because of 2,000 years of persecution, kidnapping, murder, theft, etc.

Yet few Jews show their deserved contempt for the religion that usurped their god and changed him from a decent sort to the genocidal prick that Christians now favor.

Regards
DL

Jews were by far and away, disproportionately banksters, communists and libertines, and banksters, communists and libertines were destroying Germany.
Additionally German Jews allied with the UK and US against Germany in WW1.
Jews are not innocent victims, now as then, they are disproportionately wealthy, powerful and will crush anything that stands in their way.

There are only two ways for one nation to capture the other. Economic control or military/force control.

Jews were good at the former and their morals prevented the later.

That was not the moral position of most other war mongering peoples.

Compare that to Christianity and Islam growing with inquisitions and jihads because they did not have the intelligence to grow any other way.

Who are the most moral and who are bastards?

Regards
DL

[Karpel Tunnel]

Jews were by far and away, disproportionately banksters, communists and libertines, and banksters, communists and libertines were destroying Germany.
Additionally German Jews allied with the UK and US against Germany in WW1.
Jews are not innocent victims, now as then, they are disproportionately wealthy, powerful and will crush anything that stands in their way.

This is why all the poor Jews and farmer jews and the Jews living in little villages all over Eastern Europe needed to be killed, because some Jews in the cities had wealth? 100,000 Germans jews fought for Germany in WW1. I love the banksters, communists and libertines thing. They just couldn't make up their minds could they?

[Antithesis]

A lot of Jews hate whites too, even if they're irreligious.

There are only two ways for one nation to capture the other. Economic control or military/force control.

Don't forget media and political control.
Military control isn't the same thing as political control.
Historically Jews didn't have a military, so they used their economic, media and political influence to gain partial or full control over other nations' militaries.
They used other nations, the UK and US in particular to do their dirty work for them.
Now they have nukes and a military, one of the most powerful in the world (thanks to the UK and US, which've been arming, funding and training them for decades), which they use to bomb and oppress their neighbors like Lebanon and Palestine, but they'd still rather have the UK and US fight most of their battles for them.

Jews were good at the former and their morals prevented the later.

No before 1947 their lack of land and manpower prevented the latter.

That was not the moral position of most other war mongering peoples.

Compare that to Christianity and Islam growing with inquisitions and jihads because they did not have the intelligence to grow any other way.

Who are the most moral and who are bastards?

Economic terrorism can be nearly as devastating as military.

Christians have done a ton of good for this world, too.
It was Christians that gave us modern democracy, industry, science, tech and medicine, human rights, ended serfdom and slavery, founded charities and so on, not atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists.
We all owe a great debt to Christians.

[Greatest I am]

A lot of Jews hate whites too, even if they're irreligious.

There are only two ways for one nation to capture the other. Economic control or military/force control.

Don't forget media and political control.
Military control isn't the same thing as political control.
Historically Jews didn't have a military, so they used their economic, media and political power to gain partial or full control over other nations' militaries.
They used other nations, the UK and US in particular to do their dirty work for them.
Now they have nukes and a military, one of the most powerful in the world, thanks to the UK and US, which've been arming, funding and training them for decades, which they use to bomb and oppress their neighbors like Lebanon and Palestine, but they'd still rather have the UK and US fight their battles for them.

Jews were good at the former and their morals prevented the later.

No before 1947 their lack of land and manpower prevented the latter.

That was not the moral position of most other war mongering peoples.

Compare that to Christianity and Islam growing with inquisitions and jihads because they did not have the intelligence to grow any other way.

Who are the most moral and who are bastards?

Economic terrorism can be nearly as devastating as military.

Christians have done a ton of good for this world, too.
It was Christians that gave us modern democracy, science and medicine, human rights, ended slavery, founded charities and so on, not atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists.
We all owe a great debt to Christians.

I do not think so. You are giving a fascist religion more credit than they deserve.

Here you are praising a religion that glorifies a genocidal and infanticidal prick of an imaginary god, that was created by a Roman government, and has kept it's homophobic and misogynous ways and still tries to deny half of the worlds population first class citizenship.

Where the hell is your moral sense?

Regards
DL

[Antithesis]

A lot of Jews hate whites too, even if they're irreligious.

There are only two ways for one nation to capture the other. Economic control or military/force control.

Don't forget media and political control.
Military control isn't the same thing as political control.
Historically Jews didn't have a military, so they used their economic, media and political power to gain partial or full control over other nations' militaries.
They used other nations, the UK and US in particular to do their dirty work for them.
Now they have nukes and a military, one of the most powerful in the world, thanks to the UK and US, which've been arming, funding and training them for decades, which they use to bomb and oppress their neighbors like Lebanon and Palestine, but they'd still rather have the UK and US fight their battles for them.

Jews were good at the former and their morals prevented the later.

No before 1947 their lack of land and manpower prevented the latter.

That was not the moral position of most other war mongering peoples.

Compare that to Christianity and Islam growing with inquisitions and jihads because they did not have the intelligence to grow any other way.

Who are the most moral and who are bastards?

Economic terrorism can be nearly as devastating as military.

Christians have done a ton of good for this world, too.
It was Christians that gave us modern democracy, science and medicine, human rights, ended slavery, founded charities and so on, not atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists.
We all owe a great debt to Christians.

I do not think so. You are giving a fascist religion more credit than they deserve.

Here you are praising a religion that glorifies a genocidal and infanticidal prick of an imaginary god, that was created by a Roman government, and has kept it's homophobic and misogynous ways and still tries to deny half of the worlds population first class citizenship.

Where the hell is your moral sense?

Regards
DL

Christians are taught by Christ, his disciples and most churches today to hate what they call 'sin', not 'sinners'.
Insofar as Christians hate 'sinners', they're behaving more like Jews and Muslims than Christians.

As for women, while chivalry prescribes different roles for women (men are to be the primary breadwinners, women homemakers), it's by no means anti-woman.
Christian men are suppose to lay their life down for women, give their own lives for women, put them on a pedestal.
While the man is suppose to be the leader, he's also suppose to be the protector and provider, to defend the life and honor of all women, not just his own wife and daughters.
Abuse of women is 'sin'.
A Christian wife is free to divorce, and her family, friends and community have a duty to intervene if they feel she's being mistreated.

Christianity promotes strong family values, and without those values, we wouldn't be where we are today.
Does atheism have a future?
Most atheists scarcely have any children.
If the west becomes even more secular than it already is, it may die out, and be replaced by Muslims, or Catholic Hispanics.
Studies have shown that at least within countries, Christians are happier and healthier, physically, and mentally than the irreligious, and that they have more stable, harmonious families and communities.

[Antithesis]

Jews were by far and away, disproportionately banksters, communists and libertines, and banksters, communists and libertines were destroying Germany.
Additionally German Jews allied with the UK and US against Germany in WW1.
Jews are not innocent victims, now as then, they are disproportionately wealthy, powerful and will crush anything that stands in their way.

This is why all the poor Jews and farmer jews and the Jews living in little villages all over Eastern Europe needed to be killed, because some Jews in the cities had wealth? 100,000 Germans jews fought for Germany in WW1. I love the banksters, communists and libertines thing. They just couldn't make up their minds could they?

I'm not against hedonism, but if the excess hedonism of the libertine becomes too widespread, it leaves a nation vulnerable to takeover both by armies from without, and by parasites from within, and banksters and Marxists are parasites.

What do banksterism and Marxism have in common?
Centralized control, oligarchy, under the guise of liberty and equality.
When most capitalists and workers are pretty ethical, when capitalism has been purged of corporatism, state capitalism and fractional reserve banking (and when there's a strong safety net), capitalism is one of, if not the best systems, but when most people are pretty unethical, when capitalism has been corrupted by corporatism, state capitalism and fractional reserve banking (and when there's a little-no safety net), capitalism is one of the worst systems.
Jews are disproportionately involved in both Marxism, and the bad kind of capitalism.

Jews are also disproportionately anti-nationalist, at least for everyone else but themselves.
Christians and whites are prevented by the Jewish, and liberal communities from organizing to defend themselves against anti-Christian and anti-white policies.

[promethean75]

historical materialism, ie. 'marxism', is built around an incredibly simple premise, and yet history insists it's impossibly difficult to realize. or at least that's what history would have us believe by showing us those immature stages we mistook for true marxist states. but nobody well versed enough in marxism would ever call china or russia or any of the little satellite countries 'marxist' in the full sense of the word. state capitalist dictatorships, maybe, but shirley not worker-run and controlled democratic governments. and this is why marxism gets a bad rap; it's associated with instances in history at which is wasn't fully developed. like this stuff:

What do banksterism and Marxism have in common?
Centralized control, oligarchy, under the guise of liberty and equality.

to be sure, 'centralized control' plays a role in the establishment of a marxist state, but isn't the end-game at all. most marxists agree that during a revolutionary period some kind of central leadership is required to mastermind the operation and give it organization and direction.

but the real give-away when you're talking to someone who's only repeating the same old tired nonsense about marxism, is the 'equality' myth. so common it ought to be on bumper stickers by now. abolishing privately owned business and putting the means and modes of production into the hands of the workers has nothing to do with any 'equality'.

it's the genius of the conservative right to portray marxism as some kind of utopian fantasy that even an idiot would deny was possible, see. today there's really only two kinds of anti-marxists. one kind has been brainwashed into believing it's impossible, and the other kind has something to lose directly if it were ever realized. the first kind isn't the real danger. they're just uneducated and backward. the second kind is the problem; they're the capitalist parasites that have something to lose if they're no longer able to profit from someone else's labor and are forced to become productive workers in society. i mean who the fuck wants to work, right? if you can figure out a way to make some other guy do the work while you get the rewards, you'd have to be a decent person not to do so. and how many capitalists do you know that want to be decent people?

so my beef - and imma third party anarcho-nihilist just watching the show, btw - with capitalists is that they're still trying to convince themselves and others that they have any concern for the well being of anyone but themselves and their immediate family/friends. in such a case you'd have to be either a liar or an imbecile. and that's my problem; i don't like liars because they're weaklings and cowards... and i don't like imbeciles because they're imbeciles.

When most capitalists and workers are pretty ethical, when capitalism has been purged of corporatism, state capitalism and fractional reserve banking (and when there's a strong safety net), capitalism is one of, if not the best systems, but when most people are unethical

and therein lies the fundamental error. ethics begins and is only made possible for/between people when they are equally obligated to share and engage in material production. if a society can't get this much right before anything else... before any idiot philosopher utters the first word about any 'social contract' or 'constitution', there can be no reconciliation or peace between the classes such a society necessarily creates in the event that this obligation is not met by all its citizens.

it baffles me how so many brilliant thinkers here and elsewhere can't seem to grasp this essential troof. i have seen every argument under the sun for the 'rationality' and 'necessity' of capitalism, and every one of them is full of hot air. no for real, bro. like i've been doing this shit for a looong mufuckin time. when i wuz 27 i thought i was possessed by the spirit of che guevara. it was bad, man.

[Greatest I am]

Antithesis

Sure, religions are great for in groups.

They like to kill too many of the out group to make up for any goodness.

We have 5,000 years of war to show for religious goodness.

Regards
DL

[Antithesis]

historical materialism, ie. 'marxism', is built around an incredibly simple premise, and yet history insists it's impossibly difficult to realize. or at least that's what history would have us believe by showing us those immature stages we mistook for true marxist states. but nobody well versed enough in marxism would ever call china or russia or any of the little satellite countries 'marxist' in the full sense of the word. state capitalist dictatorships, maybe, but shirley not worker-run and controlled democratic governments. and this is why marxism gets a bad rap; it's associated with instances in history at which is wasn't fully developed. like this stuff:

Ergatocracy, or government by and for armed, local and directly democratically organized workers, sounds good to me.
Maybe after the current system collapses.
And confederations of such governments can form.

to be sure, 'centralized control' plays a role in the establishment of a marxist state, but isn't the end-game at all. most marxists agree that during a revolutionary period some kind of central leadership is required to mastermind the operation and give it organization and direction.

Centralized & vertical control begets centralized & vertical control.
The experiment has been tried repeatedly and failed repeatedly.
Scores of social anarchists and democratic socialists parted with Marxists on this.
It has to be decentralized and horizontal from the get-go.

but the real give-away when you're talking to someone who's only repeating the same old tired nonsense about marxism, is the 'equality' myth. so common it ought to be on bumper stickers by now. abolishing privately owned business and putting the means and modes of production into the hands of the workers has nothing to do with any 'equality'.

More equality than we have now, but not absolute equality.

and therein lies the fundamental error. ethics begins and is only made possible for/between people when they are equally obligated to share and engage in material production. if a society can't get this much right before anything else... before any idiot philosopher utters the first word about any 'social contract' or 'constitution', there can be no reconciliation or peace between the classes such a society necessarily creates in the event that this obligation is not met by all its citizens.

it baffles me how so many brilliant thinkers here and elsewhere can't seem to grasp this essential troof. i have seen every argument under the sun for the 'rationality' and 'necessity' of capitalism, and every one of them is full of hot air. no for real, bro. like i've been doing this shit for a looong mufuckin time. when i wuz 27 i thought i was possessed by the spirit of che guevara. it was bad, man.

4 real, when 0.003% of the population or 1 out of every 33000 own 13% of the world's wealth, there can be no liberty, equality or democracy, we have to address that elephant 1st.