I think you need to be careful with throwing around “choseness” in this way because this is the exact perversion of the Jewish concept of choseness set forth in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Mein Kampf. I’m not trying to let Judaism off the hook for its genuine reactionary and regressive components (particularly with respect to women and non-normative sexuality), but it really muddies the waters when you overlay it with full-throated anti-Jewish projection onto Judaism.
Not really? There is an in-group (Jews) and an out-group (non-Jews, or Gentiles). The same applies for all monotheistic religions in a way that doesn’t gel with the fabric of polytheism. These concepts, over centuries and through different forms (especially Christianity for the “West”) were used to subjugate people by creating these in-groups and out-groups (to the point that the earliest use of the star of David to highlight the Jewish population I know of was done in England by Simon De Montfort (though I’m not an expert)).
That legacy still exists today and the institutions of wealth and (especially in places like the UK & Iran) governance. It’s a legacy of us vs them and colonialism that needs to be examined.
I mean, you just did it again. Wasn’t Simon De Montfort a Christian Crusader who persecuted the Jews? You are taking an antisemitic interpretation of “choseness” applied in a Christian framework that was then used to persecute Jews with a “they started it” argument. Which is exactly what the PEZ and MK did when they framed choseness. Rabbinic Judiasm (which is Judaism following the Roman conquest) deems “choseness” to be chosen NOT to control other populations. The Noahite laws, which apply to everyone whether Jewish or not (in the Jewish religion), specifically command the non Jews to create fair governments that the Jews could live under as 1 of 7 requirements. The Jews are “chosen” to follow the more stringent 613 commandments, which include following the laws of the just governments of non-Jews. Just saying that it creates categories of people is not unique to monotheism (or religion - see “America First”). And I don’t think it tracks that creating groups in any context necessarily leads to genocidal intent and practice.
You are conflating my criticism of monotheism with a direct criticism of Judaism. I am saying the core value of monotheism (i.e. there is one god and its the one I picked) has created a colonial mindset in all monotheistic religion. You’re saying “I did it again”, but I’m doing it for all. I mean the Arab conquests soon after Muhhamad’s death is the same as well.
Monotheism, as an ideology, has stolen a lot from us in terms of ways of thinking, belief, and added division in its stead. This continues to be true in major geopolitical states including America, Israel, Iran, and many, many more countries.
The irony is I’m not even an atheist. I’ve described a specific ideological problem I have with monotheism as a concept. Why does that upset you so badly? Why would that compel you to say someone doesn’t belong?
I think you are trying too hard to conflate the colonial/genocidal mindset with monotheism when the evidence doesn’t really support it. Was Ancient Rome not colonial and genocidal? Greece? Egypt? They also had slaves. They conquered everyone they could. The exterminated whole swaths of peoples. They didn’t need monotheism to do that. You could argue that the legacy of those polytheistic societies (specifically Egypt for the ancient Jews, Rome for Christians) laid the groundwork for the same genocidal/colonial mindset. But the main point is that the colonial and genocidal mindset is easier to understand from a class/material analysis than one tied to any specific theology. The monotheist theologies were used as a tool to organize and mobilize populations because that was the easiest tool to grab and it was couched in a language that the populations already spoke, but polytheists and other non-monotheists are just as capable of using their theological tools to do the same. For a more modern example, see for example the relationship between Hindu and Buddhist sides over Sri Lanka. Neither are abrahamic monotheisms, yet the colonial and genocidal tendency and forces are still at work.
While I think that’s interesting point, two things:
Destroyed swaths of people is dubious. Cultures, yes, men, yes, but peoples, no (hence the slaves but also why those lands were still administered by high ranking officials).
Essentially, I feel it’s whataboutism. There’s very good reason why it’s said the Philippines was conquered by friars, the Crusades weren’t caused by resources, and the age of Empire and the Atlantic slave trade were both back by the concept of monotheistic “other”.
Just because other ideologies (and theologies) have negative kernels, it does not excuse the vast negative issues the have directly born out of monotheistic religion as an aspect of otherhood and a sense of colonisation or superiority. That does not make them the sole source (the concept of land ownership, for example, is a non-theistic ideology that is used to cause group division and destruction). We could also talk about Manifest Destiny, as a non-religious movement (though it did have large religious support), but it’s not what I am talking about
Monotheism as it has manifested on the world stage has come with colonisation, destruction of old ideas, and entitled due to the other people being sinful heathens. It is a useful tool for the powerful (which is why we see the royal conversions in Europe, leading to internalised oppression of polytheistic beliefs). It is worth questioning.
I think you need to be careful with throwing around “choseness” in this way because this is the exact perversion of the Jewish concept of choseness set forth in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Mein Kampf. I’m not trying to let Judaism off the hook for its genuine reactionary and regressive components (particularly with respect to women and non-normative sexuality), but it really muddies the waters when you overlay it with full-throated anti-Jewish projection onto Judaism.
Not really? There is an in-group (Jews) and an out-group (non-Jews, or Gentiles). The same applies for all monotheistic religions in a way that doesn’t gel with the fabric of polytheism. These concepts, over centuries and through different forms (especially Christianity for the “West”) were used to subjugate people by creating these in-groups and out-groups (to the point that the earliest use of the star of David to highlight the Jewish population I know of was done in England by Simon De Montfort (though I’m not an expert)).
That legacy still exists today and the institutions of wealth and (especially in places like the UK & Iran) governance. It’s a legacy of us vs them and colonialism that needs to be examined.
I mean, you just did it again. Wasn’t Simon De Montfort a Christian Crusader who persecuted the Jews? You are taking an antisemitic interpretation of “choseness” applied in a Christian framework that was then used to persecute Jews with a “they started it” argument. Which is exactly what the PEZ and MK did when they framed choseness. Rabbinic Judiasm (which is Judaism following the Roman conquest) deems “choseness” to be chosen NOT to control other populations. The Noahite laws, which apply to everyone whether Jewish or not (in the Jewish religion), specifically command the non Jews to create fair governments that the Jews could live under as 1 of 7 requirements. The Jews are “chosen” to follow the more stringent 613 commandments, which include following the laws of the just governments of non-Jews. Just saying that it creates categories of people is not unique to monotheism (or religion - see “America First”). And I don’t think it tracks that creating groups in any context necessarily leads to genocidal intent and practice.
You are conflating my criticism of monotheism with a direct criticism of Judaism. I am saying the core value of monotheism (i.e. there is one god and its the one I picked) has created a colonial mindset in all monotheistic religion. You’re saying “I did it again”, but I’m doing it for all. I mean the Arab conquests soon after Muhhamad’s death is the same as well.
Monotheism, as an ideology, has stolen a lot from us in terms of ways of thinking, belief, and added division in its stead. This continues to be true in major geopolitical states including America, Israel, Iran, and many, many more countries.
deleted by creator
Quick what year is it??? Is it 2006 again? It feels like the worst time travel experiment ever
The irony is I’m not even an atheist. I’ve described a specific ideological problem I have with monotheism as a concept. Why does that upset you so badly? Why would that compel you to say someone doesn’t belong?
deleted by creator
Being chronically online isn’t a character trait. It’s an addiction.
deleted by creator
I think you are trying too hard to conflate the colonial/genocidal mindset with monotheism when the evidence doesn’t really support it. Was Ancient Rome not colonial and genocidal? Greece? Egypt? They also had slaves. They conquered everyone they could. The exterminated whole swaths of peoples. They didn’t need monotheism to do that. You could argue that the legacy of those polytheistic societies (specifically Egypt for the ancient Jews, Rome for Christians) laid the groundwork for the same genocidal/colonial mindset. But the main point is that the colonial and genocidal mindset is easier to understand from a class/material analysis than one tied to any specific theology. The monotheist theologies were used as a tool to organize and mobilize populations because that was the easiest tool to grab and it was couched in a language that the populations already spoke, but polytheists and other non-monotheists are just as capable of using their theological tools to do the same. For a more modern example, see for example the relationship between Hindu and Buddhist sides over Sri Lanka. Neither are abrahamic monotheisms, yet the colonial and genocidal tendency and forces are still at work.
While I think that’s interesting point, two things:
Destroyed swaths of people is dubious. Cultures, yes, men, yes, but peoples, no (hence the slaves but also why those lands were still administered by high ranking officials).
Essentially, I feel it’s whataboutism. There’s very good reason why it’s said the Philippines was conquered by friars, the Crusades weren’t caused by resources, and the age of Empire and the Atlantic slave trade were both back by the concept of monotheistic “other”.
Just because other ideologies (and theologies) have negative kernels, it does not excuse the vast negative issues the have directly born out of monotheistic religion as an aspect of otherhood and a sense of colonisation or superiority. That does not make them the sole source (the concept of land ownership, for example, is a non-theistic ideology that is used to cause group division and destruction). We could also talk about Manifest Destiny, as a non-religious movement (though it did have large religious support), but it’s not what I am talking about
Monotheism as it has manifested on the world stage has come with colonisation, destruction of old ideas, and entitled due to the other people being sinful heathens. It is a useful tool for the powerful (which is why we see the royal conversions in Europe, leading to internalised oppression of polytheistic beliefs). It is worth questioning.
deleted by creator
Nah didn’t see your name on the door.
deleted by creator