> > If Buddhism and communism and Christianity were
> > different kinds of things, rather than different
> > versions of the same thing, then being one of them
> > would be independent of being the other of them:
> > someone could be all of them, or none of them, or
> > any combination of them - which is not what we
> > observe. If someone is one of them, he cannot also
> > be the other of hem.

"Smiler"
> There *are* communist Bhuddists, communist Christians
> and communists Jews (Kibbutzniks).

Socialist Kibbutzniks were consciously atheistic and
anti religious - Jewish by race, not religion. The
religious kibbutzniks were unsocialist, identifying
rather with the American pioneers in the indian wars,
grouping for defense, rather than holding all in
common.. Communist Christians are "liberation
theologians" and their episcopalian equivalents who are
not in fact Christian, but rather hostile communist
infitrators into Christian institutions - moles. Their
concern with the revolution causes them to lose interest
in the resurrection. I am not familiar with Buddhist
communists - but we obviously don't have Buddhist
Christians or Christian communists, so I am inclined to
doubt the reality of Buddhist communists. Who do you
have in mind as a Buddhist communist? Name one.

Of course in dismissing liberation theologians as mere
moles, this is a bit like the no true scotsman defense -
but they surely don't *sound* like Christians - their
focus is overtly on this world and this life, and they
interpret Jesus as addressing this world, not the next.
If someone felt that Marx was important and true, and
addressed this world, and Jesus was important and true,
and addressed the next world, then he would be a
Christian communist, but when he starts reconstructing
Christ as a revolutionary agitator calling for a
proletarian uprising ...


--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

"James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:dajhm31ms00a9mbn9kcbsoucegrvdhlg2f@4ax.com...
>> > If Buddhism and communism and Christianity were
>> > different kinds of things, rather than different
>> > versions of the same thing, then being one of them
>> > would be independent of being the other of them:
>> > someone could be all of them, or none of them, or
>> > any combination of them - which is not what we
>> > observe. If someone is one of them, he cannot also
>> > be the other of hem.
>
> "Smiler"
>> There *are* communist Bhuddists, communist Christians
>> and communists Jews (Kibbutzniks).
>
> Socialist Kibbutzniks were consciously atheistic and
> anti religious - Jewish by race, not religion. The
> religious kibbutzniks were unsocialist, identifying
> rather with the American pioneers in the indian wars,
> grouping for defense, rather than holding all in
> common.. Communist Christians are "liberation
> theologians" and their episcopalian equivalents who are
> not in fact Christian, but rather hostile communist
> infitrators into Christian institutions - moles. Their
> concern with the revolution causes them to lose interest
> in the resurrection. I am not familiar with Buddhist
> communists - but we obviously don't have Buddhist
> Christians or Christian communists, so I am inclined to
> doubt the reality of Buddhist communists. Who do you
> have in mind as a Buddhist communist? Name one.
>
> Of course in dismissing liberation theologians as mere
> moles, this is a bit like the no true scotsman defense -
> but they surely don't *sound* like Christians - their
> focus is overtly on this world and this life, and they
> interpret Jesus as addressing this world, not the next.
> If someone felt that Marx was important and true, and
> addressed this world, and Jesus was important and true,
> and addressed the next world, then he would be a
> Christian communist, but when he starts reconstructing
> Christ as a revolutionary agitator calling for a
> proletarian uprising ...
>

All served up with a large portion of porrage and haggis.

Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279

"James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:dajhm31ms00a9mbn9kcbsoucegrvdhlg2f@4ax.com...
>> > If Buddhism and communism and Christianity were
>> > different kinds of things, rather than different
>> > versions of the same thing, then being one of them
>> > would be independent of being the other of them:
>> > someone could be all of them, or none of them, or
>> > any combination of them - which is not what we
>> > observe. If someone is one of them, he cannot also
>> > be the other of hem.
>
> "Smiler"
>> There *are* communist Bhuddists, communist Christians
>> and communists Jews (Kibbutzniks).
>
> Socialist Kibbutzniks were consciously atheistic and
> anti religious - Jewish by race, not religion. The
> religious kibbutzniks were unsocialist, identifying
> rather with the American pioneers in the indian wars,
> grouping for defense, rather than holding all in
> common..

In what way could the invading American pioneers be thought to have been
in defensive positions in the Indian wars.

Karl Johanson

James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:dajhm31ms00a9mbn9kcbsoucegrvdhlg2f@4ax.com...
> > > If Buddhism and communism and Christianity were
> > > different kinds of things, rather than different
> > > versions of the same thing, then being one of them
> > > would be independent of being the other of them:
> > > someone could be all of them, or none of them, or
> > > any combination of them - which is not what we
> > > observe. If someone is one of them, he cannot also
> > > be the other of hem.
>
> "Smiler"
> > There *are* communist Bhuddists, communist Christians
> > and communists Jews (Kibbutzniks).
>
> Socialist Kibbutzniks were consciously atheistic and
> anti religious - Jewish by race, not religion. The
> religious kibbutzniks were unsocialist, identifying
> rather with the American pioneers in the indian wars,
> grouping for defense, rather than holding all in
> common.. Communist Christians are "liberation
> theologians" and their episcopalian equivalents who are
> not in fact Christian, but rather hostile communist
> infitrators into Christian institutions - moles. Their
> concern with the revolution causes them to lose interest
> in the resurrection. I am not familiar with Buddhist
> communists - but we obviously don't have Buddhist
> Christians or Christian communists, so I am inclined to
> doubt the reality of Buddhist communists. Who do you
> have in mind as a Buddhist communist? Name one.
>
> Of course in dismissing liberation theologians as mere
> moles, this is a bit like the no true scotsman defense -
> but they surely don't *sound* like Christians - their
> focus is overtly on this world and this life, and they
> interpret Jesus as addressing this world, not the next.
> If someone felt that Marx was important and true, and
> addressed this world, and Jesus was important and true,
> and addressed the next world, then he would be a
> Christian communist, but when he starts reconstructing
> Christ as a revolutionary agitator calling for a
> proletarian uprising ...
>

That does seem to frighten James, whereas a bunch of fundie christians
calling for the bombing and murder of Muslims, assassination of 'lefties',
religious control of education and public health, and a general clamp-down
on personal and public freedoms is all rather fine in his 'libertarian'
book.....

On 19-Dec-2007, "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:

> "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
> news:dajhm31ms00a9mbn9kcbsoucegrvdhlg2f@4ax.com...
> >> > If Buddhism and communism and Christianity were
> >> > different kinds of things, rather than different
> >> > versions of the same thing, then being one of them
> >> > would be independent of being the other of them:
> >> > someone could be all of them, or none of them, or
> >> > any combination of them - which is not what we
> >> > observe. If someone is one of them, he cannot also
> >> > be the other of hem.
> >
> > "Smiler"
> >> There *are* communist Bhuddists, communist Christians
> >> and communists Jews (Kibbutzniks).
> >
> > Socialist Kibbutzniks were consciously atheistic and
> > anti religious - Jewish by race, not religion.

Except for Judaism not being a race, of course...

> > The
> > religious kibbutzniks were unsocialist,

Untrue as well.

> > identifying
> > rather with the American pioneers in the indian wars,
> > grouping for defense, rather than holding all in
> > common..
>
> In what way could the invading American pioneers be thought to have been
> in defensive positions in the Indian wars.

If you took the position that it was perfectly okay to move into a
country without asking anyone's permission (which I believe they
did, for various reasons I coud discuss but aren't necessarily...
necessary, here, if only because they do not apply), then yes,
they considered they were defending themselves against the Indians.

Susan
>
> Karl Johanson

Karl Johanson <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:9Jjaj.21181$Tx.243@pd7urf3no...
> "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
> news:dajhm31ms00a9mbn9kcbsoucegrvdhlg2f@4ax.com...
> >> > If Buddhism and communism and Christianity were
> >> > different kinds of things, rather than different
> >> > versions of the same thing, then being one of them
> >> > would be independent of being the other of them:
> >> > someone could be all of them, or none of them, or
> >> > any combination of them - which is not what we
> >> > observe. If someone is one of them, he cannot also
> >> > be the other of hem.
> >
> > "Smiler"
> >> There *are* communist Bhuddists, communist Christians
> >> and communists Jews (Kibbutzniks).
> >
> > Socialist Kibbutzniks were consciously atheistic and
> > anti religious - Jewish by race, not religion. The
> > religious kibbutzniks were unsocialist, identifying
> > rather with the American pioneers in the indian wars,
> > grouping for defense, rather than holding all in
> > common..
>
> In what way could the invading American pioneers be thought to have been
> in defensive positions in the Indian wars.

Tactical withdrawals in a forward direction. When they hit the Pacific and
could retreat no more they surrendered and their cunning enemy made sure
they were forced to take charge of it all...... a tragic tale indeed.
>


> Karl Johanson
>
>

"James A. Donald"
> > Socialist Kibbutzniks were consciously atheistic and
> > anti religious - Jewish by race, not religion. The
> > religious kibbutzniks were unsocialist, identifying
> > rather with the American pioneers in the indian
> > wars, grouping for defense, rather than holding all
> > in common..

"Karl Johanson"
> In what way could the invading American pioneers be
> thought to have been in defensive positions in the
> Indian wars.

Hunters are seldom thought of as individually owning
their hunting grounds - not by others, and not by
themselves.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

flaviaR@verizon.net:
> If you took the position that it was perfectly okay to
> move into a country without asking anyone's permission
> (which I believe they did, for various reasons I coud
> discuss but aren't necessarily... necessary, here, if
> only because they do not apply), then yes, they
> considered they were defending themselves against the
> Indians.

Jews are not in a position to complain about people
moving into a country without asking anyone's permission
- and at least some Jews did identify with the American
pioneers as providing a precedent and example of it
being right to do this. If some Jews hate and despise
the American pioneers, as a great many Jews do, then
they hate and despise themselves - as a great many Jews
do - Chomsky and Marx being notorious examples.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

"James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote
> "James A. Donald"
>> > Socialist Kibbutzniks were consciously atheistic and
>> > anti religious - Jewish by race, not religion. The
>> > religious kibbutzniks were unsocialist, identifying
>> > rather with the American pioneers in the indian
>> > wars, grouping for defense, rather than holding all
>> > in common..
>
> "Karl Johanson"
>> In what way could the invading American pioneers be
>> thought to have been in defensive positions in the
>> Indian wars.
>
> Hunters are seldom thought of as individually owning
> their hunting grounds - not by others, and not by
> themselves.

Interesting.

In what way could the invading American pioneers be
thought to have been in defensive positions in the
Indian wars?

Karl Johanson

On 20-Dec-2007, James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:

> laviaR@verizon.net:
> > If you took the position that it was perfectly okay to
> > move into a country without asking anyone's permission
> > (which I believe they did, for various reasons I coud
> > discuss but aren't necessarily... necessary, here, if
> > only because they do not apply), then yes, they
> > considered they were defending themselves against the
> > Indians.
>
> Jews are not in a position to complain about people
> moving into a country without asking anyone's permission

How so? We've never done anything like that.

>
> - and at least some Jews did identify with the American
> pioneers as providing a precedent and example of it
> being right to do this.

Just because a few were wrong about their history means nothing.

> If some Jews hate and despise
> the American pioneers, as a great many Jews do, then
> they hate and despise themselves

This is insane, given thatthe 2 groups are only superficially alike.

>- as a great many Jews
> do - Chomsky and Marx being notorious examples.
>
And there you have it - sick self-haters lie about their fellow Jews.
Such a surprise.

Susan

<flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote in message news:ATnbj.1453$6V3.1427@trnddc08...
>
> On 20-Dec-2007, James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
>
>> laviaR@verizon.net:
>> > If you took the position that it was perfectly okay to
>> > move into a country without asking anyone's permission
>> > (which I believe they did, for various reasons I coud
>> > discuss but aren't necessarily... necessary, here, if
>> > only because they do not apply), then yes, they
>> > considered they were defending themselves against the
>> > Indians.
>>
>> Jews are not in a position to complain about people
>> moving into a country without asking anyone's permission
>
> How so? We've never done anything like that.

No one has mentioned the Irish, you ****ing idiot.

It was the ****ing hebes who swiped Palestine, not the Irish.

flaviaR@verizon.net:
> > > If you took the position that it was perfectly
> > > okay to move into a country without asking
> > > anyone's permission (which I believe they did, for
> > > various reasons I coud discuss but aren't
> > > necessarily... necessary, here, if only because
> > > they do not apply), then yes, they considered they
> > > were defending themselves against the Indians.

James A. Donald:
> > Jews are not in a position to complain about people
> > moving into a country without asking anyone's
> > permission

flaviaR@verizon.net:
> How so? We've never done anything like that.

Arabs would disagree.

Indeed, Jews have a long history of illegal movement -
frequently driven by dire necessity.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald