Is there a conspiracy to make us hate our enemies?

Never knew that about Jains.

Wow:

In contrast, Jains agree with Hindus that violence in self-defense can be justified,[71] and they agree that a soldier who kills enemies in combat is performing a legitimate duty.[72] Jain communities accepted the use of military power for their defense, and there were Jain monarchs, military commanders, and soldiers.[73]


Guess they might as well start killing bugs too hey?

Why is a conspiracy needed for people to hate their enemies? There may be a conspiracy to project as enemies those that are not, but no conspiracy is needed to make people hate those that they consider enemies, it is a common enough reaction.

reply to post by m1991


You wrote:

["Guess they might as well start killing bugs too hey?"]

Can't say when or on what grounds they possibly may do so, but I believe the general attitude would be when this is considered an 'invasion' on such a scale, that it's 'justified' according to their principles.

However I'm not a Jain spokesman, but only considering such situations with as little black/white positioning/implications as possible.

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by m1991

 

You wrote:

["Guess they might as well start killing bugs too hey?"]

Can't say when or on what grounds they possibly may do so, but I believe the general attitude would be when this is considered an 'invasion' on such a scale, that it's 'justified' according to their principles.

However I'm not a Jain spokesman, but only considering such situations with as little black/white positioning/implications as possible.

I'm sure there's not even a general agreement in Jainism itself: there are probably Jains who are against war and self defense too.

Originally posted by m1991

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by m1991

 

You wrote:

["Guess they might as well start killing bugs too hey?"]

Can't say when or on what grounds they possibly may do so, but I believe the general attitude would be when this is considered an 'invasion' on such a scale, that it's 'justified' according to their principles.

However I'm not a Jain spokesman, but only considering such situations with as little black/white positioning/implications as possible.

I'm sure there's not even a general agreement in Jainism itself: there are probably Jains who are against war and self defense too.

Which in a way supports my thesis, that doctrinal positions (absolute or not) aren't the ultimate solution to mankind's dilemmas.

Mankind is somewhat querulous and find it hard to agree on anything, except when a 'leader' manifests and makes everyone fall into step.

And then the 'leaders' fight their own private wars. But I'm an optimist. I believe, we can grow out of the sheeple mindset. After all we ARE self-organizing, not just reductionalist machines.

reply to post by bogomil

Mankind is somewhat querulous and find it hard to agree on anything, except when a 'leader' manifests and makes everyone fall into step.

And then the 'leaders' fight their own private wars. But I'm an optimist. I believe, we can grow out of the sheeple mindset. After all we ARE self-organizing, not just reductionalist machines.

Self organizing as in anarchy?
There is this journalist and I heard him on internet radio a couple times who went and lived in Somalia.
Government types, as in the employ of government, will warn, Oh you don't want to be like Somolia with anarchy, do you?
This journalist concluded that it works really well and all their problems come from outsiders enforcing acceptance of a government. So, local government is just the door for the emperial government to step into to impose their will, just through local proxies.
People left alone by the empirialists, will self organize into a functional society without any official government and have better lives, not paying the salaries of thugs to enforce artificial rule.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by bogomil

 

Mankind is somewhat querulous and find it hard to agree on anything, except when a 'leader' manifests and makes everyone fall into step.

And then the 'leaders' fight their own private wars. But I'm an optimist. I believe, we can grow out of the sheeple mindset. After all we ARE self-organizing, not just reductionalist machines.

Self organizing as in anarchy?
There is this journalist and I heard him on internet radio a couple times who went and lived in Somalia.
Government types, as in the employ of government, will warn, Oh you don't want to be like Somolia with anarchy, do you?
This journalist concluded that it works really well and all their problems come from outsiders enforcing acceptance of a government. So, local government is just the door for the emperial government to step into to impose their will, just through local proxies.
People left alone by the empirialists, will self organize into a functional society without any official government and have better lives, not paying the salaries of thugs to enforce artificial rule.

'Self-organizing' even seen in a cosmic perspective. To SOME extent.

Anarchy as an idealistic ultimate aim ...possibly. But I'm no prophet, there may be hurdles making a definitive stop on the way.

In the meantime I'll settle for a slow step-by-step approach in that direction, and see where it becomes unrealistic/dysfunctional.

Presently the liberal, egalitarian, secular, constitutional democracies are experiments on this road, and in spite of the sometimes extremist theist hate (yes, I wrote hate) for them, they have fullfilled some of their promises. Most claims to the contrary are propagandistic, and based on ignorance of political philosophy and even worse, on ignorance of the factual situations in these countries.

Ofcourse this 'hate' is shared by most self-proclaimed authoritarian ideologies, but in the present context of this forum the theist models are most relevant.

Basically the present situation is a balance between freedom and responsibility, not to everybody's satisfaction, as some elitists feel they have special privileges outside the parliamentary procedures, and that egalitarian principles 'take away' these privileges.

In my experience 'people left alone' usually settle with slight greed and mental laziness (which is to prefer instead of nations fighting top-orchestrated wars), and do not turn into the propaganda-travesty of the liberal as a hedonistic, nihilistic monster.

At least not as seen from outside the self-circled, self-premised morality, where NOSES can be immoral, if the doctrines say so.

You are looking for the term objectivism. Here is an article from my blog that explains it clearly. The bottom line is this: If you view your soul as a possession, then you will view others the same. We live our lives in a materialistic 'me' centered society thinking we are having a spiritual experience. The opposite is true. We are spiritual beings having a human experience. We are all connected to the one spirit emanating from God. You are a spirit, connected to the body via the soul. This connection is a gift.

Objectivism was originally promoted by the Liberal mindset by a Russian author named Ayn Rand. Two books outline this philosophy: Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead. Other than these two books, it is called divid and conquer and has been used since the Garden of Eden. LINK to my blog.

Originally posted by etherical waterwave
Matthew 5;

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.


By what are we driven to hate our enemies? It seems to be normal to act like that. Is there a conspiracy? We need examples of people doing the right thing. Don't some get killed for it? This world is out of control.

It was said to love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. Ignorance? Conspiracy? What do governments promote? We, the people!!

..While the prophecy goes on.

reply to post by Observor


you said it, it has become a common enough reaction. so ignorant. They are all the same, so not creative. They even don't like themselves because of it. Mind control! Put them all together in one building!!!

Things are about to explode! Should we start fearing our lives? God is at hand!!

well well.

Originally posted by etherical waterwave
reply to post by Observor

 

you said it, it has become a common enough reaction. so ignorant. They are all the same, so not creative. They even don't like themselves because of it. Mind control! Put them all together in one building!!!

Things are about to explode! Should we start fearing our lives? God is at hand!!

well well.

It's not quite clear, who the 'they' are, and how you make psychological profiles of these 'they', who don't like themselves. Details, please.

And while you're at it, also some further explanation of ignorance, lack of creativity and the mind-control of what's basically anti-authoritarian systems.

Is your suggested alternative a centralised, informed, creative fantasy? Like pastafarianism e.g., where the faithful wear spaghetti-strainers for hats? That sounds rather creative to me, and why I converted.

reply to post by etherical waterwave

By what are we driven to hate our enemies?
. . .
It was said to love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. Ignorance? Conspiracy? What do governments promote? We, the people!!

The what is simple to answer, as far as this example goes: Supreme Authority.

Jesus was not referring to an exact quote from Torah, but rather a popular paraphrase. The exact quote is:

LEV 19:18 " `Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself.

The text itself has the element of discrimination built in, "one of your people" as opposed to "the others" not "one of your people", specifically: " ...the nations that I am going to drive out before you." LEV 18:24, in military genocide and ethnic cleansing.

The popular paraphrase: `Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' has built into it then all the racist and cultic exclusivity: Love us(exclusive group) - Hate enemies (foreigners: those not us).

So Jesus seems to have been saying that accepted authority, such as Torah, can and should be ignored when appropriate. So, the book itself, when taken as authority, is a source of hatred carried out by theists who can't get their heads out of their book.