Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:@symbols, we have to remind ourselves about what it really means that the world was created, and agree on the age of the earth.
Then look at what it means for a people to be the 'chosen ones'.
I wasn't implying they are/were or not chosen.It was a reference to your statement on the bible being a philosophy of power and the origins of psychology. I wouldn't say that the Jews originated psychology, though their contribution is significant in terms of the number of Jewish psychologists known. The relationship between the Bible and 'Jewishness' is one which ultimately involves the 'choosing of a people' in subtle ways. For example, why use 'Jewish' when thinking of psychologists? Or like now, is it 'proper' to speak of a Jewish state? What kind of 'witcraft' is this? Power and psychology seem to go together and as you've said their contribution in psychology is significant.If you can,explain the subtlety of 'choosing of a people' in terms of philosophy of power and the bible. What would be the appropriate term to use apart from Jew that wouldn't be described as 'witcraft'? The Bible or any religious text, is not only taken as 'God's word' but is also a basis of action that's interpreted by a community that shares in the language and culture in which the revelation has taken place. This immediately isolates the non members of the community and hence creates a chosen people. Such that the God of the traditional Jewish society isn't the God of the Christians, and thus anti-semitism arises. For example, when the founder(s) of the state of Israel went to the Pope for support, they were gently informed that unless they accepted the divinity of Christ they would get no support. Nowadays, I see evangelicals supporting the Zionists even to the extent of supporting wars- like the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. These psychologists and scientists were Germans, Hungarians, Austrians and the like. Why not refer them according to these nationalities? Wouldn't that at least open a different kind of 'witcraft'? I see your point.It's an interesting angle which I think can be relevant in looking at international relations. I ignored the the nationalities because it's the cultural influence I was drawn to.For example Sigmund Freud and dream psychology.Considering the relevance of dreams in Judaism(though not exclusive to it),I don't think it would be inconceivable to assume that it would have an influence in his pursuits.Another example is creationism and it's relevance to identity. My experience is that all knowledge ultimately converges, but some traditions seem to expend more energy in its pursuit and hence 'shine' more than others.
|