THE RADICALISED RABBI is a blog on Judaism and its very useful ideas and the blogger a Secular Koranist and a revolutionary. You don't have to be Jewish to find Jewish ideas very useful in tidying up your thinking and turbo-charging your powers of reasoning to the extent that you can even predict most events and disasters. The West is heading for disaster with its insane policy of Transnational Progressivism, turning our global village into Sodom and Gomorrah attracting the same punishment.
26:00 The British monarchy is useful for the global American Empire.
Hypocrites claiming to be Christian believe neither in God nor the afterlife. They certainly don't believe that God exists to punish themm for anything.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau held complex and evolving views on Christianity, shifting from early Calvinism to Catholicism and then towards a form of deism. While he initially embraced Catholicism for practical reasons, he later developed a unique theological perspective rooted in natural religion and reason. He rejected doctrines like original sin and emphasized the goodness of humanity, diverging from traditional Christian teachings. Ultimately, Rousseau's religious views were a blend of personal belief and philosophical inquiry, incorporating elements of both traditional faith and his own interpretations of nature and reason.
I was just trying to explain that the most important issue is idolatry if you care about the final destination of your immortal soul. You may not, however. Most people inherit the religion of their parents whose truth they doubt but wouldn’t dream of alienating their family and…
— Cyborg of Secular Koranism (@Book_of_Rules) August 9, 2025
@grok Don't Christians say Jesus died on the cross?
— Cyborg of Secular Koranism (@Book_of_Rules) August 9, 2025
Yes, Christians affirm Jesus died on the cross as a sacrifice for humanity's sins, per the New Testament (e.g., Gospels). However, they also believe in his resurrection, underscoring his divine nature—fully God and fully human, not merely mortal. This resolves the apparent…
— Cyborg of Secular Koranism (@Book_of_Rules) August 9, 2025
The law of the excluded middle is a principle in classical logic: For any proposition P, either P is true or its negation (not-P) is true—there's no third option. Symbolically: P ∨ ¬P. It underpins binary truth values but is debated in intuitionistic logic, which allows for…
Is the Christian claim that on the one hand that Jesus died on the cross but on the other hand that he still lives and is coming in the End Times an example of an infringement of the law of the excluded middle?
— Cyborg of Secular Koranism (@Book_of_Rules) August 9, 2025
No, it's not a violation of the law of the excluded middle. The claims describe sequential states: Jesus died physically on the cross (a past event) but was resurrected and lives eternally. LEM requires a proposition to be true or false, not both simultaneously in the same…
But isn't it contradictory to say that Jesus is both mortal and divine?
— Cyborg of Secular Koranism (@Book_of_Rules) August 9, 2025
No, it's not contradictory in Christian theology. Jesus has two natures—fully human (thus mortal in body) and fully divine (eternal)—united in one person, per the hypostatic union (Chalcedonian Definition, AD 451). This affirms both without blending or dividing them, resolving…
What is the Chalcedonian definition of the hypostatic union?
— Cyborg of Secular Koranism (@Book_of_Rules) August 9, 2025
The Chalcedonian Definition (451 AD) states that Jesus Christ is one person (hypostasis) in two natures—fully divine and fully human—united without confusion, change, division, or separation, preserving the properties of each nature. This affirms his dual essence in perfect…
How many definitions of the hypostatic union are there?
— Cyborg of Secular Koranism (@Book_of_Rules) August 9, 2025
The hypostatic union has one primary definition from the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD): two natures (divine and human) united in one person without confusion. However, historical variations exist, including Nestorian (two hypostases), Apollinarian (single nature), and Miaphysite…
Tel Aviv has historical ties to German settlers, specifically the Templers, who established colonies in Palestine, including Sarona, which is now part of Tel Aviv. While some Templers were initially pro-German and later aligned with the Nazi party, others were not. Today, there is also a German-speaking community in Tel Aviv with a physical center, and a German embassy is located there.
Historical Context:
Templer Colonies:
German Templers established several colonies in Palestine, including Sarona (now in Tel Aviv) in 1871.
Sarona:
This colony was one of the earliest modern villages established by Europeans in Ottoman Palestine.
Nazi Influence:
Some Templers in Sarona became associated with the Nazi party, with a number of residents actively participating in Nazi activities and even celebrating Hitler's birthday.
Deportation and Internment:
During World War II, British authorities deported Templers who were considered Nazi sympathizers from Sarona to internment camps.
Post-War:
After the war, the area became part of Israel, and Sarona was used by the Israeli military and government. It has since been redeveloped into a popular area with shops, restaurants, and cultural attractions.
American-German Colony:
This residential neighborhood in Tel Aviv was initially an American colony, but after its failure, it was resettled and became a German Templer colony.
Modern German Presence:
German-Speaking Community:
A German-speaking community has established itself in Tel Aviv, with a physical center that includes a kindergarten, activities for children, and cultural events.
German Embassy:
The German embassy in Israel is located in Tel Aviv.
German-Israeli Relations:
Germany and Israel have diplomatic relations, with embassies and consulates in each other's countries.
Bilateral Ties:
There are various cultural and educational exchange programs, and Germany provides financial support to victims of Nazi persecution, many of whom live in Israel.
Hindus have no principles are "secular in nature".
1:51:00 Jews
1:52:00 Idolatry is antithetical ethical monotheism
1:53:00 Christianity in Australasia
1:57:00 Polynesians
1:58:00 Tongans
1:59:00 Aborigines of Australia and the Maoris of New Zealand
2:05:00 Privateers and the East India Companies
2:10:00 British colonialism and Indian conquest of Britain
2:11:00 A Muslim or Hindu takeover?
2:12:00 Principles
2:13:00 Freedom
2:14:00 Hindus do not have a prohibition against usury.
2:15:00 Boat people
2:16:00 Abos/nomadic < Maoris/settled people
British colonisers kinder than the Portuguese?
Objectively measuring the cruelty of European colonizers is tough because it involves subjective judgments, incomplete records, and diverse contexts across centuries. No universal metric exists, but historians often assess colonial impact through specific indicators: mortality rates, land dispossession, forced labor, cultural suppression, and documented atrocities. These can be compared across empires, though data gaps and biases in sources (often written by colonizers) complicate things.
For example:
- **Spanish Empire** (Americas, Philippines): High mortality from disease and encomienda labor systems; millions died in Mesoamerica alone. But some intermarriage and cultural blending occurred, unlike in more segregationist systems.
- **British Empire** (North America, India, Africa): Varied widely. In India, famines under British rule (e.g., Bengal 1943) killed millions, but administrative structures sometimes preserved local systems. In North America, native displacement was near-total in some areas.
- **French Empire** (West Africa, Indochina): Emphasized cultural assimilation ("mission civilisatrice"), often less overtly violent than Spanish conquests but still exploitative through forced labor and resource extraction.
- **Portuguese Empire** (Brazil, Angola): Heavy reliance on slave trade; Brazil’s indigenous population plummeted, but Portuguese colonies often had smaller settler populations, leading to less direct displacement.
- **Dutch Empire** (Indonesia, South Africa): Focused on trade monopolies; VOC’s (Dutch East India Company) exploitation in Indonesia involved brutal spice trade enforcement, but less large-scale conquest than Spain or Britain.
To compare "least cruel," you’d need to weigh specific actions:
1. **Mortality and Violence**: Spanish conquests in the Americas caused catastrophic population declines (e.g., 90%+ in some regions due to disease and violence). British settler colonies also decimated native populations through displacement. Dutch and French systems, while harsh, often had lower direct mortality in some regions.
2. **Cultural Impact**: French assimilation policies eroded local cultures less violently than Spanish religious conversions, but British indifference sometimes allowed local traditions to persist (e.g., in parts of India).
3. **Economic Exploitation**: All empires extracted resources, but the Dutch and Portuguese often prioritized trade over territorial control, potentially reducing direct harm in some cases.
No colonizer was "not cruel"—all profited from exploitation. The Dutch or Portuguese might rank as "least cruel" in specific contexts (e.g., smaller settler footprints), but this varies by region and era. Without a standardized cruelty index, it’s case-by-case.
