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.
54:00 The absolute necessity of a Hypothetical Supreme Authority in solving our moral and political problems.
55:00 Narcissism and the Papal Conclave
57:00 Jews must no be Messianic Jews because that would make them idolaters and blasphemers.
58:00 Christians cannot grasp that Christianity is idolatry and blasphemy.
59:00 If Truth, Logic and Morality reassert themselves in the West, they West would choose Islam as their new moral system. Secular Koranism is an intermediate step to help them along their way.
1:00:00 Between denial and correction of the error
Paul Vander Klay
1:02:00 Idolaters don't follow the Koran.
1:03:00 Christianity is kaput.
1:05:00 Spinoza's pantheism is idolatry.
1:06:00 Taking the initiative
1:09:00 Government is the problem and the solution.
1:10:00 Morality is what protects us from each other and our ruling classes.
Have you considered Koranic principles of governance as a way of restoring the patriarchy?
Would you agree that the First Amendment is based on quran.com/2/256?
If that is so, is it not the case that the American Republic was founded on Koranic principles?
If it is acknowledged that the American Republic was founded on Koranic principles, do you think social conservatism could be restored with a constitutional amendment to make the Commandments of Allah the supreme law of the United States of America?
Is refusing to engage on this question properly or at all conclusive evidence of Islamophobia?
What do you think of Andrew Tate's conversion to Islam?
If God exists, wouldn't He be most displeased with Christians whose religion is the religion of idolaters and blasphemers who worship an executed blasphemer as the co-equal of the God of Israel who is also Allah?
Is it the Deadly Sin of Pride that prevents Christians from acknowledging that Christianity is the idolatry of worshiping an executed blasphemer as the co-equal of the supreme and eternal Abrahamic God who forbade idolatry and blasphemy?
If God exists, wouldn't He curse Christians for worshiping a man executed for blaspheming against Him for the best part of 2000 years?
If God exists, wouldn't He be displeased and disappointed with Jews for utterly failing to prevent the rise of three global Christian empires? (For the purpose of this question, we should assume that God made Jews His Chosen People to be light unto the nations lighting their way away from the idolatry of Christianity towards Islam - the gentile religion most in conformity with the Noahide laws.)
If God exists, wouldn't He be displeased and disappointed with Muslims for never having once in their history obeyed quran.com/18/4?
Is the reason why Muslims are always complaining about being the victims of Western imperialism because they have not effectively challenged the idolatry of Christianity?
If WW3 breaks out because of the war in Ukraine, it would be on record that Christians started three World Wars after which the reputation of Christians and Westerners would be mud. Could the promotion of Secular Koranism prevent this if promoted by social conservatives of all races and religions in the West as an act of implicit repentance?
According to Nu'man bin Bashir, Muhammad told this story: "The example of the person abiding by God's order and restrictions in comparison to those who violate them is like the example of those persons who drew lots for their seats in a boat. Some of them got seats in the upper part, and the others in the lower. When the latter needed water, they had to go up to bring water (and that troubled the upper deck passengers), so they said, 'Let us make a hole in our share of the ship (and get water) so that we do not trouble the upper deck passengers.' If the people in the upper part left the lower deck passengers to do what they had suggested; then all the people of the ship would be destroyed, but if they had prevented them, then both parties would be safe." https://www.islamicity.org/2156/the-upper-deck-passengers/ I would like to expand on this story and bring it up to date. I will assume a large modern boat with lifeboats, as is standard now. And I will assume that it is in a large lake. To make the story realistic, assume that something went wrong with the plumbing on the lower decks so that fresh water isn't available there. My guess is that when Muhammad told this story, he imagined all Muslim passengers. In this case, his story makes perfect sense. But what if there are passengers of other religion? As long as these other religions are reasonable, the story still makes sense. But what if some passengers are from unreasonable religions/cultures so that they cannot be reasoned with? The obvious example is modern culture. Superficially, members of modern culture seem reasonable. But discuss anything of substance and you will discover otherwise. In this story, some members of modern culture on the lower decks began drilling holes in the boat to get water. They considered this to be a progressive innovation. They considered the fact that only those in the upper deck had easy access to water to be a form of discrimination against those in the lower decks, so drilling holes in the boat is a moral good to eliminate discrimination. Sensible people argued with them saying that it is a well known fact that making holes in boats is bad. The modern people responded that this old folk tale is just outdated morality that no longer applies. Sensible people replied that there is abundant historical evidence that boats with holes sink. Modern people responded that many of these stories are nothing but myths and the historical evidence for the rest is weak. And in any case, these old boats were different from modern boats, so the historical evidence doesn't apply. Sensible people tried to argue based on physics saying that if the ship filled with water then its average weight would be greater than water's, so it would sink. Modern people responded that modern boats are equipped with systems that pump out excess water so this would never happen. In effect, modern boats can never sink, so there is nothing to worry about. Then the more sensible people remembered the Titanic and stopped arguing, realizing that there is no way to talk sense into a member of modern culture. So now what? If those who want to drill holes are a small minority, then the solution is simple. Put them on lifeboats and get rid of them. Then if they drill holes in the lifeboat, they only drown themselves. But what if those who want to drill holes are the majority? In this case, there is no way to prevent the boat from sinking, so sensible people will get in lifeboats themselves, and leave the sinking ship. To tie this story back to reality, America and the rest of Western culture is a sinking ship, and sane religious communities are lifeboats on this ship. I currently know of three types of lifeboats - mosques, orthodox synagogues, and traditional Anabaptist churches. Now back to the story. When this boat started its voyage, it had on board some Muslims, Jews, and Mennonites (Anabaptists). The Mennonites were the first to leave. They left even before people started drilling holes. They recognized that when the plumbing problems started, the people reacted unreasonably. The Mennonites are quick to detect evil and they want no part of it. So they politely asked for exactly the number of lifeboats that they needed and they left the ship. The Mennonites are practical and hardworking, so they soon became expert fishermen and occasionally they returned to the ship to trade fish for other goods. But they had no idea what was really happening on the ship. The Jews were intelligent people and they immediately recognized the risk of drilling holes in the ship. So the rabbis went to the deck and bribed the crew to give them exactly as many lifeboats as were needed for the Jews on the ship. At the same time, Jewish businessmen started businesses to drill holes in the ship for those who wanted this service. Finding this business profitable, they began a marketing campaign advocating hole drilling and supporting the arguments of modern culture. Some people argued that this would destroy the ship and that this marketing campaign should be stopped. So the Jewish businessmen labelled these complainers as anti-Semites and said that criticism of hole drilling is hate speech that should not be tolerated. By the time the ship was about to sink, the Jewish businessmen had acquired most of the wealth on board and they loaded this onto their lifeboats and safely left the sinking ship. Most of the Muslims on the ship were oblivious to what was happening. But some of the Muslim leaders understood and began preparations. They secured as many lifeboats as possible, more than was needed just for Muslims, so that anyone who understood the truth of the situation could escape. These leaders began to preach about the situation to the Muslims on board. The Muslims were not as efficient as the Mennonites or Jews because they wasted time arguing about religious issues like how to determine in which direction to pray when on a lifeboat. But in the end, the Muslims saved the most people from the sinking ship. Those few sensible people who were not Mennonites, Jews, or Muslims simply had no other choice but to board the Muslim lifeboats. The Mennonites had already left and the Jews refused all non-Jews. So the Muslim lifeboats were the only option. I neglected to tell the story of two other groups that sank with the ship - the post-modernists and the white nationalists. Earlier, when the sensible people were arguing with the modern people, some of the sensible people thought that since they couldn't reason with average modern people, they should try reasoning with the modern intelligentsia. And there were a number of academics aboard from the humanities. Naturally they were all post-modernists. When the sensible people told the post-modernists that drilling holes would sink the ship, the post-modernists replied that truth is subjective, so whether or not the ship would sink is nothing more than a subjective opinion, and that the "sensible" people were free to believe their truth while the modern people were free to believe their truth. The sensible people replied that regardless of belief, a decision had to be made about whether or not it should be allowed for holes to drilled in the ship. The post-modernists replied that such issues are simply a question of power and that naturally the most powerful side will prevail, whichever it is. The sensible people then asked the post-modernists about their opinion, who did the post-modernists side with? The post-modernists said that they sided with those on the lower decks who wanted to drill holes because they were the oppressed class so their view deserves the most sympathy. The post-modernists drowned with the ship. In some sense, the post-modernists are right about power prevailing, but what they miss is that what is powerful in the short term isn't necessarily powerful in the long term. In the short term, ignorant people can have power. But in the long term, the most powerful side is always God which is why the ignorant people drowned. When the hole drilling started, the white nationalists immediately blamed all other races for the problem. The white nationalists correctly pointed out that percentage-wise fewer whites drilled holes than other races. The white nationalists also correctly pointed out that most of the technology used on the ship had been developed by whites. They therefore concluded that all non-whites should leave the ship. So the white nationalists spent their time trying to convince other whites to join them in an effort to rid the ship of other races. The white nationalists continued with this effort until the ship sank and they drowned. The white nationalists never considered leaving on a lifeboat because they considered the ship to be theirs, and the idea of abandoning ship seemed treasonous to them. And even in the unlikely event that they could have succeeded in ridding the ship of other races, the unreasonable whites still would have drilled holes, so the ship still would have sank, just more slowly. The white nationalists didn't drown because they are racist. After all, the Jews (that follow Judaism) are just as racist and they didn't drown. The white nationalists drowned because they are lacking in common sense. Now to finish the story. The Jews and Muslims lowered their lifeboats into the water and rowed away. The Mennonite lifeboats could be seen in the distance. Those who stayed on the ship went to the side to watch the spectacle. They thought "How backward and ridiculous are these religious lunatics to prefer a primitive lifeboat over a sophisticated modern ship. We are so obviously superior to them." Life was good on the ship. Many holes had been drilled, so continuously running water fountains were widely available. The bottom of the ship began to fill with water, but no one cared. The ship sank slowly so no one noticed. The people enjoyed themselves and thanked their progressive modern thinking for their superior comforts. It was only near the end that the people realized to their horror that they were doomed. But the horror was brief because by then the ship sank quickly and pulled the people under with it, thereby ending their terror. I hope I haven't abused Muhammad's story too much in my expanded version, but I wanted to cover the relevant groups from my time.
If you are reading this, I assume that you are an atheist who recognizes that modern culture is a disaster and that Islam is a morally promising alternative. Your problem is that you cannot accept Muslim beliefs. I will address this problem.
First I will address atheism. Atheism means believing that there is no god. The problem with this is that most atheists don't have a coherent definition of god, and to take a position on the existence of something that you haven't properly defined is simply silly. The main attribute of god that atheists object to is that is god is supernatural. Yet pantheists define a god that is not supernatural. I believe that the Old Testament idea of God is not supernatural either. The definitions of "god" found in dictionaries reflects the Christian nature of our society, not the historical use of the concept of god. A more reasonable definition of god is a global force or set of forces that cannot be described scientifically. For example the forces that shape human history can be considered god if you believe that history is shaped by a consistent set of forces. Because people are unsatisfied with concepts that aren't described and explained, god has historically been described through personification and explained as supernatural. But these are not necessary attributes of god. The key point of the idea of god is that just because one cannot describe a force mathematically or explain the mechanism of the force doesn't mean that the force doesn't exist. Forces that cannot be described or explained (yet) are still real and must be respected. This is the concept of god. The concept of monotheism is that there is one consistent set of forces that applies across time and space. This consistent set of forces we call the one God. This concept makes science possible. It also makes it possible to study history to determine which moral systems worked. If you accept what I have written so far, then you are no longer an atheist. You can now honestly say that you believe in God, but that your view of God differs from the Muslim view. This is a big step forward, big enough to allow you to participate in a mosque without fundamental conflict.
The next step is to honestly consider Islam. It is only fair and reasonable for you to consider Islam with an open mind. You should attend mosque regularly. There will certainly be people there who will explain to you why they think you should accept Islam. Consider what they say. And read the Quran. As you gain understanding of Islam, it will become clear to you whether or not this is something that you can believe. If you can accept Islam, then you are done, no need to read more. But if you can't accept Islam, continue reading.
Even if you can't accept Islam, you should still support Islam because it is the only major moral force in the world today. As a believer in monotheism, you are still closely aligned with Islam. To fit in, avoid undermining the beliefs of Muslims with pointless debate. Instead, focus on areas where you agree. I also recommend that you do daily prayer at home. The purpose of prayer is not to benefit God, but to benefit yourself by reminding yourself of the importance of religion. I do one 4-repetition prayer in the Muslim form each day. Doing daily prayer will prevent you from feeling like a hypocrite in the mosque, and will make prayer in the mosque more natural.
If you find yourself in this position, as a non-Muslim attending mosque and supporting Islam, then I hope you participate in this forum. There aren't many of us and we can give each other advice.
But the main thing is to take the first 2 steps above. Reject atheism and start attending mosque. Do not be intimidated by Islam, and don't settle for being part of degenerate modern culture.
Feminism makes women promiscuous and degenerate, and so unsuitable as wives. If you live in a feminist country, there will be a shortage of decent women. So your best bet is to look for a wife abroad in a non-feminist country.
But there is a problem with bringing a foreign wife back to your feminist country. Modern culture is fundamentally evil and will try to corrupt your wife and future children. You need protection from this, and this is what Islam offers. If your family attends mosque, this will help protect them from corruption by modern culture.
Therefore I suggest that you become seriously involved with a local mosque before you look for a wife abroad. Once you learn about Islam, you can decide whether or not you want to convert. If you convert, then you should look for a Muslim wife. If you don't convert, then look for a non-Muslim wife abroad but tell her that you attend mosque as a non-Muslim and that you expect her to do the same. It doesn't matter what her religion is. If she is Christian, then she can attend both mosque and church if she wants. But of course church is worthless, what matters is attending mosque. Getting your wife involved with a mosque will help protect her from the evil influence of modern culture.
Feminism is the natural expression of women's changing mating preference in a decaying society. But let's imagine that we could magically eliminate feminism. Would this be better for humanity? I believe that what this would look like is America almost permanently stuck in the 1950s. As I explained in "The Rise and Fall of Christian Culture", American culture began to break down in the 1800s when religion went from encouraging people to follow Jesus's moral teaching to simply having a personal relationship with Jesus. With such a change, it was inevitable that society would lose focus on the core issues of sexual morality, and lose the ability of effective enforcement. In the 1950s, America retained the facade of a moral culture, but underneath society was breaking down. Women clearly expressed sexual excitement for "bad boys" in movies. And I am certain that this must have corresponded to a rising adultery rate. Without feminism, the facade could have remained intact for centuries, with moral men continuing to find wives but these wives cheating on them and having illegitimate children with immoral men. The genetic breakdown of society would have been much slower, but the ultimate result would have been the same. So instead of taking decades for society to call apart, it would have taken centuries. Which is preferable? I think it is preferable for a morally broken society to fall apart as quickly as possible so that it can be replaced by something else. Feminism doesn't change the end result, it only speeds it up. And so I support feminism.
What about the poor suffering moral men in modern culture who can't get women? One can read the complaints of these men all over the internet. If you suggest options to these men like using a prostitute or looking abroad, they will tell you that they want validation. Any moral man who wants validation from a woman in modern culture is simply a moron who deserves to suffer and die without reproducing. Unlike feminists, he hasn't slightest understanding of evolution. The only sound evolutionary strategy for moral men is to join together to form moral patriarchal societies. Such societies are evolutionarily superior to modern culture. When modern culture has decayed sufficiently, a good moral patriarchal culture should attack modern culture and slaughter all of its men for the genetic good of humanity.
If a woman from the modern culture calls a moral man a loser, the correct response is "I would be a loser if I were a member of your culture, but I am not. My culture is superior to your culture and my culture will eventually destroy your culture." Intelligent moral men must reject modern culture and find an alternative. And from the perspective of an alternative culture, we can recognize feminism as a good thing that is helping to destroy our enemy, namely modern culture.
So evolutionary salvation requires one god and the right god. And the god of the Old Testament is certainly the right god. Are there any others? Are there any other books in this world that address the issues of human evolution even close to the degree that the Old Testament does? None that I know of. And this is why the only means of evolutionary salvation is through God.
If the Abrahamic God who specifically and explicitly forbade idolatry and blasphemy exists, wouldn't He be smiting them and their Post-Christian descendants?
If WW3 breaks out - started by Christians again - God will effectively have rubbed the noses of disobedient Jews, Christians and Muslims in their own shit.
Original Sin is not just the acknowledgement that nobody's perfect, but a means of allowing the priesthood to put a foot into the door of the subject of Christian monarchs. The narrative is that infant baptism is necessary to avoid the infant spending the rest of its afterlife in purgatory if it died in infancy.
Judaism uses infant circumcision as a marker of Jewishness, therefore baptism is used as a marker of Christianity for the infant. Let us not forget that those who proposed credal baptism were systematically burned at the stake for daring to suggest that the subject of the absolute monarch might have a different opinion on whether Jesus was in fact the co-equal of the God of Israel who is also Allah.
I already have all the data I need about why people won't support Secular Koranism: Islamophobia and the desire to continuing indulging in the Seven Deadly Sins.
Muslims won't support Secular Koranism because they are more afraid of their Christian overlords than they are of God Himself, which means they are guilty of atheism for which they will be punished if God exists. There is after all an entire chapter on Hypocrites in the Koran.
Muslims do not seem to realise that Christians are practically extinct in the West and that its ruling classes treat Christianity as a despised religion, treated more in contempt than Islam. Being Christian in the West affords you no protection at all: only hatred, ridicule and contempt from your own people, but especially the ruling classes who think only credulous fools would believe Jesus is the co-equal of the supreme and eternal Abrahamic God if they are not being threatened with being burned at the stake for questioning the divinity of Jesus.
If Muslims claim to fear Christians, they fear what is practically extinct, a toothless dying old tiger whose existence is disputed.
What they really fear is the liberal establishment who are anything but Christian who are in fact unprincipled atheists and nihilists who do not care what happens to their society after they are dead. Can anyone name a policy the liberal establishment implemented that was ever in the national interest of any Western nation?
The fear of Muslims of non-existent Christians and liberals is therefore a fear of nothing - an excuse to fear, and an excuse for inaction and moral apathy unbefitting Muslims commanded by God to enjoin good and forbid evil.
As for Jews, they refuse to support Secular Koranism because they don't want the last laugh to be on them. If God indeed made two revelations to humanity after dividing them into Jews and gentiles, then it is obvious which scripture you ought to choose if you believe in God and the afterlife: the one without the 36 capital offences with a vivid description of a paradise with gardens, water features, beautiful young men and women to serve you delicious things to eat and drink as you recline in elegant clothes on soft furnishings.
You would have thought that Jews would be smart enough to deduce this intention of God.
You may have noticed that there is no desire on the part of Jews to live in a Torah theocracy in Israel. Can you imagine what would happen under Rule by Rabbi in Israel?
You can imagine what they would do, accusing each other of breaking the Sabbath, bowing before idols, blaspheming against God, being citizens of cities that have gone astray ie Tel Aviv and getting each other convicted of the 36 capital offences in this theocratic dystopia.
Wasn't this precisely what happened to Jesus?
There is a reason why Al Aqsa Mosque in on Temple Mount. It is God's way of reminding them that a final and better revelation to mankind was made by the God of Israel in the Koran, which hardly ever mentions the death penalty and is for all of humanity.
The Koran is a mercy to mankind but especially to Jews, whose Torah is obviously too hard for them to follow in the 21st century after they have been marinating in liberal culture until the principles of Judaism are barely detectable after centuries of homeopathic dilution.
25:00 Our laws should reflect our chosen moral system.
26:00 Christians have the Christian principle of worshiping Jesus as the co-equal of the God of Israel who is also Allah, which is idolatry and blasphemy.
27:00 How to lessen God's anger
28:00 New Testament
29:00 Amalekites and Job
30:00 Satan is the agent provocateur and Prosecuting Counsel of God.
31:00 Israel means wrestling with God.
32:00 Esau or Jacob for POTUS?
33:00 "Group psychopathy"
34:00 Jews are God's Chosen People made to suffer for their sins.
36:00 Eternal and universal laws
37:00 Christianity
39:00 The Doctrine of the Trinity
40:00 Buddha and the Upanishads
41:00 What is the point of aspiring to be dead while still alive?
43:00 Unprincipled people are no better than cattle.
