The Freedomain Radio Interview: Lloyd deMause

[givebirthathome]

Unfortunately, along with some good information, and a general conclusion I of course agree with ..ie. child abuse leads to society-wide endorsement of violence..

deMause criticizes some good child-rearing practices.

Children love sleeping with their parents (family bed), its safe, and it facilitates infants being breast-fed at night. The family bed children I've seen are happy and secure.

And jump in production in 1880's due to women's movements? I don't think so. More likely

[givebirthathome]

@givebirthathome the beginning of the exploitation of oil as fuel.

[givebirthathome]

Michel Odent, obstetrician turned midwife, is someone to check out in terms of civilizational effects of birth practices. He believes that birth practices became warped in almost all known cultures, exactly because they made the children more warlike; the cultures who did not distort birth were wiped out by more war-like cultures.

[catchtheshill]

The entire scope of this man's agenda is to get the males subscribing to the age old notion that women are inherently evil and are not to be trusted and must at all cost to the females be controlled. Blaming wars and all the horrors of the planet are due to one thing: women beating their kids. Give me a break!! Women have been beaten, raped, murdered, slaughtered en-mass throughout history. We sure want to move forward, not back.

[djlookwood]

@catchtheshill History is the documented story of Civilisation which i sonly 15,000 years of or existence, a drop in the ocean of time.... in 90% of pre-Civilisation Societies rape and absue is exceedingly rare, because those Societies were and are founded upon empathy, are non-heirarchical (there are 350 million indigenous peoples, though two thirds of them are being traumatised by the Dominant Culture and incidences of absue are rising in those Communities at the edges of Civilisation)

[catchtheshill]

80 to 90 % of American and UK are beaten regularly? I don't think so. This guy is so Off in what he is saying, but it would obviously appeal to the disenfranchised males in West society that are not coping well with the fact that women are moving to determine their own lives based on what they want instead of what males want. He is actually inciting the growing anger in men, based on false and misleading "statistics".

[Allisone1]

Fabulous! Absolutely fabulous when the truth is known and told!

[godapologizing2you]

Thank you for making this interview, I have just added the link to Wikipedia article on Lloyd DeMause -> title=Lloyd_deMause&action=his­torysubmit&diff=365836852&oldi­d=360685717

[methusela238]

The thought is interesting but not universally applicable.

[abcrane]

thank the universe for this man!

[kurittaja]

39:20There is going to be an EU president. The EU constitution is being ratified right nwo.

[Sam26100]

Not only is philosophy potentially dangerous, but it is the most dangerous thing of all

[SpiritsofEinstein]

your moral backbone is founded on a philosophy. and ofcourse philosophy, or anything attempting to guide an individual to a fundamental truth can be dangerous, but so what. What does that even mean? Shall we abandoned our spiritual and individual growth because of that?

[Sam26100]

Well if you go all the way down to where my argument began, you'll see that I am not making a case against studying philosophy, but rather a case against philosophical relativism.

I.E. I think spiritual and individual growth is important precisely because it is so fundamental and we should respect how dangerous it can be when it is guided by fallacious principles. Some people think that misguided philosophies are okay as long as the people who follow them don't "go too far" but I disagree

[SpiritsofEinstein]

not sure what you mean when you say as long as the people who follow them "don't go too far". Do you mean to far down the rabbit hole?

[Sam26100]

@ spiritsof einstein

I am not the one who is saying "go too far", the people who are saying this though probably mean, well for example: "Socialism is a good idea in theory but in practice it needs to be moderate if people take it too far or get too extreeme it is bad, but otherwise it's good" etc

I disagree I think ideas can be bad, and socialism is a rotten idea fundamentally, it's not good in moderation either. People need to appreciate much more than they do how dangerous ideas can be

[SpiritsofEinstein]

Well one could make a point that Frued's theory that on the whole, people are irrational and for the most part aren't capable of making rational decisions. So finding a philosophical principle for the masses is a key to control the irrational drives inside the people, it may be in some ways misguided, but on the whole, you could say it's intentions were for the greater good. Take capitalism for example (which i see you already mentioned in previous post), continued:

[SpiritsofEinstein]

In order to fuel capitalism, "man's desire must overshadow it's needs." (century for the self documentary) Which started a pr campaign on how to appeal to the masses in the merchandising establishment.

[Sam26100]

@ spiritsofeinstein

I disagree with that view of capitalism. Capitalism functions perfectly well without mass advertising, or getting people hooked on chemicals, cigarettes, etc.

Capitalism is characterized by private ownership, it is a system where people are allowed to keep the product of their labor, and the government's role is to protect their property rights, and protect them from theft, force, fraud, and invasions from abroad.

All that said, America is NOT a capitalist country

[SpiritsofEinstein]

Well regardless of how capitalism functioned without mass advertising, it is no doubt the biggest psychological campaign on the psyche ever taken, and it's perfectly legal. So you may not agree with it, but unless you change the constitution, it's not going anywhere.

I will agree that pharmaceutical companies, which on the whole spend twice as much on advertising then they do on research should be restricted because of the major implications that product has on the persons psyche.

[SpiritsofEinstein]

I would not agree that mass advertising should be abandoned because of these concerns. The first amendment guarantees our right to free advertising and for the most part that right has been used in a fashion which suits a free market capitalist society. Problems in Mass advertising that arise through the internet, t.v., radio and print, , are that some networks have been hijacked by our government or  Conglomerates have been working with the companies that fund their programs.

[SpiritsofEinstein]

This is not surprising giving how big of an enterprise it is.  Wherever there is a massive shared idea, there is a problem. America is not perfect and either is capitalism. But our freedom allows for great growth and potential as individuals to learn from our mistakes and to elect the right person next time around.

[Sam26100]

I think if Capitalism is seen in it's proper definition, it should be acknowledged that it requires a pure free market, I.E no taxation or government power over the economy whatsoever.

Such a system in my opinion would be the closest thing to perfection that can exist, (more or less)

[Sam26100]

I really don't believe that the kind of advertising you're talking about is such an awful thing, for this simple reason:

I've been exposed to as much TV and billboard advertising as a child as most of my peers, yet I've never picked up a cigarette, or done any drugs, I don't even take advil for a headache

Advertising can get you to try a product once, but it can't force you to do anything. The government can though

[Sam26100]

Christianity is responsible for horrendous shit, but that guy Jesus was definetly a swell guy, FOR HIS TIME

If that's not apologetics, I don't know what is

[Sam26100]

You tried to deny earlier, that you called me a fundamentalist but I guess you're not trying to pretend that anymore heh?

Why not just admit that you are duplicitous?

[jonnniefivemiles]

You are absolutistically employing a fundamentalist reading and justifying it with logic in kind. Your fundamentalism here is functional, and I suspect, either disingenuous or borne out of ignorance.

[Sam26100]

If Im a fundamentalist, what are my fundamentals?

[jonnniefivemiles]

I should point out, it seems a shame that this has become so pedantic as it look like we agree in other fundamental areas - free market principles, effectively objective ethics, skepticism of organized religion....

[Sam26100]

Fundamentalist? Anybody who has devoted as much time as you have to apologizing for Jesus has no right to call anybody a fundamentalist

[jonnniefivemiles]

I have not apologized for anyone. Apologizing necessitates admission of err. That is what I have demonstrated is lacking via your misreading. Thus, apologizing would be nonsensical. Duh.

[Sam26100]

Your whole argument is perpetuated by your apparent desire to believe that Jesus was a good guy, and your accusation of me being a fundamentalist is nothing but a projection.

[jonnniefivemiles]

It's not an accusation. It's functional point. You are engaging in a fundamentalist reading and trying to defend it with logic in kind... shouldn't have been that difficult for you to figure out given that I've explicitly stated that a few times already...

[Sam26100]

Since you won't be able to point to the passage (because it's not there), I will just finish off by saying that you were wrong, and that you probably won't admit to it. My blood boils to think that there are people out there who continue to make apologies for this tribal horseshit, by saying shit like "Well, Jesus was a really great guy for his time blah blah blah", as if that makes any difference for the countless number of people who've suffered in his name.

Fuck you

[jonnniefivemiles]

You've tried to weasel out of your own contention enough times already. It's apparent that you do now understand the fallaciousness of your own point... and thus resort to emotionalism and vulgar personal attack... just like any good religious fanatic.

Peace.

[Sam26100]

No, you're weasling.

The bible may call slavery "service" but that doesn't change the fact that if the "servants" may be beaten, or even "cut to pieces" as the parable suggests, that they can be concidered nothing if not slaves. This is a simple fact of logic, and you're denying it because you don't like to change your opinion about how wonderful Jesus was.

[jonnniefivemiles]

The verses in question are parables, not instructions. They are about servants, not slaves. That you are unable/unwilling to understand these facts is not surprising... I find that fundie dogmatists will often put up a front and not even consider presented facts until the conversation is over.

[Sam26100]

Sorry if I don't spend too much of my time studying the life of Jesus, but it doesn't take very thorough knowledge to know a tyrant when you read of one. I don't need to know Hitler's life story to know what kind of guy he was. I don't need to know Jesus' whole story to know what kind of morals he advocated. We've got 2000 years of proof, I think Im set.

[jonnniefivemiles]

Wow, that's quite the enormous amount of non sequitur you've got crammed into that brief post... (and the admission that you're not approaching issue objectively).

[Sam26100]

I've read the context, and it doesn't change the fact that he is advocating the beating of slaves. Stop trying to disguise the fact by using inapropriate words such as "servants"

[jonnniefivemiles]

You obviously did not read the context.. and I didn't use the word "servant" .. that would be what the King James version used.. because they were servants (who were paid) not slaves. And, no, as anyone who reads the parable understands, he was not advocating the "beating of slaves."

[Sam26100]

Really now?  really?!?

You are saying that the servants in the parable were paid?

quote to me the passage that says this......

[jonnniefivemiles]

Lk 12:42, in which it is specified that the parable is about "stewards," employees who were paid or otherwise voluntarily engaged in servantship. Strong's Concordance: Greek "oikonomos"

[Sam26100]

I just re-read luke 12:42 and the word "stewards" is nowhere in it. 

Quote the fucking passage already, or STFU

[jonnniefivemiles]

King James Version

Lk 12

42 Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season? 43 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.

I don't know why you can't read these things for yourself.. and I already directed you to the Greek word "oikonomos" that it is being translated from.

I guess you weren't "finished." :)

[Sam26100]

conversation has been over. We've strayed from the original argument, but it was simply that Jesus was not a morally advanced prophet. The religion which worships him, in its many forms, and many interpretations of the Bible has proven this quite thoroughly.

Just because there is one version where all the evil quotes have been doctored, doesn't disproove my point. Actions speak louder than words, and his morality is practice has been deadly. Enough said

[jonnniefivemiles]

Funny you didn't even mention your original argument when making it...

The KJV has been "doctored" ?

Funny. You seemed to be making arguments based on a doctored document then.. which must now be equally invalid. :)

Regardless, I referred you to the word *in Greek* from the earliest manuscript ... was that "doctored" too?

[Sam26100]

Umm yeah, last I checked the Bible has been re-written several times over

[Jcolinsol]

According to the limited historical information that we have about Jesus, he spent most of his time "miraculously" healing people, and defending the poor, infirm, and other social minorities.

He threw one temper tantrum over perceived corruption in the prevailing church system, and was horribly executed.

I don't think any reasonable person would consider his actions evil, at least based on the limited amount we know.

It was the subsequent followers who did "evil" things.

Don't be a wiener.

[Sam26100]

If they followed his teachings and did evil things, what does that say about his teachings?

[Jcolinsol]

They didn't, Jesus was pretty clearly a pacifist. People didn't become "Christians" because they admired his philosophy, I think it came out of the psychology of people at the time. People don't go out and kill because someone creates a philosophy of violence, people go out and kill because of their own psychological makeup.

You are ignoring the underlying psychological motives of atrocious behavior, so that you can attack an ideology that you bear an emotional grudge against. Your blocking.

[Sam26100]

I think ideology moves the world. If an ideology is faulty, (and Christs ideology certainly was), then it will lead to atrocities.

"If people believe in absurdities, they shall commit atrocities" - Voltaire

The truth is that his ideology was like a disco ball, or a mosaic. It had a little bit of everything in it. if you want to be violent, you can find justification in Christ's words. If you want to be peaceful, or whatever else you can find justification. That's why it's dangerous

[Jcolinsol]

Of course you can interpret anything to mean the exact opposite of its intention. So naturally you can find justifications for violence in the words and actions of pacifists. It's clearly not the ideology that drives the willful re-interpretation of a philosophy, it is the psychology of the one doing the interpreting.

No philosophy, in and of itself is dangerous, they are just intellectual constructs, they aren't real. What is real are peoples actions, and action is driven by psychology.

[Sam26100]

No, I see no justification for violence in Rand's words, not that I take her words as an automatic truth, but if I did I wouldn't find justification. Except self-defense, which is legitimate

[Sam26100]

No philosophy is dangerous? Even marxism, or nazism?

Most philosophies ARE dangerous, because they allow the possiblity for the initiation of violence

[Jcolinsol]

No, a philosophy is not dangerous, it's just an intellectual construct, it can't hurt anyone. it's just an idea.

[Sam26100]

so, the idea of utilitarianism (greatest good for the greatest number) isn't dangerous?

Nothing dangerous about believing that any decision reached by a majority vote is good?

[Jcolinsol]

Well, I'll meet you half way.

Hand me an idea, we'll measure it, analyze it, and decide if it's dangerous.

okaythanksbye

[Sam26100]

? I thought I did, ok here it goes again

Greatest good for the greatest number (democracy)

Dangerous or not?

[Jcolinsol]

Well it didn't hurt me when you wrote it. I think we're good.

[Sam26100]

I think you know what I mean though.

In case you don't, I mean that ideas can be more deadly than a weapon. Ideology caused the holocaust, just as an example

[Baabaloux]

I don`t thing Nazism or Marxism is considered a result of philosophical principal. More like a bunch of emotional and irrational fears base on false premises.

[Sam26100]

Well you're right that it's irrational, but it's still a code of ethics and morals, regardless of how corrupt

[Sam26100]

That's what I thought. The parable mentions a "reward" but that means simply that the master may give the servant some extra food or something, clearly if the servants are being beaten as punishment, they are slaves. The definition of a slave is a person who has no rights and is treated as the property of another person. The parable by the way is two paragraphs in length, and yes I've read it. Jesus is describing a situation of slavery, and placing the responsibility on the slave!!

[jonnniefivemiles]

Hah, your attempts here are bordering on the absurd... yes, "reward" is mentioned and yes the word used itself means servant, not slave... so you say that you therefore deduce that they were actually slaves and then apply your own incorrect notion to your own misunderstanding to produce an accusation that is not even leveled by the most vehement academic skeptics.

Slow down, Kent Hovind... :)

[ExquisiteDoom]

I have a question that is unrelated to this video for you , fellow anarchists. Socialists are annoying me about the idea that just the fact an employer employs you, it's somehow exploitation. Even though you can change employers, they claim it doesn't matter because this new employer will exploit you as well. Totally denying the fact that exploitation isn't productive. I would like to hear more points to debunk this insanity the socialists are pointing out to me.

[jonnniefivemiles]

CDC stats for child [<19yrs old] abuse (%):

Sexual abuse

(An adult or person at least 5 years older ever touched or fondled you in a sexual way...)

Women: 24.7

Men: 16.0

Too high (.1 is too high), but they are accounting here for anything resembling sexual abuse ever occurring and they are including in childhood the entire first 18 years.

I'm not sure these facts reflect the kind of prevalence alluded en video.

[megous]

What is the name of the prison psychiatrist mentioned towards the end (40:13)? I can't quite hear his name.

Thanks.

[lnd3005]

James Gilligan, I believe. Here are some links.

zoominfo . com / people / Gilligan_James_9464087 . aspx

amazon . com / James-Gilligan / e / B001IODLCQ / ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1

[megous]

Thank you very much. :)

[DecassyJake]

Stunningly insightful! Always I feel my brain expand when I watch Stef's vids. Lloyd should get a Nobel prize for his research. Watch all of the Democratic leaders, just imagine the upbringingings they must have had, to get them to send soldiers to kill, and for what really? Boom you are born, Bust, you get scorned. No more boom-and bust, puhlease...

[baggytheo]

Nobel Prize?! Pshht... Obama's contributions to humanity are sooo much more substantial :P

[BigD822]

Childhood of Nazi's? Interesting, but, Investigating the role the Zionist movement played in WWI, WWII and the creation of the illegal state of israel is another historical taboo that is very enlightening.

[lnd3005]

Calling a state illegal is like calling a thief covetous.

[RamboAmbo]

As is mentioning the terrorist acts commited by the Jews against British Forces

[chardoc89]

Awesome video stef

[anutarasamyat]

...gee.. now I know why all the jews were ever kicked out of countries long before christianity was even an idea in another jews mind... it's that we were born hating hebrews? or just what the hell is the newest whipping boy ?

[galikazoid]

thanks for sharing this illuminating interview

[ocelot814]

I was whooped when I was a child it didn't effect me negatively. This is nonsense. It all depends on the situation.

[stefbot]

How do you know it did not affect you negatively?

[ocelot814]

Well what do you consider to be a negative effect? Criminal record? Drug usage? Social abilities? Specific degree? Balding or full head of hair? What do you see as a negative effect?

Oh and I also get along with my parents well.

[stefbot]

Thanks, you just answered my question...

[ocelot814]

What?

[IndividualAutonomy]

Your cheap shots at him and attempting to insult him by pointing to his lack of hair (on his head) when he only asked a question about how you know that you were not affected negatively. It seemed liked you were overreacting and were being passive aggressive (when trying to ask what he meant by negative) because his podcast and him asking you to reflect made you angry.

[ocelot814]

Insult? No I was just trying to understand what he deemed to be negative effects. The balding statement was just humor in poor taste on my part apparently.

Passive agressive? Not in the slightest. Don't interpret my sentences as emotional outburst.

[IndividualAutonomy]

I have no idea what your emotions were for sure because it is a text comment. That is the impression I have and possibly the one he had.

[ocelot814]

Yea just a misunderstanding I guess.

[legittoquit]

I wish the subject of the state had been brought into this conversation.

[GrayBlood1331]

Very fascinating, thanks for uploading!

[Adipatus]

I heard that Germany is having a hard time to get its army combat ready. It might be due to a radically different childrearing taking place now, compared to the more violent one in Hitler's time.

[lnd3005]

That's really interesting.  I remember wondering, when the Iraq War was getting started, why the gov'ts of the Continent weren't very supportive.

[MonkeyBusiness233]

Amazing interview, two great minds.

But to be honest the whole thing about Christianity saddens me, what has become of this religion is a joke. If parents would try to act on the teachings which are ascribed to Jesus Christ we would be far ahead. Sadly Christianity has nothing to do with this anymore and hasn't had in a very long time.

[Adipatus]

Hi, Monkey Business,

I am not sure you have read the teachings of Jesus. They were rather violent. For instance his insistence that the Old Testament brutal and murderous punishments were righteous, but that they lacked an eternity of hell fire, gnashing of teeth, and worm infestation-- Precisely what the professor was saying that Luther and other Christian preachers have been quite concerned with in their work.

[yo1dude1man]

I don't think you know what you're talking about.

Please quote here a few Gospel verses that support your accusation.

[Adipatus]

To yo1dude1man:

Here's a sample of Christian physical and psychological violence:

Mark 9:47-49

And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where  " 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.' Everyone will be salted with fire.

[yo1dude1man]

Don't get caught up on fundamentalist teaches of Heaven & Hell. Hell is Earth. Heaven is the universal divine. With reincarnation our souls are recycled, over and over again. Jesus was able to break through this ether of recycling, & we can too.

To raise ones conscious to the divine or universal level seek not externally but internally.Mark:9 is Jesus telling his followers & accusers not to waste their time judging others, that does nothing for their spiritual growth, but judge oneself instead.

[jonnniefivemiles]

I'm not a Christian.. but that is quite obviously not meant to be taken literally. The apparent teachings of whoever Jesus was were for their time quite amazingly peaceful, altruistic, and anti-authoritarian.

[Sam26100]

Even the part about slaves having to obey their masters?

Or turning your other cheek to the man who slaps you?

Sounds more like submission stuff to me

[jonnniefivemiles]

The slaves stuff comes from the old testament, and somewhat from Paul, not from Jesus.

Turning the other cheek is a call to non-violence, not "submission."

I see no reason to pretend that the teachings of Jesus were something they weren't. I recommend reading Gandhi, Tolstoy, etc on Jesus.

[Sam26100]

Give me a break.

The full quote reads as the following:

"...That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

It's black on white, when an evil person comes and strikes you, submit yourself rather than stand up to him. I.E. submission to evil.

It makes perfect sense for Jesus to have said that, since he was among the opressed class of people, and he had to tell them to submit, or the rulers would kill him (sooner anyway)

[jonnniefivemiles]

No, it's quite clearly not 'submission' if you look at the cultural context.. do you only ever read dialectical works literally and without context? Pity if you do, but the context for the verse is as follows:

In Jesus' time, striking someone deemed to be of a lower class with the back of the hand was an assertion of class dominance and a provocation. If the person "turned the other cheek" and did not resist, the perp. had to use the 'unclean' left hand or use open right (sign of equality).

[jonnniefivemiles]

By assuming literalism and not looking at the context, you're making yourself the equivalent of a fundamentalist - one who won't look at context or nuance or subtlety.

You have to realize that there were many rebel leaders among the Jews.. and that the Romans and the religious elite were constantly trying to trap them by their own words (the justice system was largely oral and based on technicality of Jewish law).

Had Jesus stated that they should use violence, he'd have lost his freedom.

[jonnniefivemiles]

Again, you should look to the application of the doctrine of nonresistance explicitly taken from Jesus' teaching by Leo Tolstoy, Mohanas Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and many others.

Now, one thing that we can say based on the gospel accounts is that Jesus was not an absolute pacifist. Eg., he protested when he was struck by the Sanhedrin (Jn 18:22-23), instructed his disciples to buy swords for self-defense (Lk 22:36), an stated as much "I have come to bring the sword" (Mt 10:34).

[Sam26100]

"By assuming literalism and not looking at the context, you're making yourself the equivalent of a fundamentalist"

By being skeptical when I read passages advocating slavery I make myself a fundamentalist? A fundamentalist of what?except reason and critical thinking of course...

I belive in morality based on observable facts.

That makes me, not-a-fundamentalist.

[jonnniefivemiles]

I see you've completely abandoned your claims about what canonical Jesus taught.

Wise move.

Jesus never advocated slavery. As I said, I am not a Christian and I do not defend the organized religion of Christianity or the "Bible."

However, I will rationally defend the teachings of "Jesus" from the irrational fundamentalism of adherents and atheists alike.

You can read. You understand what your "fundamentalism" is here.

[Sam26100]

Actually, I haven't abandoned my claims. I simply try to focus on one issue at a time in my posts, to make things less confusing.

"Jesus never advocated slavery"

Luke 12:47, Matthew 10:24-25, plus several examples I can bring up if you want, of Jesus passively encouraging slavery by not protesting in the face of it.

No, I don't understand why Im a "fundamentalist"  please elaborate

[jonnniefivemiles]

So, Jesus did not explicitly denounce slavery (which was not actually slavery then anyway.. it was indentured servitude for crimes) and therefore he "advocated" it. I like your fundie-like logic.

Did I say that people today "need" anything? Nope. Read the posts to which you replied.

Regardless, the passing of time doesn't necessarily correlate positively to 'understanding morals.' I would say that many ancient Greeks understood morality better than Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Saddam, et al.

[Sam26100]

Yeah, well I said "prophet' I didn't say "actual philosopher, who never claimed to be the son of God"

anyway... you did say that leaders like Mohanas Gahndi and Martin Luther King Jr took their pacifist ideas from Jesus, thereby clearly implying that his ideas are something modern people should aspire to.

Now I will pull a "jonniefivemiles" on you, and say that you've abandoned your claims that I am a fundamentalist, and that it is a wise move.

[jonnniefivemiles]

Uhh no, your between the lines reading of my "implication" is silliness. I meant what I said.

Well, since you actually made claims and then abandoned them, your attempt to

"pull the same" on me doesn't work when I explicitly made that claim again in the very post to which you are replying.

"I like your fundie-logic"

Perhaps you did not read it.

[Sam26100]

"...you're making yourself the equivalent of a fundamentalist"

Exact words, yeah I read just fine.

And no, stop playing dumb you know well I didn't abandon my claim, and I proved it by making another post supporting the claim with actual passages from the Bible. You are abandoning it, because you refuse to provide the proof that I am a fundamentalist

[jonnniefivemiles]

Hmmm.. well I wasn't seriously questioning your reading comprehension abilities up until now... I referred to the point about logic. You apparently did not understand this reference. Perhaps I should've been clearer. The point remains that you abandoned your initial contention (a good thing, because it was specious) while I did not.

I'm not saying you are a fundamentalist, I am saying that you are limiting yourself to a fundamentalist reading. You are.

And no, you didn't support anything.

[Sam26100]

You said I abandoned my claims that Jesus advocated slavery, I responded with a post giving you specific passages where he DOES. That's hardly abandoning the argument.

[jonnniefivemiles]

Uhh no.. you cited verses where he did not advocate slavery, but did not "condemn slavery [which was not the equivalent of modern US slavery, but limited indentured servitude for crimes] when he had the chance." Did you forget? Did you not read the posts to which you replied?

Only in the mind of a fundamentalist or lunatic does 'not advocating x' become 'advocacy of x.'

[Sam26100]

Wrong, the first two verses I cited were ones where he actually advocates it, I added that I can provide examples of where he doesn't condemn it as well. this argument bores me, are you a Jesus zombie or not?

[jonnniefivemiles]

I can't tell whether you're dishonest or simply too lazy to actually read what you're citing.. or maybe just desperate to win an argument.

No, neither of those passages contain any advocacy of slavery whatsoever. In point of fact, the second is frequently cited as a condemnation of slavery.

I like how you attempt to get out of your own false contention and then insinuate personal attack. This seems to be common tact for creationists, religious fanatics, and needy dogmatists of all stripes..

[Sam26100]

Okay, so those passages don't contain advocacy of slavery, and I am being dishonest/ too lazy to read?

Let's see:

Luke: 12:47

"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten by many blows"

Not advocating slavery at all right?

Not telling people to submit to their "master's will", and that it's perfectly justifiable to be beaten if you don't obey your opressor.

Im being dishonest? I'd like a second opinion

[jonnniefivemiles]

Indeed, you are either being dishonest or are too lazy to read.. considering that verse (as I've pointed out already below) is part of a parable. It is a story about two servants and about the fruits of responsibility. It has nothing to do with slavery. If you had actually read the context, you'd be aware of this. The fact that you are not necessitates either your dishonesty or your having been to lazy to actually read it.

[Sam26100]

the word "responsibility" doesn't apply to slaves. He is talking about slaves, not servants. A servant is somebody who gets paid, and has the right to not be beaten.

[jonnniefivemiles]

I like how you abandon everything you're talking about... these servants *were* paid. If you'd actually read the parable (you obviously didn't), you'd be aware of this.

[Sam26100]

I know what a parable is.

When talking about people in a subservient role, (whatever name you want to use) and advocating physical violence, it kind of contradicts your original point about Jesus being a moral guy by the standards of his own time. If you yourself were not dishonest, you'd admit that already instead of tapdancing onto technicalities

Anyway, I could go on pointing out your mistakes all week, but I've got stuff to do.

bye

[jonnniefivemiles]

No, he is not advocating physical violence against servants. He is telling a story in which that occurs. Again, it's obvious that you never read the parable... and don't actually care about its content or meaning.

Yeah, you've really been "pointing out my mistakes" just like creationists do a really good job of "pointing out the holes in evolutionary theory."

;)

Peace.. and, if you get the time, do actually read the parable and think objectively about it's meaning.

[Sam26100]

The idea that Jesus' moral teachings were something that people today need to understand is pathetic. There is no way that a prophet from 2000 years ago understood morals better than I do today.

If you believe Im wrong on this, I challenge you to prove it to me

[jonnniefivemiles]

(Since you've apparently not read it)

(N/King James)

Mt 10: 24 The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord. 25 It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord.

Lk 12

47 And that servant who knew his masters will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, was beaten with many stripes. [this is part of a parable, culminating in 'to whom much is given much is required'. It has nothing to do with slavery.]

[Sam26100]

To whom much is given much is required

Makes sense that slaves have so much given to them right? The quote illustrates that slaves have a great responsibility to their masters because so much is GIVEN to them? Im done here, I'll go converse with somebody capable of logic.

The quote clearly advocates that slaves don't rise up against their opressors, and that it's justifiable for them to be beaten. You can't prove otherwise

[jonnniefivemiles]

I honestly feel like I am talking to a fundie here... it is a parable. Consult a dictionary and look under the entry "parable" (in the 'p' subsection). No, it contains no advocacy of 'slaves have great responsibility.' It's not even about slaves - it is about servants. It has nothing to do with slavery, as all serious commentators and skeptics have agreed.

I can certainly understand why "you're done here." You are. Your contention has been demonstrated objectively false.

[yo1dude1man]

Lets breakdown an import question, what is Religion? Religions if the BUSINESS of Spirituality. Meaning - humans were 1st spiritual beings & religion is a TOOL for order & discipline.

Jesus was a spiritual teacher with mystic powers whose movement was hijacked. 1st - they had him removed. 2nd - sent in Paul of Taurus to implemented Fundamentalism (most 1st century Christians were Gnostic). 3rd - Constantine's Edit of Milan was the final complete take over by the Roman Empire & ruling families.

[Adipatus]

To yo1dude1man:

Maybe Jesus should have taken the trouble to write down his own teachings.  Maybe he should have hired better help.

Was Jesus helpless, or was he all powerful?

Does he bear no responsibility for the corruption and fate of his religion (Latin re- + ligare = to link up, to bind (humanity with God))

[yo1dude1man]

Jesus of Nazareth was a Spiritual Teacher who had great mystic powers. Alternate historians are finding information [will concealed by the Church] that he spent his unknown years studying Buddhism and Hindu traditions which gave him a must higher conscious with fully active chakras.

Case in point is the account of his Transfiguration. Now the fundamentalist teaching is he turned from physical to light. but the correct Gnostic view is he turned from physical to pure energy [light] and back.

[summergiles]

There were a few things I have questions about.

1. I thought Germany had Neo-Nazism.

2. Why did he mention Palestine as needing parenting groups and not mention Israel needing parenting groups? Israelis are such perpetrators but does he not know this?

3. I have heard people are getting much more dumbed down and it kind of shows. He says people are getting more intelligent.

Anyone know the answers to these questions?

[lnd3005]

3. They are referring to the Flynn Effect (wikipedia . org / wiki / Flynn_effect).

[lnd3005]

2. I get the impression you are reading a lot (too much) from this omission.

He doesn't mention Israeli abuse of children because he's focusing on the creation of "martyrs," or suicide bombers, which happens in Palestinian families, not Israeli.

For context, you should check out the book they're discussing. You can listen to finished chapters at Stefan's site. freedomainradio . com / psychohistory/

[summergiles]

Oh I thought he was implying violence., "I want to do away with war" was the previous topic. 20:13 I'll check it out. I like his ideas, I just needed clarification.

[tpsisokayiguess]

1. I think a lot of the neo nazism going on in Germany is mostly motivated as a counter cultural phenomenon against the massive anti fascistic propaganda. In Germany, anyone even critically playing with nazi imagery is heavily criticized or even punished by the state.

[jonnniefivemiles]

From what I've read of deMause's "psychohistory," it's sensationalistic pseudoscience.. and the caliber of his responses here reaffirmed that unfortunate diagnosis.

Good interview nonetheless.

[pelucas716]

Love teaches empathy, empathy shows the damage done to others. empathy than calms anger.

empiricism teaches rationality. rationality comes from empiricism. rationality than calms fear. with both fear and anger countered by rationality and empathy, than fear and anger or only left for self defense.

[stefbot]

very nicely put! :)

[ikemkrueger]

I saw society always as cumbersome. :S

[ikemkrueger]

17:03 I don't wanna see that, neither I want hurt myself. What can I do?

[pelucas716]

what dont you want to see?

[ikemkrueger]

Childs get hurt. May it by words or by hand.

[joshv89]

Well Lloyd deMause got something wrong in that interview,the EU countries are going to get a president,Tony Blair.........................­...../facepalm

[PanzerDivisionBOM]

This guy actually stood up a doctor's degree, because his professor would not let him tell the truth. If that's not admirable, then I don't know what is.

[MaikUniversum]

o hai <-- I like this expression :DDD