Jesus of Nazareth, known as "J-dogg" by some

[Lucifer Sam]

A Morrissey quote from 2018: "I love listening to Germaine Greer, Anne Marie Waters, and reading Christopher Hitchens. They always give me the answers I hope to find." First of all this tells us (despite what a certain Scottish fabulist would want us to think) that Morrissey was not just peripherally aware of Anne Marie Waters as some vegan Irish lesbian because she was "punted" to him as such by his alt-right cousin. Morrissey was listening to her himself, and "getting all the answers he could hope to find." And if you listen to her, you'll listen for ages before she makes a peep about being vegan. She's all about Islam and immigration.

The Hitchens mention is more interesting. I think Morrissey must've liked God is not great. Hitchens was the best of the "new atheists" (so-called), even though time has not been kind to the "new atheism" phenomenon. It's now thought that their criticisms of God were too juvenile, that they should've engaged more with scholarly, rarefied theology instead of the yahu crudities of the biblical God. They were too "pedestrian and distasteful," maybe. In this sense, the Christians won. Now atheists are expected to make polite, considered objections against an Aristotelian first cause or a Kalaam cosmology. Anthony Burgess couldn't stand this tactic when he was making his objections to the faith during his time at Xaverian College: "the trouble was that a first cause kept poking its great wet snout in, and once you had a first cause, everything else followed—infant baptism, Limbo, Ember Days, Friday abstinence. ... They wanted Catholic cosiness, not metaphysical rigour."

 

[Lucifer Sam]

There's a Hitchens debate somewhere on YouTube where his Christian opponent begins waxing lyrical about what is now such a big deal, Christian culture. And he talks about how and he and his wife, on a trip to France, were dazzled during a tour of the Notre-Dame cathedral. And Hitchens interjects: "around which, by the way, Thomas Aquinas once flew."

 

[Tea with the taste]

This is all fine as a novel elitist theology, but it's strange that you were welcoming Russell Brand "into the fold" earlier. He is not joining your peculiar gnostic sect where "god/jesus" is an amoralist. Brand says "we have no choice but Christ" because we need a sense of "right versus wrong," which are moral value judgements. His Jesus is the one in the gospels, who never once utters the phrase "poetic element" and frequently frames behavior in moral categories: righteousness and sin. Brand's Catholic Jesus is going to judge everyone at the end of the world on the basis of whether they held the faith and did good works, not on whether they had some mystical je ne sais quoi.

I think you may be oversimplifying Russell’s nascent beliefs here. His approach seems nuanced and questioning and open. I don’t get the impression he’s focusing heavily on the ‘right versus wrong’ judgemental aspects of God, and on an over literal interpretation of the teachings. I’d suggest his approach is ‘poetic’, nuanced and that he seems open to all the enigma, ambiguity and mystery, to the numinousness, contradictions, and fathomlessness of the deep mysteries of faith.

 

[nicky wire's legs]

This is all fine as a novel elitist theology, but it's strange that you were welcoming Russell Brand "into the fold" earlier. He is not joining your peculiar gnostic sect where "god/jesus" is an amoralist. Brand says "we have no choice but Christ" because we need a sense of "right versus wrong," which are moral value judgements. His Jesus is the one in the gospels, who never once utters the phrase "poetic element" and frequently frames behavior in moral categories: righteousness and sin. Brand's Catholic Jesus is going to judge everyone at the end of the world on the basis of whether they held the faith and did good works, not on whether they had some mystical je ne sais quoi.

You were talking about the lack of fairness in the Bible though, so that is my explanation. Oscar Wilde offers a similar explanation as to the inequality of the field work accomplished: "perhaps they were different kinds of people."

In order to treat everyone the same, you would have to accept that man is machine-like, which is maybe okay with you considering your stance on AI. but Jesus knows that man is not a machine and that there are all kinds of variables within a person that must be looked at. Jesus has the insight to do this, most of the rest of us do not, which is why morality for the masses is a good rule of thumb. But where there is understanding, the framework of morality becomes an unnecessary implementation.

 

[Lucifer Sam]

I think you may be oversimplifying Russell’s nascent beliefs here. His approach seems nuanced and questioning and open. I don’t get the impression he’s focusing heavily on the ‘right versus wrong’ judgemental aspects of God, and on an over literal interpretation of the teachings. I’d suggest his approach is ‘poetic’, nuanced and that he seems open to all the enigma, ambiguity and mystery, to the numinousness, contradictions, and fathomlessness of the deep mysteries of faith.

I'll admit I don't follow Russell Brand closely; his overtures about Catholicism might amount to nothing much in the end. Maybe, in spite of his talk about Jesus, he only sees the Rosary as a meditative tool, like a mantra or something. That's fine. But Catholicism itself is doctrinal. If Brand joins the Church, he's going to have make (or renew) his baptismal vows, and he'll have to reject Satan and all his pomps, and believe in Jesus Christ, the Lord, the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, &c, &c. He can have all the enigma and ambiguity he pleases, but he'll at least have to recite the creed and believe it, if he sincerely wants to save his soul. It's like what Henry Ford said: "you can have any color you want, as long as it's black."

 

[Vesper Nocturne]

I love a little pomp

 

[Lucifer Sam]

You were talking about the lack of fairness in the Bible though, so that is my explanation. Oscar Wilde offers a similar explanation as to the inequality of the field work accomplished: "perhaps they were different kinds of people."

Maybe they were. An alternate reading of the parable is that the first workers symbolized the pre-Christian Jews, and the latecomers were the Christian Gentiles. The fairness of the situation is still open to question. Why did the Jews have to bear the onerous weight of the law for so long, while the Gentiles get to not be circumcised, and enjoy pork and shellfish? And why do innocent pigs have to suffer and die for the Gentiles' enjoyment of their flesh anyway? It's worth asking since the god in this situation is said to be omnibenevolent; if the god was said to be amoral and simply not give a f*ck, then I wouldn't be complaining about fairness.

In order to treat everyone the same, you would have to accept that man is machine-like, which is maybe okay with you considering your stance on AI. but Jesus knows that man is not a machine and that there are all kinds of variables within a person that must be looked at. Jesus has the insight to do this, most of the rest of us do not, which is why morality for the masses is a good rule of thumb. But where there is understanding, the framework of morality becomes an unnecessary implementation.

It's a similar thing in Islam. Just as your jesus/god is secretly an amoralist just like you, I have found that when one is privileged enough to perceive Allah with precisely the correct mystical insight (such as I have done), one sees that the laws and rites of Islam are merely for the dullard masses who cannot attain to the spiritual heights. Allah actually has much compassion for animals, and listens to the Smiths, and thinks Lou de Laâge is beautiful. Why he has ordained animal sacrifice and macho insanity is a paradox—a deep, numinous, ineffable mystery of faith. O, the inscrutable ways of Allah. Allah be praised!

 

[nicky wire's legs]

Maybe they were. An alternate reading of the parable is that the first workers symbolized the pre-Christian Jews, and the latecomers were the Christian Gentiles. The fairness of the situation is still open to question. Why did the Jews have to bear the onerous weight of the law for so long, while the Gentiles get to not be circumcised, and enjoy pork and shellfish? And why do innocent pigs have to suffer and die for the Gentiles' enjoyment of their flesh anyway? It's worth asking since the god in this situation is said to be omnibenevolent; if the god was said to be amoral and simply not give a f*ck, then I wouldn't be complaining about fairness.



It's a similar thing in Islam. Just as your jesus/god is secretly an amoralist just like you, I have found that when one is privileged enough to perceive Allah with precisely the correct mystical insight (such as I have done), one sees that the laws and rites of Islam are merely for the dullard masses who cannot attain to the spiritual heights. Allah actually has much compassion for animals, and listens to the Smiths, and thinks Lou de Laâge is beautiful. Why he has ordained animal sacrifice and macho insanity is a paradox—a deep, numinous, ineffable mystery of faith. O, the inscrutable ways of Allah. Allah be praised!

View attachment 103641

Being amoral is not "not giving a f***." I've explained it to you at length and you still don't get it.

Also, I don't care about pigs. They're nasty greedy lil bastards who would eat you first chance they got. Hence, they deserve to be eaten.

QUESTION: if I call allah a pedo in response to your juvenile latching onto him and end up getting beheaded whose fault is it? A) mine for calling allah a pedo B) the islamist who beheaded me C) you for wading into a topic over your head and bringing it to a Morrissey forum where it has absolutely no business being and posting about it so incessantly that other people are forced to have to respond to it

 

[nicky wire's legs]

From now on, if you include anything about f***ing allah or Islam in your responses to me, I will not be replying to you. I'm not humouring this distasteful bollocks.

 

[Lucifer Sam]

I don't care about pigs. They're nasty greedy lil bastards who would eat you first chance they got. Hence, they deserve to be eaten.

There are a lot of other animals who would eat humans the first chance they got, but I doubt you eat all of those too. Cows don't eat humans, but you seem okay with putting them through just as much or more torture to get your ice cream as pigs endure for your prosciutto. It's more consistent if you don't ascribe a particular guilt to pigs; just stick with amoralism and not give a f*ck (which is its standard definition).

QUESTION: if I call allah a pedo in response to your juvenile latching onto him and end up getting beheaded whose fault is it? A) mine for calling allah a pedo B) the islamist who beheaded me C) you for wading into a topic over your head and bringing it to a Morrissey forum where it has absolutely no business being and posting about it so incessantly that other people are forced to have to respond to it

My answer is B. But I don't know why you think positive mentions of Islam have no place on a Morrissey forum since, as Malarkey loves to remind us, Morrissey once said, "I would do anything for my Muslim friends and I know they would do anything for me." Of course, by "Muslim friends" I'm pretty sure he means one Iranian-American woman who is probably about as practicing a Muslim as he is a practicing Catholic. Nevertheless he did say it. Saying "I don't care about pigs, they're nasty and they deserve to be eaten" just for having their innocent animal nature (which God supposedly created them with) is less in line with Morrissey.

 

[nicky wire's legs]

There are a lot of other animals who would eat humans the first chance they got, but I doubt you eat all of those too. Cows don't eat humans, but you seem okay with putting them through just as much or more torture to get your ice cream as pigs endure for your prosciutto. It's more consistent if you don't ascribe a particular guilt to pigs; just stick with amoralism and not give a f*ck (which is its standard definition).



My answer is B. But I don't know why you think positive mentions of Islam have no place on a Morrissey forum since, as Malarkey loves to remind us, Morrissey once said, "I would do anything for my Muslim friends and I know they would do anything for me." Of course, by "Muslim friends" I'm pretty sure he means one Iranian-American woman who is probably about as practicing a Muslim as he is a practicing Catholic. Nevertheless he did say it. Saying "I don't care about pigs, they're nasty and they deserve to be eaten" just for having their innocent animal nature (which God supposedly created them with) is less in line with Morrissey.

As an amoralist I don't care about consistency because I judge each situation on an individual basis! It's true that i feel bad about eating cows though. They're sooooooooooo nice.

and I'm sorry but I do think it's irresponsible and disrespectful going on about islamism, especially after the Manchester bombing. Do you think it's okay that islamists are blowing up our daughters??? Should we not look back in anger, audrey????

 

[Lucifer Sam]

As an amoralist I don't care about consistency because I judge each situation on an individual basis! It's true that i feel bad about eating cows though. They're sooooooooooo nice.

That's good that you feel bad about cows, but I'm still confused by your stance on the pigs. Saying pigs deserve to get eaten because you don't like their nature is like saying someone deserves to be punched because you don't like their face. Pigs can't help the way they are. They're omnivores with a survival instinct. Do you think a piglet in a factory farm being castrated without an anaesthetic, or any other pig being beaten and abused, understands that they're being punished for something?

and I'm sorry but I do think it's irresponsible and disrespectful going on about islamism, especially after the Manchester bombing. Do you think it's okay that islamists are blowing up our daughters??? Should we not look back in anger, audrey????

I've said on here before that I think Morrissey's "go easy on the killer" line rightly refers to Islam as a deadly ideology. And I think we should absolutely look back in anger. But there's more than one thing in life to be angry about. I'm just as appalled by random acts of Islamic terrorism as I am by the Zionist/Christian Zionist government in my own country that's been funding a Hebrew-nationalist terror campaign for more than half a century, inspiring the Islamic backlash against the West, and reaching peak terror in the last six months. And I will look back in anger on that until the day I die. I'm a nominal, unserious, non-believing Muslim because of Israel/Gaza. It's just an internet vote for the lesser of two evils (as well as a convenient critique of "cultural Christianity"). But it's relevant on a Morrissey forum, since I should be able to criticize his ill-considered Zionism. There's more than one deadly Middle Eastern ideology. "Go easy on the killer," Morrissey?

And I really do hate my country at this point. I think the crackdown on college campus protests and equating any criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism is Orwellian and creepy (see no.4 in the resolution). The threat of Donald Trump as an authoritarian menace is nothing compared to the Zionist brigade, and I am not unserious about wishing I could move to Indonesia. Unfortunately, I don't have the money. But it's what I think about with every lottery ticket purchase.

 

[Orange Crush]

Will this thread continue until The Second Coming? Asking for a friend.

 

[nicky wire's legs]

That's good that you feel bad about cows, but I'm still confused by your stance on the pigs. Saying pigs deserve to get eaten because you don't like their nature is like saying someone deserves to be punched because you don't like their face. Pigs can't help the way they are. They're omnivores with a survival instinct. Do you think a piglet in a factory farm being castrated without an anaesthetic, or any other pig being beaten and abused, understands that they're being punished for something?



I've said on here before that I think Morrissey's "go easy on the killer" line rightly refers to Islam as a deadly ideology. And I think we should absolutely look back in anger. But there's more than one thing in life to be angry about. I'm just as appalled by random acts of Islamic terrorism as I am by the Zionist/Christian Zionist government in my own country that's been funding a Hebrew-nationalist terror campaign for more than half a century, inspiring the Islamic backlash against the West, and reaching peak terror in the last six months. And I will look back in anger on that until the day I die. I'm a nominal, unserious, non-believing Muslim because of Israel/Gaza. It's just an internet vote for the lesser of two evils (as well as a convenient critique of "cultural Christianity"). But it's relevant on a Morrissey forum, since I should be able to criticize his ill-considered Zionism. There's more than one deadly Middle Eastern ideology. "Go easy on the killer," Morrissey?

And I really do hate my country at this point. I think the crackdown on college campus protests and equating any criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism is Orwellian and creepy (see no.4 in the resolution). The threat of Donald Trump as an authoritarian menace is nothing compared to the Zionist brigade, and I am not unserious about wishing I could move to Indonesia. Unfortunately, I don't have the money. But it's what I think about with every lottery ticket purchase.

i dont think pigs should be punished for their nature, im just saying that if they wouldnt feel bad about eating me--a human with inherently more value than a mere pig-- alive, why should i care about their suffering? maybe they themselves should develop some compassion and a higher level of consciousness. and yes, i do think that people with faces i dont like deserve to be punched and i would like to punch them, thank you very much.

all i know is, if i were genuinely appalled by the acts of a religious group, i wouldnt want to be associated with them. i certainly wouldnt be going around acting like they're all neato kewl like a 12 year old rebelling against his parents who he secretly knows is right.

and i wouldnt worry about zionism too much. as soon as the issue of palestine is settled once and for all, and palestine becomes a was-- the sooner the better in my opinion-- the issue of college campus protests for gaza will also be in the past and you wont have to trouble your mind about it. but in the meantime, by all means, continue to promote a religion that bums little boys, rapes school girls, blows up children, stones women, beheads school teachers, forces politicians to resign in fear for their lives, etc etc etc. so big and clever of you, audrey.

 

[caramel sea salt]

and yes, i do think that people with faces i dont like deserve to be punched and i would like to punch them, thank you very much.

all i know is, if i were genuinely appalled by the acts of a religious group, i wouldnt want to be associated with them. i certainly wouldnt be going around acting like they're all neato kewl like a 12 year old rebelling against his parents who he secretly knows is right.

in the meantime, by all means, continue to promote a religion that bums little boys, rapes school girls, blows up children, stones women, beheads school teachers, forces politicians to resign in fear for their lives, etc etc etc. so big and clever of you, audrey.