The Limits of Reason: The Ever-Elusive Search For A Middle East Peace

Timmy2

PART I

"You:I read your post twice, on why it is a religion and not a philosophy. I am still at a loss. It really feels to me as though it is an inability, perhaps due to a fear of God, to just throw away the bad, ignorant, misguided verses in the ancient texts. I actually don't think it's a true fear of God, so much as a fear of dissing your ancient ancestors. Instead of saying that they were ignorant or wrong about certan verses, let's just reconstruct and re interpret it so that they weren't wrong. That way we can defend our ancestors and our people from ever having done anything wrong, or from ever having written something repulsive and delusional and immoral.

It's like if you admit that your ancestors created some horrible ideas, then it says something bad about you, as an ethnic Jew, or that it justifies all of the horrible things that have been done your people over the centuries. It doesn't. Your ancestors can be guilty of creating some very bad ideas, without it justifying violence and persecution and racialzation of their offspring."

Me: Don't get me wrong. I'm not offended. I just have no idea what you're talking about from beginning to end. I can only repeat, or attempt to paraphrase. Judaism has absorbed philosophy, just as Christianity and Islam have. So, for instance, Maimonides was surely an Aristotelian, in some sense. He did not see the Tanakh as literally true, but rather as a way of speaking truths that could not be spoken in another way. Interestingly, much of what he discarded has, in fact, been empirically verified, since the Middle Ages.

Maimonides distinguished his theology from philosophy most eloquently in "Guide for the Perplexed," which you can read on the web. In his Commentary on the Mishna, he was a pains to explain why plurality of interpretation was acceptable, how it could be added to, what the appropriate methods of "exegesis," really, debate, were. His interests were theological, not philosophical, when it came to religion.
Nor did he overturn, toss away, dispense with Jewish observances.

Farnaz,

Response to your post on the other thread.

"The Christians lifted parts of the Tanakh and hung it in a gallery for which it was not intended. Their meaning is not the meanings Judaism attaches to it.

What Judaism are you referring to?
There are these settlements in the West Bank, that are an enormous roadblock to peace and a two state solution. If anyone tries to remove those settlements, people like Rabin die, because God promised that land to the Jews. But are these just a few nut job orthodox Jews, unrepresentative of the majority? Couldn't be. They'd have been overruled long ago in the name of peace. Everyone knows that the settlements are a violation and an attack on the Palestinians but for some reason, the US, which is the only power in the world, with enough clout to end those settlements by threatening to pull aid and support to Israel if they don't remove them, won't do a thing about it. They just turn a blind eye as more and more settlements go in and divide up the West Bank making life impossible for the Palestinians. Where is the reconstructionist Judaism lobby in the US to pressure the US government to force Israel to remove and stop building these settlements? This is a Jewish religious issue.

So when you talk about the meaning of Judaism, I think you are talking about the meaning of Judaism to an extreme minority of Jews. Like Arminius calls himself a Christian, but does not believe in Hell. Well the official Christian position is that Hell exists, so calling yourself Christian if you don't believe in Hell is your right, but why would you want to do it?

The predominant position of Judaism, is that God promised that land to the Jews. Otherwise, "secular" Israel would have dismantled the settlements long ago. Or are they letting a tiny minority of orthodox Jews dictate policy that affects the whole world?

I suggest, as I always do, that the extremists are the one's who have it right. They are following the original interpretation and the true meaning of the words in the book. It is the reconstructionists who are misinterpreting the book, and they are doing it on purpose, to try and save face for their ancestors and pretend like they never said anything wrong in the first place, it's just people misinterpreting it. That's how it seems to me. I am happy to be proven wrong, but so far, I am having a tough time understanding the point of atheist reconstructionist Judaism.

ME: "You are basing your value system on feeling, nothing more than feelings, or the biological impulses from your brain. In a Chance world my responses do not have to be the same as your, for Chance implies willy-nilly".

PAM: "The feelings and biological impulses are put there by evolution, which has nothing to do with chance. Only the variation is random – the selection isn’t random at all. Whatever succeeds is what survives to pass its genes to the next generation. There is nothing random or chancy about that."

Sure there is. Mind has intent, living organisms have intent, but a non-living inorganic process does not. According to evolutionary dogma, life evolved from non-life, so therefore chance is behind everything for something that is non-living does not have intent. That leaves random chance, a blind process, no original purpose.

You can't get feelings from a rock or chemicals or non-living thing. Yet you want to believe that all we see originally came about by non-living chemicals mixing together?

Chance does not direct information to form life.

Can you tell me that there was original purpose in forming living organisms? If there was no purpose then it came about by chance. It just happened.

And what is to determine that my "feelings" are going to be biologically the same as yours? My impulses may fire differently from your, so are you going to blame me for my biological impulse to kill when I feel threatened? It is just the way my particular bag of matter is reacting to the environment around me. There is nothing wrong with that in the animal kingdom is there? I see other animals killing because they are threatened. They are not put on trial for it.

ME: "Why do some people have empathy for an old lady crossing the street and others just want to run her down?"

PAM: "Who do you know like the latter?? I think someone like this would be beyond sociopathic – well into serious mental illness, and not free for long."

I received an e-mail from my step-daughter warning about gangs of youth driving around without headlights. As soon as you flash them the game is on to drive past you and shoot you. There is no empathy felt on their part. Teach a kid he is an animal and there is always the chance he will act like one.

Yes kids, long long ago and far far away your great, great, great, great grandparents Bob and Alice were swinging through the trees acting like hairy savages. Luckily Bob met Alice before he fell for Ted wise you would not be here today.

Hi Pamsm (January 10, 2009 10:40 PM),
PART 2

ME: "But the question still remains, which subjective human individual, group or culture decides? Look around at this world and what people call good that 10-20 years ago was looked at as wrong. So how can it be right now and wrong then or was it always right but no one previously knew it? If nobody previously knew it, how do you know that what you know now will not be wrong in another 10-20 years? The whole question of right and wrong becomes absurd."

PAM: "No, it doesn’t. The needs and views of society change, and the decisions are made by your social group. Even theologists change their minds. These are all gray-area problems, though. No human society will ever decide that it’s OK to take whatever you want from whomever has it,"

So what if my social group is a bunch of headhunters from Borneo and you are on their lunch menu for today? Pam in the pan with the coconuts.

What if my social group is a motorcycle club that does not recognize the same social values that you do?

It is all power politics with you. Those in power determine the rules. There is no good or bad about it if there is no absolute standard to set good and bad against. What you have is law by preference, not by what is good or right.

"Have-nots" are constantly going to war with the "haves" to get something they want. This is apparent through all of history. One social group decides it wants the wealth another has and colonizes that weaker group.

PAM: "or to kill someone just because you don’t like the cut of his jib."

Hitler did not like the Jews and decided to eliminate them because he felt they were a weaker link along the evolutionary chain. Militant extremists drive planes into skyscrapers because they don't like what the majority social group in America stands for. Mao's social reforms eliminated tens of millions. The list is long.

I will post my replies to you, Peter, on Susan's new thread.

THOMAS: "God is a BEING OF PURE LOVE as I have said before, Love is not an attribute of God, Love is His Very Being. We are ALL made in His Image, page one."

Love is an attribute of His character, of His Being. It is just part of who He is. So is justice and righteousness and purity and holiness. Without these things none will see or enter His kingdom, and only in Christ is the way provided to meet these requirements.

You want a God without justice.

THOMAS: "Another of the interesting things is when Jesus says if two people do the same thing wrong and one knows it to be wrong and the other does not know but should have, then the punishment will be different for the two of them, correct or not?"

I believe so, for God is just and will punish justly for the actions done by those outside of Christ, but that does not mean that all will enter the kingdom. That is made plain in Scripture.

THOMAS: "That is one of the reasons that I say: It is important what one does and why one does it and what one knows."

Nothing that you can do will save you outside of putting your faith in Christ.

THOMAS: "As I have said, I am just a messenger, Jesus was and is both a messenger and The Message."

You are right in one respect, that Jesus is both the Messenger and the message.

THOMAS: "Another interesting thing that Jesus said, "Tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the Kingdom ahead of you" in reference to some of the "religious" of Jesus's day, Jesus did not say that the aforementioned "religious" were not entering, die He?"

Any religious leader trying to met God's merit on his own account instead of that of Jesus is already condemned. You are reading into the text what you want it to say. Read all the texts that talk about the Scribes and Pharisees and combined that with the teachings of Jesus that say He is the only way to the Father.

"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?"

Only by faith in the Son.

THOMAS: "Even tho I have met God that doesn't mean that I know what everything in the bible means but it does mean that I don't have to figure out all of the details, just report on the big picture, as it were."

If you have met God then surely He has confirmed to you that all His Words are true?

We can be mistaken about many things but there are certain things that if we ultimately deny we cross the bounds of belief in Jesus Christ. Some people believe that Jesus is a myth, some that He is not God, some that He was not born of the Virgin Mary, some that He was not raised from the dead, some that He is not the only Savior of the world or that they do not need a savior, some that Jesus was nothing more than a good man. It is important that you know the One whom you put your faith in, and that comes through time, for those in Christ, even though some of their understanding right now may be wrong, God will supply the means necessary to be saved; faith in His Son.

"Sanctify them by the truth; Your words are true."

So why do you keep changing what God has said in His written word to us?

THOMAS: "See you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom."

Only those who have faith in the Son as their Lord and Savior (Romans 10:9-13).

ME: "Please see Luke 24:25-27, 44-47.

In this it says," He interpreted to them what referred to Him in all the scriptures.", and also "Then He opened their minds to understand the scriptures."

He didn't interpret, He explained to them. He is truth and speaks the truth. He told them correctly everything written in the OT, the Scriptures, about Him. He opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.

THOMAS: "Seems to me this says that Jesus, God-Incarnate, interpreted and that Jesus opened their minds, does it not?"

Opened their minds, but not interpreted. God sees all things for what they truly are. He doesn't need to interpret for He already knows all things. He calls things what they truly are.

THOMAS: "Before this, they didn't have a clue."

THOMAS: "Isn't this just what I have been saying?"

No, what you are saying is that language doesn't mean what it says. When Jesus says "Narrow is the way and few find it" Thomas says that everyone will eventually find their way into the kingdom. Who is the one twisting Scripture?

THOMAS: "There are plenty that are interpreting the bible on their own and don't have a clue."

You're right there.

THOMAS: "Whether you understand or don't understand what I am trying to say, it doesn't matter to me but I have never asked anyone to follow me. God told me that only I could say it, so I am saying it."

You want me to believe that you have had a revelation from God that goes against what His written word reveals? You want me to believe that you are THE one who correctly says that all mankind will be saved when His word tells me something entirely different?

THOMAS: "If God's Plan isn't ultimately for all then it is not worth didly. God is a winner, satan is a loser, a sore loser I might add, if it was a tie as far as I am concerned that would mean that God would be a loser, He's not."

Satan is dealt with by God as well as unbelievers, and the earth and everything in it is made new, restored to its perfect state before the Fall - no more death, no more disease, no more tears.

Your big mistake is you take the words "all" and "world" to mean every single man woman and child who has ever lived. When you take the context in which these words are used you find that instead of every single human without exception, what is being said is "all" kinds of humans without distinction.

This distinction is made clear in Revelation 5:9,

"...and with Your blood you purchased men for God from EVERY TRIBE AND LANGUAGE AND PEOPLE AND NATION."

That does not include every single person without exception, just without distinction. Without distinction means both rich and poor, kings and servants, male and female, people from every tribe and language and nation and people groups.

The most famous line of Scripture could very well be John 3:16 which definitely makes a distinction, the "whoever" for not all believe as the next verses plainly tell.

THOMAS: "Good News is not good news if it is only partial good news as in, for just some."

The Good News is that there is life in the Son. Those who have the Son have good news for they have life, those who do not stand condemned already for they have not believed in God's one and only Son. (John 3:18-21)

Hi Thomas (January 13, 2009 12:55 PM),

THOMAS: "I have never denied Jesus's words, what I have tried to say is that lots of people have taken what Jesus said and other things that are written in the bible and twisted some of it into the most hate-filled pile of garbage."

Thomas, you take the Word of God and make it say what your itching ears want it to say. When the Lord Jesus Christ says, "Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed by My Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world....Then He will say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, you who are cursed, into the ETERNAL fire prepared for the devil and his angels....Then they will go away to ETERNAL PUNISHMENT, but the righteous to eternal life." (Matthew 25:34, 41, 46)

"In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who SUFFER THE PUNISHMENT OF ETERNAL FIRE. (Jude 7; see also Revelation 20:14-15 and 21:8)

THOMAS: "People thru the ages and into the present age have used the bible to justify plenty of their wrongdoings, have they not?"

Yes. But as Paul said, "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who CORRECTLY handles the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15)

THOMAS: "God is not the piece of garbage loser that some "Christians" think He Is and much more sadly that some "Christians" want Him to be."

What are you talking about? How can the Creator of the universe be a loser? He has provided the means of victory in His Son for all who believe. Not everyone believes Thomas. That is a constant theme along with the message of salvation being only found in Christ Jesus. Don't depart life without Him unless you want to be measured on your own merits.

Timmy2

My two-part post was addressed to you. Your name got cut off, somehow.

PART I

"You:I read your post twice, on why it is a religion and not a philosophy. I am still at a loss. It really feels to me as though it is an inability, perhaps due to a fear of God, to just throw away the bad, ignorant, misguided verses in the ancient texts. I actually don't think it's a true fear of God, so much as a fear of dissing your ancient ancestors. Instead of saying that they were ignorant or wrong about certan verses, let's just reconstruct and re interpret it so that they weren't wrong. That way we can defend our ancestors and our people from ever having done anything wrong, or from ever having written something repulsive and delusional and immoral.

It's like if you admit that your ancestors created some horrible ideas, then it says something bad about you, as an ethnic Jew, or that it justifies all of the horrible things that have been done your people over the centuries. It doesn't. Your ancestors can be guilty of creating some very bad ideas, without it justifying violence and persecution and racialzation of their offspring."

Me: Don't get me wrong. I'm not offended. I just have no idea what you're talking about from beginning to end. I can only repeat, or attempt to paraphrase. Judaism has absorbed philosophy, just as Christianity and Islam have. So, for instance, Maimonides was surely an Aristotelian, in some sense. He did not see the Tanakh as literally true, but rather as a way of speaking truths that could not be spoken in another way. Interestingly, much of what he discarded has, in fact, been empirically verified, since the Middle Ages.

Maimonides distinguished his theology from philosophy most eloquently in "Guide for the Perplexed," which you can read on the web. In his Commentary on the Mishna, he was a pains to explain why plurality of interpretation was acceptable, how it could be added to, what the appropriate methods of "exegesis," really, debate, were. His interests were theological, not philosophical, when it came to religion.
Nor did he overturn, toss away, dispense with Jewish observances.

Part II

None of this is to say that he wasn't interested in science and philosophy for their own sake, and as they obtained for his work as a physician. You know, of course, that he was one of the great physicians of his age.

Mordecai Kaplan was an atheist influenced by Dewy. In other words, he was a naturalist. His god, if you'd like, was the forces within the individual that led to self-realization. These thinkers are profound. They are not easily summarized in a paragraph or two.

And I haven't even mentioned Franz Rosenzweig.

None of these people, btw., wrote without reference to Talmud and commentaries. Think about what I tried to tell you awhile back when I asked you what "It's hot in here" means. You said that it depends on the context. Yes, indeed, it does. The Christians lifted parts of the Tanakh and hung it in a gallery for which it was not intended. Their meaning is not the meanings Judaism attaches to it.

ON your personal opinions of me, the ad homs, I have not comment. This, what, I've said is the best I can do. Wikipedia has articles on all those I've mentioned, on the texts I've mentioned, and on the terms. Again, Maimonides "Guide" is on the web.

That usual crowd have had enough;
the thread is left to Peter Huff
and Thomas Baum, in biblic battle
for what's our fate: but hellbound cattle,
or harvested, beloved throngs?
The stream flows on, with all its wrongs,
its rectitudes, and split-again hairs.
That an unsolved god remains - who cares?

PETERHUFF

You wrote, "Please see Luke 24:25-27, 44-47.

In this it says," He interpreted to them what referred to Him in all the scriptures.", and also "Then He opened their minds to understand the scriptures."

Seems to me this says that Jesus, God-Incarnate, interpreted and that Jesus opened their minds, does it not?

Before this, they didn't have a clue.

Isn't this just what I have been saying?

There are plenty that are interpreting the bible on their own and don't have a clue.

God is a BEING OF PURE LOVE as I have said before, Love is not an attribute of God, Love is His Very Being. We are ALL made in His Image, page one.

Another of the interesting things is when Jesus says if two people do the same thing wrong and one knows it to be wrong and the other does not know but should have, then the punishment will be different for the two of them, correct or not?

That is one of the reasons that I say: It is important what one does and why one does it and what one knows.

As I have said, I am just a messenger, Jesus was and is both a messenger and The Message.

Another interesting thing that Jesus said, "Tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the Kingdom ahead of you" in reference to some of the "religious" of Jesus's day, Jesus did not say that the aforementioned "religious" were not entering, die He?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

To Pam from Daniel. I will respond to and continue our conversation on the new thread.

Farnaz,

I read your post twice, on why it is a religion and not a philosophy. I am still at a loss. It really feels to me as though it is an inability, perhaps due to a fear of God, to just throw away the bad, ignorant, misguided verses in the ancient texts. I actually don't think it's a true fear of God, so much as a fear of dissing your ancient ancestors. Instead of saying that they were ignorant or wrong about certan verses, let's just reconstruct and re interpret it so that they weren't wrong. That way we can defend our ancestors and our people from ever having done anything wrong, or from ever having written something repulsive and delusional and immoral.

It's like if you admit that your ancestors created some horrible ideas, then it says something bad about you, as an ethnic Jew, or that it justifies all of the horrible things that have been done your people over the centuries. It doesn't. Your ancestors can be guilty of creating some very bad ideas, without it justifying violence and persecution and racialzation of their offspring.

In Defense of Death ___a comment by David Brooks in today’s NY Times ___I commend it to all.

PETERHUFF

In response to Arminius you wrote, "You want me to take your word or Thomas Baum's over that of God Himself when you/he claim a direct meeting with God and yet deny His very words to us?"

I have never denied Jesus's words, what I have tried to say is that lots of people have taken what Jesus said and other things that are written in the bible and twisted some of it into the most hate-filled pile of garbage.

People thru the ages and into the present age have used the bible to justify plenty of their wrongdoings, have they not?

God is not the piece of garbage loser that some "Christians" think He Is and much more sadly that some "Christians" want Him to be.

Whether you understand or don't understand what I am trying to say, it doesn't matter to me but I have never asked anyone to follow me. God told me that only I could say it, so I am saying it.

If God's Plan isn't ultimately for all then it is not worth didly. God is a winner, satan is a loser, a sore loser I might add, if it was a tie as far as I am concerned that would mean that God would be a loser, He's not.

Good News is not good news if it is only partial good news as in, for just some.

Even tho I have met God that doesn't mean that I know what everything in the bible means but it does mean that I don't have to figure out all of the details, just report on the big picture, as it were.

See you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Onofrio - am enjoying your posts as always....and the number 3? Your insights would be most appreciated!

Interesting that our very ground of material being, atomically speaking, requires a positive, negative, and neutral charge - so Gurdjeiff may have been on to something. Threez may be more popular than onez.....

See 'Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson'......

where Gurdjeiff sez, 'humans are food for the moon'.

Who knew??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_(number)

Arminius:

"Thanks for the poetic praise of Starhawk. I have, of course, been there to read her latest, as I always do. I am surprised the response has been so slight."

Me too. Dare to help the children. There is simple wisdom in what she wrote.

Hmmm, Farnaz of the JDL, mentions a number of Jewish sects but failed to mention one of the larger ones, the Conservative Jews.

And what is it that these sect members and many of their rabbis believe?

Abraham founder/father of three major religions was either the embellishment of the lives of three different men or a mythical character as was mythical Moses, the "Tablet-Man" who talked to burning bushes and made much magic in Egypt.

Many of the 1.5 million Conservative Jews and many of their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT.

Current crisis:

Realization that the Jews are not god's chosen people.

www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

Then there are all those NT passages written by P, M, M, L, and J to make the simple preacher man into some kind of deity. Might we call these gentlemen, the original "Peterhuffers"??

Timmy2

"Why is it not just a philosophy? What makes it a religion to you?"

Great question, and one that's been asked of Judaism for hundreds of years. In fact, Maimonides wrote his "Articles of Faith" primarily to answer the Muslims of his world, but also some Catholic correspondents, who kept "What do Jews believe?" Since he'd gone ahead and done it, and since he was Maimonides, and all, the J people didn't think it proper to simply ignore them. On the other hand, they felt uncomfortable saying them. Judaism was/is a way of life. What to do? A compromise: You may say recite them if you wish.

While in some of its aspects, at some levels, in some denominations/constructions Judaism has incorporated philosophy (as has Christianity), it is not philosophy, does not follow its methods, etc.

Mordecai Kaplan, for instance, who founded Reconstructionism, was heavily influenced by Dewy, did not think even the non-anthropomorphic deities, of say, an R. Steinsaltz or an R. Herschfield, different as they are, were suitable for modern Jews. However, he did see the ethics, primary in Judaism, the notion of Tikkun Olam (perfecting the world), and a shared consciousness, as worth perpetuating. Reconstructionism, then, becomes a way of engaging the world, a kind of ethico-theologic screen, as it were, founded on the anthropological notion that religions are specific to time and place, must adapt to changing conditions, thought, knowledge, etc. It does not exclude Talmudic learning, methods, etc.

An aside: To a significant extent, all branches of European (Askenazic) Judaism have have "kept up with the times" but not quite in the same way. As well, there is great flexibility of late. So, for instance. in both Conservative Egalitarian and Reformed Judaism, woman are rabbis. Yet, while Reformed Judaism was intended to be more "secular" than Conservative, that is often not the case. Indeed, sometimes it's the reverse. What can I say? Judaism is messy. :)

There's an ancient joke: Get two Jews in a room, get a thousand opinions.

WS' onlie begetter
From lxxxviii
Say that thou didst forsake me for some fault,
And I will comment on that offence:
Speak of my lameness, and I straight will halt,
Against thy reasons making no defence

And xxx *When to the sessions of sweet silent thought...*

Peterhuff,

About your post to Arminius on he and Thomas tale of meeting God instead of following the bible.

You seem to prefer a bunch of primitive “Thomas Baums” that wrote the bible in lieu of a today´s dreamer Thomas that tells you that he had a meeting with God. Or worse, you prefer those primitive writers in lieu of a much much open minded and rational thinker like Arminius.

Picture these two persons while meeting God. I picture Arminius laughing aloud with a beer in his hand and the Old Barbed Gay with a smile in his face. In the case of Thomas he will be on his knees “getting ready” and the Old Barbed Gay with a solemn, almost sternly face.

Go directly to the boss Peter, even if it´s imaginary, don´t pay attention to the people in the middle.

Best wishes to all,

JAC

farnaz,

"IMHO you won't much engage anyone in a substantive debate, let alone engender doubt.

I'm not looking to convert. (de-convert is more accurate) I know you think I am but I'm not. I agree with you that it is a pointless exercise. I'm looking to raise awareness. I'm looking to be one more voice in the crowd calling delusion for what it is. I'm looking to weaken the groupthink by dissent. As Colonnicholas pointed out on the last thread, the groupthink is very important to the perpetuation of these beliefs. That is why the heretic was such a big deal to the church. They knew how dangerous it was to the groupthink. Well they don't kill us heretics anymore. So we should take advantage, in the name of all those who were killed for it. IMHO

YOU: And as I mentioned in my last post, the matter of belief is not of great consequence in most branches of Judaism. There are Reconstruction rabbis who are atheists.

If there's no deity belief, then I have no problem with it. I also don't consider it a religion then. It would not be included in my "all religion is useless" comment, because it is not a religion to me. And I think calling it a religion is mislabeling and misleading. Why is it not just a philosophy? What makes it a religion to you?

Desolee, Farnaz. My mind is mix mastered from too little sleep. Damn that submit button. Your response to another's post. Yes, et moi aussi. Et in Arcadia ego.

Sword-falling seems like a good option, at this point. Or ushering those Danes over...

I marked well "the key to keep / Back beauty", certes.

"And wisdom is early to despair" :(

Yes, I marked well Hopkins' key along with the Maiden's, and his "Give beauty back, beauty..."

Those worlds you mediated. Considered all, brought all to mind...

"I am þe wakkest, I wot, and of wyt feblest"

Oh, I could never ignore.

Timmy2

You: Do you need to know every intimate detail about a religion to dismiss it? Is it not enough to know that it involves deity belief to dismiss it? It is for me.

Me: If you say it's enough for you, then it is. IMHO you won't much engage anyone in a substantive debate, let alone engender doubt. There has to be common ground. And as I mentioned in my last post, the matter of belief is not of great consequence in most branches of Judaism. There are Reconstruction rabbis who are atheists. Indeed, the founder of Reconstruction, its primary thinker, as it were, was an atheist.

Also, "deity" is a problematic word. A couple of clergy on this panel have written humorously of an "old man in the sky."

Terms....

Onofrio,

"Pam, thanks for your longish response and Black Beauty"

Thanks for your kind words.

Rhetorical and linguistic mood swing: Je ne comprends rien. "Black Beauty" est la mienne. Qu'est-ce qui arrive?

One blogger slanders, another ignores me :), Et tu, Onofrio?

Farnaz :0

Farnaz,

"To simply dismiss any religion without knowing anything doesn't, I think, work well"

Do you need to know every intimate detail about a religion to dismiss it? Is it not enough to know that it involves deity belief to dismiss it? It is for me.

As I have said many times, I'm not for throwing out the baby with the bath water. Keep the good parts that are truly useful. But all of those are actually just human wisdom and morals encased in mythology that do not require the deity belief part. Keep the baby, but as for the dirty bath water, throw it out. Don't reconstruct it. Just ditch it. You can't make it clean again no matter how hard you try.

Arminius, continued,

ARMINIUS: "The basis of Thomas Baum's belief comes in his tale of what amounted to a direct meeting with God, and all else follows from that. I can relate to that, because I had a similar experience, if not remotely as profound as what Thomas experienced. I now know that God IS, that He is with me, that He has always been with me, and always will be. And the same is true for His children, all the peoples of Earth. The bible, to me, is not the ultimate source of truth, it is a door to truths which I can only barely see, let alone know."

It is all well and good to claim a direct "experience" from God and there have been many to do so. The thing that troubles me about Thomas Baum, and yourself, is that you and Thomas contradict so much of what the Bible says. Your very words, "The Bible, to me, is not the ultimate source of truth" shows that you do not have a high view of the Scriptures that claim to be from God Himself. You are a walking contradiction my friend, for out of the one corner of your mouth you say you trust the four gospel accounts as being from Jesus and then from the other corner you say that the Bible - the 66 different books are not our ultimate source of truth. By doing so you make God's revelation of Himself out to be a lie. The Jews understood what blasphemy was. You need to repent of such an attitude Arminius.

Jesus Himself, in the gospels that you acknowledge claimed the Scriptures to be the very word of God. Please see Luke 24:25-27, 44-47, as just one of the many places that confirms Jesus' view of Scripture. In the whole gospel of Matthew Jesus kept saying "It is written" confirming the Scriptures and how many times did He and the apostles allude to them as the Word of God? Look up the Word of God in a concordance (see also John 8:17-59 - please read)

You want me to take your word or Thomas Baum's over that of God Himself when you/he claim a direct meeting with God and yet deny His very words to us?

One thing for Thomas here too. When I said that Jesus was the culmination of God's revelation to man I was speaking of Hebrews 1:1-3, not denying the Holy Spirit's work in our life. The Holy Spirit testifies about Jesus and makes Him known to us, as well as convicting men of sin and guilt and righteousness and judgment.

Thomas, please see my quote of John 16:13-16 above.

Hi Arminius (January 12, 2009 3:35 PM),

ARMINIUS: "I fear you are making a mistake here in your approach. You, if I am not mistaken, have your belief firmly rooted in the bible and nowhere else. Please correct me if I am wrong here."

No you are wrong, my faith is rooted in the One who has revealed Himself through the pages of the Bible and by the Spirit of truth whom He has left to those who believe.

"Consequently [Arminius], faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ [or God - depending on your translation]" This is the very Word that was with God in the beginning (see John 1:1,2, 14)

Arminius, "Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4)

Jesus said, "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The WORDS I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life." (John 6:63)

Jesus said, "I have more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when He, the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth [talking to the disciples]. He will not speak on His own; He will speak only of what He hears, and He will tell you of what is yet to come. He will bring glory to Me [Jesus] by taking what is Mine and making it known to you." (John 16:12-15)

When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, He will testify about Me. And you must also testify, for you have been with Me from the beginning." (John 15:26-27)

Arminius, it is a shame that you do not have a higher view of Scripture. You treat the four gospels as coming from Jesus and yet suspiciously discount the writings of the apostles and those in close company to them, two of which, Mark and Luke were said by the early church fathers to be disciples of Peter and Paul.

Now you know that Peter was one of the twelve apostles and he is the one who writes,

"Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom of God. He writes the same way in all of his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the OTHER SCRIPTURES, to their own destructions." (2 Peter 3:15-16)

Paul also has the same view of Peter's writing. I'm not going to look up the verse since I do not remember it's exact location at the present time and it is late.

"Paul, an apostle - sent not from men nor by man, BUT BY JESUS CHRIST AND GOD THE FATHER...(Galatians 1:1; also see 1:11-12 or 1 Thessalonians 2:13)

Pamsm wrote: "And I'm entirely willing to live and let live"

Not "entirely". Only to the point where their living doesn't harm you, of course.

Deity belief harms our world a great deal, and I am on a continual search for someone to show me where it helps our world at all, let alone helping enough to make up for the bad.

Am I looking to outlaw it? No.
Am I looking to start pogroms? No.
Am I looking to persecute believers? No.

I am merely no longer respecting the taboo on open and harsh criticism of religious beliefs. If they were harmless I would. If they were useful I would. But they are both harmful, and useless in my opinion and I can back both of those statements up with logical and sensible argument, so I will criticize. I will not be polite. I will not concern myself with tender ears. Not while 93% of the national academy of sciences are ipso facto ineligible for high public office in the United States because they are too smart to believe in Gods. Not when Sarah Palin thinks that Global Warming is part of God's plan. Not when George Bush thinks that he is part of God's plan. Not when the Majority of the American population vote on a civil rights issues like Gay marriage, based on what Bronze age nomadic goat herders thought God said. Not when planes are flying into buildings. Not when 700 million muslim women are enslaved. And I haven't even gotten to the religious wars yet.

I don't consider militant atheism a rude position. With all that is going on in our world right now, I consider theism of any kind to be a rude, and irresponsible position. I think that speaking out against it, even when not asked, is as important as speaking out against slavery. Truth be told, I think it is more important.

Onofrio,

you said, answering my post:

"...I'm simply refusing to submit to yet another dogma - that *strict* non-belief you and others extol."

Pam has already expressed her surprise about such a statement coming from you. How "dogmatic" can a non-stamp-collector become in a worst case scenario? And how evil, how much of a nuisance the fact of his non-collector status?

If he says, he doesn't collect stamps, this can be described as a "strict" statement. He doesn't "maybe collect a few" stamps, or expects to be converted to become a stamp collector after all, as our Christian friends Thomas and PH would hope or fear.

And I don't go after stamp collectors.

I wouldn't have thought that you tread in such a simple trap.

Alles,

Je suis somewhat on the hop. Just a quick thankyou to those who've addressed posts to me just recently. I haven't time right now to make all the responses I'd like to. Desolee. The river flows away...

I see that Persiflage is back, so my noisy japes must become less. So little need for belly dancing when such clarity appears. Zesta!

Pam, thanks for your longish response and Black Beauty and fake mediums. I would never ,ever, lump you among the dogmatists. Amen. There be nowt for this kobold to knock upon in all thy gist.

Persiflage, I would love to share on threes and eights from ancient Nilotic perspective. Write on...thanks for the Zen (btw, I can actually clap with one hand :) party trick)

Farnaz, may language bless you, and again. Ah, the worlds you mediate. Maldon - my favourite OldEng! Ofermode - my downfall every time.

Chaucer agin:

Diverse folk diversely they demed;
As many heddes, as manye wittes ther been.
They murmureden as dooth a swarm of been,
And maden skiles after hir fantasies,
Rehersynge of thise olde poetries...
--------------------------------------------

I am þe wakkest, I wot, and of wyt feblest

Hi Pam,

Thanks for the reply.

"That said, in this forum, I'm going to speak my piece - and if I can get someone to think a little more skeptically, I consider it a plus. But I figure that people who come here are expecting that - as I am from them"

Uh Oh. Interesting. The old atheists vs. believers duel, eh? I wonder if anyone ever convinces anyone along these lines. Change from belief to disbelief and vice versa is generally a process, as you probably know, and some folks change back again.

Also, what is meant by belief differs from religion to religion. And what to make of Judaism which is not a creedal religion?

To simply dismiss any religion without knowing anything doesn't, I think, work well. To have any credibility with adherents, I've found one must know whereof one speaks, or at the very least, be able to ask the right questions.

On the matter of atheism vs. theism, I'm a live and let live type, so long as I get to be among those who get to live. On the matter of secularism, well, that's a different story. Radical, am I, I suppose. One of them. An absolutist. Really. Absolute.

Farnaz

Hi Farnaz,
ME:Timmy and Arminius have answered this point well.

YOU: "See below, and, especially, the third paragraph, for a suggestion on how these issues might be discussed".

Quite right, I should have included you in the statement above. Sometimes I read through all the posts, and when I go back to answer one, I don't remember them all.

YOU: "Also, I posted to you earlier on dogmatism and atheism. You need not reply of course, but I was wondering if you'd had any thoughts on what I'd penned".

I read that one just before leaving the office, so didn't stop to reply. I agree with both points - religion and government should be entirely separate as was originally intended. And I'm entirely willing to live and let live.

There's nothing I dislike more than having someone accost me when I'm minding my own business, to tell me how I might be saved. Especially when they knock on my door. I don't do it to them.

That said, in this forum, I'm going to speak my piece - and if I can get someone to think a little more skeptically, I consider it a plus. But I figure that people who come here are expecting that - as I am from them.

Final thoughts, Part 1

ME: "In effect, what you are saying is because more people feel a woman has the right to choose to abort and can empathize with a woman not wanting an unwanted baby that abortion is right. It all boils down to feelings and majority for you. There is no right about it."

PAM: "There is a right for the mother, too. And a right in consideration of what kind of life the child can expect, if born. This is one of those gray areas, with valid points to be made on both sides. Society has opted for one side currently, but it could change."

If she has the right to take a life within the womb, why not on the outside too for one of her other children? Surely they depend on her too, especially the younger they are? If she feels the one after birth is derelict or bad for the society in general, why not take "it" down to the pond and drown it also? What gives her the right to murder before birth and not after birth?

Part 1 continued,

ME: "You say yes, by empathy. The question is whose? What happens if a person does not empathize or feel the same way you do on what is ‘right’ or ‘good’ because their hard-wiring is different from your hard-wiring? Then who determines?"

PAM: "The social group. That’s why we have a legal system. Empathy is personal, but the basic perception that others of our species (and even other species, to some extent) are like us and have feelings like ours, is selected for by nature because it works, and is present in most of us. But evolution works by selecting from traits that vary. If there were no variation, nothing would evolve. Therefore, there will always be some who are sociopathic, or mentally ill, or who can be taught to overcome their natural impulses (soldiers, gangs, etc.)."

What happens if "nature" selects the sociopath or mentally ill as the dominate "social group" and they make into law that you are the next one on the chopping block? You always take that "natural selection" is working for the good, but what about all those strains of bacteria that are working against our "good"?

You say the social group. That is just my point, which one? What makes the social group that you are a member of - the atheists or the Americans - the group that should dictate what is good? Does it always boil down to numbers with you, the fifty one percent? We see in the natural world animals fighting for survival. There is no judge or jury to decide what is good or bad, it is the mighty that rule and share in the spoils of the kill. So, according to your belief system, we are more advanced animals, but when push comes to shove why "should" I spare my fellow man when there is only enough food for one of us? Why "should" I throw myself on a bomb to protect the other fellow when this life is all I have and then nothing? Why "should" I call Hitler evil, or in the case of Timmy or you, someone who is a sociopath or mentally ill, when he was just trying to promote the speeding up process of evolution, as his limited mind saw it. It was his struggle to rid the earth of inferior species. Why "should" it be the social group and not the ones who exert the most brutal reign of terror?

Ah, Bun.

Hello Pamsm,

I owe you a few responses.

PART 1 (January 10, 2009 10:38 PM)

ME: "but why is it possible to discern any qualitative value without an absolute, objective standard, something to measure your ideal by?"

PAM: "Peter, nature is messy. It has shades of gray. The ideal is social harmony. That is the standard. But this can be an evolving standard."

Shades of gray. Then what gives you or your social group the right or the deciding factor in determining what good "should" be? If "good" is a shade of gray then how do you determine that you are rightly calling it "good?"

Whose ideal of social harmony? Why do they get to call the shots? If the standard is constantly changing then what is good about it? It is just the flavor of the month, something that a group or culture prefers right now, but maybe not in a month, year or decade from now.

PAM: "Some things are pretty cut and dried, like killing, stealing, and lying (as the ten commandments recognized)."

Yes, you recognize that the Ten Commandments forbid these things but your next comments make me realize that you do not understand the scope of the Ten Commandments was for humans created in God's image. It is a moral code for humans, not animals or plants. And the "Thou shall not kill" you mentioned was an individual person taking another persons life, something that is sacred to our Maker for man was made in His image and likeness, something that He did not make animals or plants in. God laid the concept of murder out further in some of the 613 Mosaic laws in the Torah.

PAM: "These are almost always socially destructive. But even these aren’t non-negotiable. The commandment says simply that you shouldn’t kill – no fine print, no sub-clauses – but I don’t see many fundamentalists who think it’s wrong to kill plants and animals in order to eat, or people in order to defend your life or your country."

First of all, the Ten Commandments were written for people to be aware of, for plants and animals do not have the same kind of awareness that people do. Plants and animals were created distinct from mankind, each to its own kind.

And considering that Farnaz is an employee of the JDL, should anyone take anything she says seriously???

And traveling through the centuries, we find, Brithnoth. Either they just don't make 'em or they just don't write 'em like that anymore. For excellent translations into Modern English, essays, pictures, etc., visit
http://www.battleofmaldon.org.uk/

The Battle of Maldon

Verse Indeterminate Saxon

brocen wurde.
Het þa hyssa hwæne hors forlætan,
feor afysan, and forð gangan,
hicgan to handum and to hige godum.
5
þa þæt Offan mæg ærest onfunde,
þæt se eorl nolde yrhðo geþolian,
he let him þa of handon leofne fleogan
hafoc wið þæs holtes, and to þære hilde stop;
be þam man mihte oncnawan þæt se cniht nolde
10
wacian æt þam wige, þa he to wæpnum feng.
Eac him wolde Eadric his ealdre gelæstan,
frean to gefeohte, ongan þa forð beran
gar to guþe. He hæfde god geþanc
þa hwile þe he

And to all a good night, but, especially, to Brihtnoth, who lives on....

Pamsm:

You write:

"Timmy and Arminius have answered this point well."

See below, and, especially, the third paragraph, for a suggestion on how these issues might be discussed.

Also, I posted to you earlier on dogmatism and atheism. You need not reply of course, but I was wondering if you'd had any thoughts on what I'd penned. No hurry, at all events. :)
__________________
Farnaz2 Author Profile Page:

Daniel12:

You write: "No matter what atheists say, millions of people have been inspired to do good, to self-sacrifice themselves in the name of christ."

Err...well, yunno, the opposite obtains quite well. Scroll down for a waltz through history. Reason is also double or triple-edged. There is, e.g., Robespierre, Onforio's apt example of lethal rational dagger.

Ethics, religion, reason--perhaps, we need to look at each one separately. Interestingly, in answer to a question posed awhile ago, most of OnFaith's panelists dismissed the notion of a necessary connection between ethics and religion.

Farnaz

January 12, 2009 8:34 PM

DANIEL12: "William Wallace an atheist or at least a secular figure? The antisemitic ardent catholic mel gibson playing the atheist wallace in braveheart? More names please of secular figures as self-sacrificing of christ. No matter what atheists say, millions of people have been inspired to do good, to self-sacrifice themselves in the name of christ. But of course perhaps reason can approximate such sometime...."

Timmy and Arminius have answered this point well. As a matter of fact, I was on my way to National Airport for a flight to NY when that plane went down in the Potomac, so I remember it well. A miserable snowy day. They closed the airport afterwards and I never made it out, of course.

Think also of the rescue personnel who died trying to rescue people on 9/11. They weren't doing it for Jesus, it was their job. These people risk, and sometimes give, their lives daily.

And they aren't the only ones. There are many heroic deeds performed every year. It's because they're empathetic, not because they're looking for a ticket to heaven. You can look up their names for yourself.

The Leaden Echo and the Golden Echo (Continues below)

(Maidens’ song from St. Winefred’s Well)

THE LEADEN ECHO

HOW to kéep—is there ány any, is there none such, nowhere known some, bow or brooch or braid or brace, láce, latch or catch or key to keep
Back beauty, keep it, beauty, beauty, beauty, … from vanishing away?
Ó is there no frowning of these wrinkles, rankéd wrinkles deep,
Dówn? no waving off of these most mournful messengers, still messengers, sad and stealing messengers of grey?
No there ’s none, there ’s none, O no there ’s none, 5
Nor can you long be, what you now are, called fair,
Do what you may do, what, do what you may,
And wisdom is early to despair:
Be beginning; since, no, nothing can be done
To keep at bay 10
Age and age’s evils, hoar hair,
Ruck and wrinkle, drooping, dying, death’s worst, winding sheets, tombs and worms and tumbling to decay;
So be beginning, be beginning to despair.
O there ’s none; no no no there ’s none:
Be beginning to despair, to despair, 15
Despair, despair, despair, despair.

Hopkins continued

THE GOLDEN ECHO

Spare!
There ís one, yes I have one (Hush there!);
Only not within seeing of the sun,
Not within the singeing of the strong sun, 20
Tall sun’s tingeing, or treacherous the tainting of the earth’s air,
Somewhere elsewhere there is ah well where! one,
Oné. Yes I can tell such a key, I do know such a place,
Where whatever’s prized and passes of us, everything that ’s fresh and fast flying of us, seems to us sweet of us and swiftly away with, done away with, undone,
Undone, done with, soon done with, and yet dearly and dangerously sweet 25
Of us, the wimpled-water-dimpled, not-by-morning-matchèd face,
The flower of beauty, fleece of beauty, too too apt to, ah! to fleet,
Never fleets móre, fastened with the tenderest truth
To its own best being and its loveliness of youth: it is an everlastingness of, O it is an all youth!
Come then, your ways and airs and looks, locks, maiden gear, gallantry and gaiety and grace, 30
Winning ways, airs innocent, maiden manners, sweet looks, loose locks, long locks, lovelocks, gaygear, going gallant, girlgrace—
Resign them, sign them, seal them, send them, motion them with breath,
And with sighs soaring, soaring síghs deliver
Them; beauty-in-the-ghost, deliver it, early now, long before death
Give beauty back, beauty, beauty, beauty, back to God, beauty’s self and beauty’s giver. 35
See; not a hair is, not an eyelash, not the least lash lost; every hair
Is, hair of the head, numbered.
Nay, what we had lighthanded left in surly the mere mould
Will have waked and have waxed and have walked with the wind what while we slept,
This side, that side hurling a heavyheaded hundredfold 40
What while we, while we slumbered.
O then, weary then why
When the thing we freely fórfeit is kept with fonder a care,
Fonder a care kept than we could have kept it, kept
Far with fonder a care (and we, we should have lost it) finer, fonder 45
A care kept.—Where kept? Do but tell us where kept, where.—
Yonder.—What high as that! We follow, now we follow.—Yonder, yes yonder, yonder,
Yonder.

-Gerard Manley Hopkins

Ah, CCNL (BunBun),

We thought it might be too good to be actual, and here again is you, this time with a topical proclamation. But, what topic is there other than your version of the Crossan Creed? And has not the Infinite Virtuality read it over and over again? Ah, me, alas...no takers in the virtual?

And in the actual--in the Klan; among your Nazi drinking buddies, Americans for Heterosexism, Xenophobes Anonymous--is there none such, nowhere?

Gee. Awwwww. POOoooorrrr thinggg!! {:-(

PART 2

DANIEL12: “For most of human history there were one or more species of human living side by side. Only the line to H. Sapiens made it. And out of millions of species only we have made it this far in intelligence”.

Which is probably exactly how we made it this far. Successful animals have many species. Think of beetles (T. H. Huxley was once asked by a churchman what his studies of evolution had taught him about his creator. His reply: “That he was inordinately fond of beetles.”), or flies, or snakes, or birds, or cats. The sign of an unsuccessful design is a small number of species. Our genus currently has only one. If we hadn’t come up with intelligence when we did, we likely would have been toast – with no one to even dig up our fossils and ponder them. Face it, we can’t run fast, swim well, or fly. We don’t have skin that acts as armor, or poison glands, or sharp teeth or claws. Our legs and arms don’t end in hard hooves. Smarts are our one stock in trade.

DANIEL12: “Terrible observation for the future: in a world without God generation upon generation will have it inculcated in school and over all society that we all are not only nothing more than links in a chain toward a greater form of homo…”

Not necessarily. Evolution is a bush, not a ladder. Not everything proceeds “upwards” toward more complexity. When you start with single-celled animals, more complexity is the only way to go, so it may seem like everything is “progressing”, but it doesn’t have to. Please note that there are still plenty of single-celled animals. In fact, there are more in your large intestine at this very moment, than all the people who have *ever* existed. Some animals have regressed – are less complex now than previously. Nature selects for whatever works best, no matter the direction.

Daniel, it would be really nice if you would break your posts into paragraphs like the rest of us (and the world) do(es). These big solid blocks of text are difficult to read, and in future, I intend to skip them.

DANIEL12: “the only logical response to the criticisms I made is that without God we enter the tragic sense of life. Precisely because there is a diminishment of a belief in God and of course belief in absolute good we enter an existence that is not only more evil than an existence behind which God exists, there is very little hope in a good without God”.

That may be your opinion – I don’t agree with it at all. There are no statistics to support it, and there are many that point the other way. See my post of December 31 at 6:22 p.m. on Susan’s previous thread: http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/susan_jacoby/2008/12/the_most_predictable_story_eve/all_comments.html

DANIEL12: “We no longer say God is a monster for having created existence with all the evident evil in it. We say instead that we are left with just existence which in many ways is monstrous. The tragic sense of life--the only truthful and sensible position of the atheist”.

Sorry, but I don’t follow. How is existence monstrous? Some lives are tragic, it’s true, but certainly not all. Many are filled with joy. It’s up to us as individuals to make what we can of life. And I’ll indulge in a little psychology (for which I admit to having absolutely zero qualifications) – I think that religious fundamentalists are people who feel the need for a great deal of structure in their lives – black & white - no gray. They seem to me to be a little afraid of having responsibility for all of their own choices. They need to feel the love and security that Daddy represented, for their entire lives.

DANIEL12: “Furthermore the human race is driven to have to make itself. It must choose from among all human qualities those best to enable to further itself toward a new and more superior species of homo than sapiens”.

Too much science fiction, Daniel. We don’t direct our own evolution, nor can we – it happens on too large a time scale. It’s what happens to us while we’re busy doing something else.

DANIEL12: “Communists thought that they could make a glorious world without God and we see where they got”.

Those who originated the idea of Communism may have thought so, but what happened was takeover by power-hungry dictators – there was never true Communism anywhere – and atheism was not their raison d’etre. Nor was it freely chosen by their people.

DANIEL 12: “Secular humanism is not so far removed those illusions. It must be accepted that the human race must further itself and that the path upward is likely to be as frought with evil as the millions of years which led up to H. Sapiens”.

Who says so? How would anyone know? I think that our ancestors of several million years ago lived pretty much like other animals. Where’s the “evil” in that?

Off topic as with most of the last one hundred contributions (some form of JDL distraction tactic :))

Thomas "The Hallucinator" Baum continues to represent god, the RCC and all its leaders as he has decided all about heaven and hell and who will go there if they exist. Well at least his last commentary was "trumptation" free!!!!

Basho retires to the bamboo room, leaving us with this:

Furu ike ya
kawazu tobikomu
mizu no oto
__________

Into the ancient pond
A frog jumps
Water’s sound!

Translated by D.T. Suzuki

Farnaz - regarding recent writings in transpersonal psychology, I would recommend looking at Ken Wilbur's work. He is very well versed in Buddhism, as are a number of others in the field.

Another writer from the old Esalen days (from the Timothy Leary era) was Robert DeRopp, a research biologist turned esotericist - studied Gurdjeiff and Ouspensky extensively. He authored the following works; Self-Completion, The Warrior's Way, and most famously, The Master Game.

In the end, he reverted to the perpetual religion of the non-religious.

When there's nothing left, there is Zen.....
____________

I took a comparative religions degree back in the 1960's with the intention of teaching the academic study of religion in public schools - it has not happened to date, in that very same Michigan town where I took the degree. At least a brief exposure to religion in society should be mandatory at the secondary school level.

This might convey the novel and in some ways inflammatory idea that religions are as much alike as they are different.

The program in my home town is still there and producing doctoral level academicians of religion like nobody's business....where they go is anybody's guess.

Maybe to California - always ahead of the curve ....

Here's a link to one of Dennett's essays calling for teaching about religion in the high schools, but I don't think this is where I saw references to actual courses. Also, although I only glanced at it, I think this piece is more polemical than the one I mentioned earlier. Ah, memory. I shall have to do hunt some more.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/daniel_c_dennett/2007/03/teach_our_children_well.html

Arminius,

YOU: And why are you obsessed with being 'slandered'?

I wouldn't use the word obsessed. But it's very annoying when someone does it over and over again. I think everyone gets upset at being slandered.

YOU: Why the f*** can't you try to be polite and simply say someone was mistaken?

Did you learn to use such expletives from Jesus?
I was polite the first time. And the second. But you insist on misrepresenting me in all of your posts in the most heinous way and I'm sick of it.

All of your posts to me start with "Timmy believes X". And then you go on to argue with X, and you are always wrong. I'm not kidding Arminius, I will send you a check for a thousand dollars if you can find one quote where I called any religion "evil" never mind all religion evil. $1000.00 should make the scrolling worth while. Go for it. Or don't ever again start one of your posts with "Timmy believes X". Because you obviously do not know X.

Timmy2:

"Did you mean Dennett (sp?!)? In an essay he wrote for this blog, he recommended that courses in comparative religion be offered in high schools and in colleges. Some already are. Some colleges offer courses in cultural pluralism.
Good ideas, both, I think"
Absolutely enthusiastically yes. Couldn't agree more.
_________________________
In the essay, Dennett provided testimony or links to it--I can't recall which--of high school students' immense satisfaction with such courses.
A Jesuit University where I worked for awhile required a course titled Cultural Pluralism, taught by faculty from throughout the disciplines. To say it was life-changing for a diverse student body is to say the least.

Pseudo,

Re: Your poetic :) post
Personally, I've been there and done that not only now but all my life. What develops from it on blogs is the expression of racisms of various sorts, with all of which I'm familiar, persons valiantly bearing information that supports their own positions, declining to hear others, etc.

Quinn and Meacham phrased the question poorly as I and others have noted, seeking to sensationalize as usual, as they did with the election, reducing to nothingness enormous complexity. And we good-naturedly went along for quite awhile. (Scroll down.)

Shall we next take up religion in Sudan? We certainly could. Should we discuss anti-Catholic sentiment in England?

OR BETTER YET, antisemitism? The British government has now given advice to English Jews on precautionary measures! And the Brits are not alone! The Jews are on their own now. How odd, historically speaking. Or, is it. I'm indebted to Deb Chatterjee for his posts on this matter.

http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2009/01/08/eurabian-nights-and-days-rampant-muslim-jew-hatred-and-absent-jewish-%e2%80%9cislamophobia%e2%80%9d/

Shall we discuss the Dalit, of whom I've often posted, but in whom the media takes no interest? Why evah not? Could it have anything to do with the gold in them thar Indian hills? I'm indebted to an Anon blogger for this link.

"I am Dalit, How are you"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBxy1R0jitM

Is this a topic for OnFaith? If so, there are a lot more where these two came from....

How about snippets of Muslim anti-Jewish racism along with its sources, from guess where?

AND this will take us...Where?
-------------------
Of course, we can revisit where we've already been on this thread....Or wander over to another...

Or discuss Amichai's Wildpeace--Scroll down. Or persuade Persiflage to teach us a middle way. :)

Farnaz,

"Did you mean Dennett (sp?!)? In an essay he wrote for this blog, he recommended that courses in comparative religion be offered in high schools and in colleges. Some already are. Some colleges offer courses in cultural pluralism.
Good ideas, both, I think"

Absolutely enthusiastically yes. Couldn't agree more.

persiflage:

"Farnaz and Timmy - yup, it's Daniel Dennett...and I recall we did discuss the idea of the academic study of religion in secondary schools awhile back. and Farnaz mentioned that it could be found in certain school curriculums according to the Dennett article. I'm wondering where?

Probably not in South Carolina, where I currently reside. See a redux of the SC license plate scandal elsewhere on the blog.

Ground control to Major Tom - are we in Sweden yet?"
----------------------------------------
Hi Persiflage,

These programs, courses, exist right here in the US, actually! Dennett mentioned a couple in California high schools, if I'm not mistaken, and, of course, they're not uncommon in colleges throughout the country. If I'm not mistaken, for accreditation, at least by one agency, colleges must include a diversity requirement in the curriculum.

Btw., Persiflage, I looked at the Wikipedia link (thanks again!) for Transpersonal Psychology, and, evidently, it has involved many voices, has evolved, benefited from various criticism.

Really, P, I think that "unconsciously," I'm resorting to strategies, tactics, maneuvers, to entice you to resume posting on meditation!

Farnaz :)

Pseudo,

Thanks for the poetic praise of Starhawk. I have, of course, been there to read her latest, as I always do. I am surprised the response has been so slight.

Farnaz and Timmy - yup, it's Daniel Dennett...and I recall we did discuss the idea of the academic study of religion in secondary schools awhile back. and Farnaz mentioned that it could be found in certain school curriculums according to the Dennett article. I'm wondering where?

Probably not in South Carolina, where I currently reside. See a redux of the SC license plate scandal elsewhere on the blog.

Ground control to Major Tom - are we in Sweden yet?

So many of us are gathered here
But miss the wisdom of Starhawk dear

She speaks a simple truth divine
Of war that puts babes on the line

Reminds us of as simple truth
That there are babes who need our ruth

Go read there what you may find
Of a world with hate that has gone blind

So blind it cannot see what's precious
And does more deeds now for later confession

Timmy,

"I didn't call you a liar. I said that you were lying...."

And there is a difference? Yeah, right.

And why are you obsessed with being 'slandered'? Why the f*** can't you try to be polite and simply say someone was mistaken? Any critical remarks aimed at you make you react like your life had been threatened. I'm afraid on these subjects you simply cannot be debated, only baited. Which can be fun, but gets none of us anywhere.

"On the other hand, Dennent understands the history of religion, and is certainly expert in the realm of comparative religions, so his antagonistic position seems to me to be aimed primarily at fundamentalist thinking - and in that I can't disagree."

Did you mean Dennett (sp?!)? In an essay he wrote for this blog, he recommended that courses in comparative religion be offered in high schools and in colleges. Some already are. Some colleges offer courses in cultural pluralism.
Good ideas, both, I think.

I agree it does no good to argue about religion per se. It's the politics of religion that worry and therefore engage me. Wisdom, is, indeed, in short supply, hence my seeking a more inward route of late.

Farnaz :)

Persiflage,

"On the other hand, Dennent understands the history of religion, and is certainly expert in the realm of comparative religions, so his antagonistic position seems to me to be aimed primarily at fundamentalist thinking.

Actually Dennet has a whole chapter in his book on "belief in belief" which is his criticism of moderate religion and religious apologists. Dennet has no time for any of it, and he'll gladly tell you so.

I am not a throw away the baby with the bath water guy. I think that all of our religious texts are filled with useful information, life lessons, wisdom and values. I just know that all of those things were created by human minds and not the divine. All of these good things can be surgically removed from deity belief, which not only does not enhance them in any way, but IMHO poisons them to the core and causes all kinds of trouble. Moreover, once you surgically remove these things from deity belief, they no longer fit the definition of religion, but rather, philosophy and wisdom. That is why I say that religion (deity belief) is useless. Take away the irrational delusion, and you just have a collection of human philosophy and age old wisdom that is perfectly secular.

I don't want to get rid of myths. I just want everyone to realize that they are myths. Once we realize that, they will be more useful than ever before. As they are currently to the atheist.

Arminius,

YOU: Was Hitler evil? Do you describe him thus?

I told you, Arminius, that is your word and I don't like to use it. I describe him as a man with a mental disorder who committed atrocities due to his troubled mind.

YOU: He was certainly guilty of horrendous crimes.

Yes, we agree here.

YOU: So then religion - you say it does very little good, and great amounts of evil.

No. There you go again, putting your words into my mouth to argue with. I have never used the word "evil" to describe religion. Please stop the slander.

YOU: Therefore, if Hitler is evil, so is religion, right? Can't wait for your verbal belly dances on this one.

The verbal belly dancing is all yours sir. You continue to argue with your own words that you have slanderously attributed to me. Please stop it.

YOU: Don't call me a liar.

I didn't call you a liar. I said that you were lying when you said that I said that all religion is "evil". Since I have never said that, it means that you saying that I said it, is a lie. I am sure that you are not a habitual liar, but you did lie about me in your last post, and this one. Please stop it.

YOU: You are very, very thin-skinned.

No sir. I just don't allow myself to be blatantly slandered.

Farnaz - in a sense, transpersonal psychology was vetted through Esalen Institute back in the 1970's, with it's seminars addressing discoveries in personal transformation.

Maslow, Fritz Perls, Ida Rolf, Stan Grof, Robert DeRopp, Joseph Campbell, and the list goes on - Esalen has a well-deserved reputation since the late 1960's going forward, for operating on the cutting edge of humanist thought/philosophy through the decades, as well as providing exposure to various of the seminal thinkers leading the charge.....many are listed on the transpersonal website that you provided.

The difference between this school of humanism and the outspoken humanist atheism of Dawkins, Harris, Dennent, et al is a seemingly apparent denial of the validity of religion or it's contributions in any form whatsoever, by the aforementioned.

I can understand arguing for the knowledge of science - and the beliefs of religion can't be substituted for the knowledge of science. That much is clear.

On the other hand, Dennent understands the history of religion, and is certainly expert in the realm of comparative religions, so his antagonistic position seems to me to be aimed primarily at fundamentalist thinking - and in that I can't disagree.

Timmy seems to be of this school, as an example. As for me, I don't argue religion much.....life is short, and knowledge of real value is hard to acquire. This website does give the opportunity for clarifying one's thinking, and that's a good thing!

But that's not the point. Human nature for better or worse cannot be constrained or enhanced in any great measure by either religion or science - real wisdom is beyond both......and not nearly as prevelant as need be in the here and now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpersonal_psychology

Daniel,

Timmy and others are right - morality is not held in a hammerlock by religion. Non-believers do just as many good things as believers. Just look around you.

William Wallace, one of my all-time heroes, was certainly religious. But he did not resist Longshanks and the English for religious reasons. To be sure, he wanted a free Scotland, but a lot of his hatred of the English was due to Edward's brutal oppression, which apparently included the murder of Wallace's own family.

Daniel, et all,

I don't know if any of you ever saw footage of the rescue of plane crash victims from the icy Potomic river in the middle of a blizzard. Onlookers and rescuers looked on helplessly as the six only survivors of the impact were slowly freezing to death in front of hundreds of people who could seemingly do nothing.

At one point, a bystander could take no more. A man, tore off his jacket, kicked off his boots, barged past the rescue workers and dove into the icy waters. He swam out and rescued a woman who was going under, frozen and blinded by jet fuel. This man could easily have died himself, in fact it's a wonder he didn't. If you've ever seen the video, it is one of the bravest things I've ever seen. I get a lump in my throat every time I see it.

Later during an interview, the man was asked if he was religious. He replied, "No, I'm an atheist actually. I just did what I had to do".

We all have that in us. Some people attribute it to God, just like some people attribute winning the super bowl to God. They are all wrong. It's just in us. No faith required.

Timmy,

Was Hitler evil? Do you describe him thus? He was certainly guilty of horrendous crimes. Yet this vegetarian, who did not smoke or drink, was apparently kind to dogs and little children. So then religion - you say it does very little good, and great amounts of evil. Therefore, if Hitler is evil, so is religion, right? Can't wait for your verbal belly dances on this one.

Don't call me a liar. I may well be mistaken, and if I agree that I have been mistaken, I will apologize. But I won't apologize to someone who accuses me of lying. You are very, very thin-skinned.

Daniel,

"More names please of secular figures as self-sacrificing of christ"

Jesus is a mythological Character. There have been many other self sacrificing mythological figures. You can not ask for examples of real humans that live up to the attributes of a mythological character, because the writers of the mythological character can give it attributes that are beyond the human capacity, as is clearly the case with Jesus.

If you have some sort of proof or even some credible evidence that Jesus was a real human who possessed all of the attributes attributed to him in the bible, do tell. Otherwise, I can provide you with many examples of "Christ" like self sacrificing characters from mythology.

Daniel12:

You write: "No matter what atheists say, millions of people have been inspired to do good, to self-sacrifice themselves in the name of christ."

Err...well, yunno, the opposite obtains quite well. Scroll down for a waltz through history. Reason is also double or triple-edged. There is, e.g., Robespierre, Onforio's apt example of lethal rational dagger.

Ethics, religion, reason--perhaps, we need to look at each one separately. Interestingly, in answer to a question posed awhile ago, most of OnFaith's panelists dismissed the notion of a necessary connection between ethics and religion.

Farnaz

In case this can help…

In a December thread, during Timmy/Onofrio discussion on the matter of wisdom coming out from religion, there was a parallel discussion on the same topic between Timmy/Pamsm. Using my wording I tried to consolidate the central point under discussion as:

“All tenets or useful philosophies that come out of religion have been developed by means of reasoned, scientific methodology.”

After a long night riding an interesting carrousel of ideas and citation of scientific articles and other references by the parties involved in the discussion, I proposed that the initial assertion coming from Timmy could be adjusted to say that:

“All tenets or useful philosophies that come out of religion actually came from nature and has been developed into oral and written morals by means of human reason. Belief in something not real is not the real origin of useful wisdom.”

But still the challenge from Timmy was an example on the contrary.

I have not read all this new thread, but certainly the issue has evolved to something different. The emphasis, at least in the original form, was that good things from religion really developed with the progress of the humanity, with contributions from nature and evolution, but treasured by means of reasoning. Religion picked up some of those wisdoms and presented them as coming from a supernatural being. Nevertheless, belief in religion was not the original source nor the supernatural being was a necessary factor.

One twist in the current stage of the topic is not wisdom out from belief, but rather “positive effect on actuality”, as per Daniel12 post at 5:51 PM. This may be an interesting new angle, but IMHO leaves the initial point unresolved.

These are my comments in case that they can help.

Link to the original thread:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/susan_jacoby/2008/12/obamas_religious_inaugural_blu/all_comments.html

Best wishes to all,

JAC

Arminius,

YOU: I think Timmy's real logic flaw was not so much circular reasoning as appealing to authority.

What authority? I criticize irrational beliefs. I do not call for the outlaw of them.

YOU: He states, without any proof, that religion is totally evil, and therefore anything done in its name is evil.

None of this is true. Arminius, you are lying right now, about me. I have never said any of these things. Please stop telling other people what you think I believe based on your (clearly bad) memory. Either quote me directly, or ask. I'll gladly tell you what I believe.

YOU: Odd, that, because 'evil' is pretty much a religious term, and the basis of reason is to refer to facts for proof, and Timmy furnishes no facts.

I don't need facts to back up beliefs that you attribute to me. You are right that "evil" is a religious term. That is why you used it and not I. Find one quote of me calling religion "evil" and I will mail you a check for $1000.00.

YOU: Kinda like a fundie claiming the 'authority of the bible' is all the 'proof' anyone needs. Sad.

NO. Not like that at all. What is sad is your slander. You are endless with it towards me. You should be restricted to using direct quotes of me, or not commenting at all on my beliefs. Because you obviously do not have a clue.

Don't ever put the word "evil" into my mouth again. Your words, not mine.

William Wallace an atheist or at least a secular figure? The antisemitic ardent catholic mel gibson playing the atheist wallace in braveheart? More names please of secular figures as self-sacrificing of christ. No matter what atheists say, millions of people have been inspired to do good, to self-sacrifice themselves in the name of christ. But of course perhaps reason can approximate such sometime....

Onofrio,

YOU: You say that *deity belief* "makes" people do all these awful things, as if it is some sort of constraining power.

No, I don't. This "constraining power" bs is more of your usual semantic bellydancing. Like "Women = Dogs". Grow up. Debate honestly. Or stick a sock in it.

YOU: So how is it that *deity belief* can "make" people do wicked things like conceive and carry out 9/11, but cannot "make" them do good things like conceive and carry out useful wisdom?

It can make them do good things as well as bad things, all for the wrong reason. But it can not create wisdom. And it is based on irrational thinking. And there are perfectly rational ways to make you do good things. There are no perfectly rational ways to make you fly a plane into a building.

YOU: Otherwise said: How do you know that *deity belief* necessarily has ONLY ill effects?

It's about the net result. The ill effects far far outweigh the good. And the good can be easily achieved by rational means. With rationality in place of deity belief, we can have all of the good that religion does, and none of the bad.

Hi, Again, Persiflage,

Farnaz - thanks for the link. There are several worthy authors associated with this website and with transpersonal psychology....I always wished I'd made it to Esalen Institute in it's halcion years!"

Any other authors you'd recommend? I didn't notice the Esalen connection at the JTP site, and don't see it in Welwood. I went to the Esalen site, looking for JTP, which I couldn't find either, but, truthfully, mine was not an exhaustive search. Don't know anything about Esalen, except that it was once controversial, no?

Farnaz

To Pam from Daniel. Excellent response Pam and exactly as I expected--the only logical response to the criticisms I made is that without God we enter the tragic sense of life. Precisely because there is a diminishment of a belief in God and of course belief in absolute good we enter an existence that is not only more evil than an existence behind which God exists, there is very little hope in a good without God. We no longer say God is a monster for having created existence with all the evident evil in it. We say instead that we are left with just existence which in many ways is monstrous. The tragic sense of life--the only truthful and sensible position of the atheist. Furthermore the human race is driven to have to make itself. It must choose from among all human qualities those best to enable to further itself toward a new and more superior species of homo than sapiens. No silly and easy illusions of secular humanism--no self-deceptions toward the possibility of such rivaling the self-deception of religion. Communists thought that they could make a glorious world without God and we see where they got. Secular humanism is not so far removed those illusions. It must be accepted that the human race must further itself and that the path upward is likely to be as frought with evil as the millions of years which led up to H. Sapiens. For most of human history there were one or more species of human living side by side. Only the line to H. Sapiens made it. And out of millions of species only we have made it this far in intelligence. Terrible observation for the future: in a world without God generation upon generation will have it inculcated in school and over all society that we all are not only nothing more than links in a chain toward a greater form of homo, we all really if not expendable are eventually made obsolete. Future holy grail of economics and politics: to begin producing humans of quality as the last and most important product of manufacturing techniques. Culture bent toward biology for the purpose of creating a biologically superior species of homo. Tragic sense of life and future task which demands self-sacrifice beyond any self-sacrifice so far. Do we have the reason, morality and sheer strength for it? If not then the human race will just return to religion in despair of finally having run up against its limits. God always returns if we cannot work our way up to becoming something of Gods.

Farnaz - thanks for the link. There are several worthy authors associated with this website and with transpersonal psychology....I always wished I'd made it to Esalen Institute in it's halcion years!

PAMSM

You wrote, " And remember - these people stayed dead - some big deal sacrifice when you rise again after 3 days and go live in paradise."

Some people look at only the physical aspect of Jesus's death.

Something to think about: What if hell is seeing and experiencing all of the repercussions of the wrongs that one has done, both from the doer and the recipient's point of view, so to speak.

What if Someone took all of this upon Himself which includes both from those that repent and those that do not repent and experienced not only the wrongdoing but also the repercussions.

As I have said, something to think about, this might come close to what God did for HUMANITY.

And to add to this, this Someone not only never did anything wrong Himself but also created us and gave us the free will to do things both good and bad and also the free will to take or not take responsibility for our actions.

Jesus went thru more than just the physical on that cross and He chose to do it, even before He became just as human as you and I.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Persiflage,

Whoops!
Should have written, "It seems that what G proposed was not so much a contribution as a rewording."

Talk about (re)wording!

Farnaz

Hi Persiflage,

Thanks so much for the post. It doesn't seem like G offered so much offered contribution as a rewording.

Am slowly reading a wonderful book called "Toward a Psychology of Awakening," by John Welwood, both a practicing psychologist and Buddhist. He brings together psychological and Buddhist notions in promising ways, particularly when considering ego and egolessness. He writes for the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, which I haven't yet looked at.

http://www.atpweb.org/journal.asp

Wikipedia has an article on the journal, and the therapy.

Farnaz

"Pop quiz time...who can tell me the difference between an atheist and an agnostic. This is not a joke".

One doesn't believe in gods, the other doesn't claim knowledge. You can be both at once.

We've covered this one before.

Daniel12 says:
"a common logic fault found in any book on logic by saying that deity belief is evil because it cannot be good and it cannot be good because it is evil".

Much like saying that God exists because the bible says so, and the bible is true because it was inspired by God. :D Proof positive, that!

Hi Farnaz - George Gurdjeiff's 4th Way method of self-development evolved rather mysteriously. He appears to have been Armenian but traveled extensively in the Caucausus and Turkey, where he was exposed to occult teachings from various obscure sources.

He clearly borrowed from the Sufis, but other parts of his philosophy are mysterious. He proposed that everything up to and including the Abolute was of an ever finer materiality, and the cosmos emerged through a complex mathematics of threes and eights (octaves) - vaguely Pythagorean.

His best known proponent was P.D. Ouspensky, a noted author and Russian mathematician that broke from Gurdjeiff to form his own school of esoteric philosophy and training protocols. Gurdjeiff had numerous followers (some well-known) in Paris and London over the several decades of peripatetic movement throughout Europe.

He proposed the idea that man was typically nothing more than a machine that had been programmed to act and react without true will or volition - in order to overcome this condition, a person must first recognize the fact of this robot-like condition, and then proceed to rectify it through traditional esoteric training in one of 3 various types of schools - which included the way of the monk, the yogi, and the fakir.

All 3 classic systems or methods of esoteric learning required retirement from ordinary life - he proposed the 4th Way - to be done in concert with one's daily life. Books have been written...

As a part of the 4th Way, the imposed stragegy or method of 'self-remembering' was a way of overcoming the chronic round of external projections (inner considering) that comprise a considerable and crippling part of our social persona. In this sense, man typically remains nothing more than a social creation whose fate is pre-determined from birth to death.

Since man is a mechanical and ego-driven creature, he is 'unable to do' anything of his own free will or volition. Man typically remains stuck at the third level of his development, when he could potentially ascend to a 4th, 5th, or even 6th level of self-mastery.

This cannot be achieved by accident - only by design and a personal monumental effort by effectively employing one of the above-mentioned esoteric systems of self-development....and ususally under the guidance of a master of said system.

At these higher levels of development, one becomes a true master of his/her own destiny - and one can finally begins to rise above the typical complex and unconscious determinism that controls our every move as a mechanical creature without true will. He would have agreed with B.F. Skinner to a very high degree.

It eventually became clear to his devoted followers that the master himself had not managed to overcome the 'stink of his own perfection' much less escaping the 'way of all flesh'.

That's about all I remember......

Daniel12 says:
"1) Atheists often trot out all examples of evil possible in existence when believers say that God created existence and that God is good, then atheists turn right around and embrace existence--in fact not only say there is a reason in humans equal to evil in existence, but that one day we will have a triumphant secular humanism and there will be a brotherhood of man...

You'll never hear *this* atheist saying such a thing. We evolved as tribal creatures, and we will seek to find a way to divide into "us" vs. "them" no matter what the cause of the division. Blood feuds have gone on for generations over some pretty silly things.

There may be hope of evolving past this, but we may not last long enough for that to happen. Right now, evolution is lagging way behind the advance of technolgy and population growth.

DANIEL12: "...whether Christ existed or not what we have is a figure of self-sacrifice in Western civilization which has yet to be equaled by any secular figure".

Oh, nonsense. What about William Wallace? Or any soldier who's died for his country? Or any who's thrown his body on a bomb to save his buddies? Or any parent who's died for his/her child? This assertion is simply unsupportable. And remember - these people stayed dead - some big deal sacrifice when you rise again after 3 days and go live in paradise.

DANIEL12: "...secular man seems far from the capacity for self-sacrifice when we consider that since the rise of humanism and the advance of medicine man has desperately sought to prolong his life to the point that now millions of old people languish on their deathbeds trying to eke out that last little bit of possible life and driving health care costs through the roof..."

Daniel, most of the time it is the families that are trying to prolong the life, not the patient, many of whom are begging for death. Most humanists support Dr. Kevorkian. You do it for your pets to save them the pain when life is no longer good - why not the people you supposedly care about? Of course this would have to be the expressed wish of the patient.

DANIEL12: "If existence is so evil that the creator can only be a monster, how can existence become suddenly so good in atheist terms to not only support the advance of reason..."

No one ever said that *existence* was evil. I don't even like that word (evil). I have said that the bible describes an often malevolent god. Certainly existence, and the departure from it, can be absolutely terrible for some, but you pays your money and you takes your chances. For me it's been pretty damn good so far. No complaints. I don't see what the "advance of reason" has to do with this. Surely you see that such an advance has occurred...?

Pop quiz time...who can tell me the difference between an atheist and an agnostic. This is not a joke.

PAMSM

You asked, "I have to ask, why do you believe there's a hell if no one is going there?"

I have not said that no one is going to hell, quite the contrary, what I have said is that Jesus won the keys, so to speak, to not only hell but also spiritual death and will use them in due time.

Also, I have said that hell is not the monolithic place, so to speak, that some seem to think that it is. If one goes to hell, one of the most horrifying things that they will realize, maybe not right away but they will, is that they built it themself and have no one to blame except for themself.

God knew that not all would repent, which is taking responsibility for what one does, that is why He has a Plan and God's Plan is, ultimately, for ALL OF HUMANITY.

God becoming One of us in the Incarnation is just part of God's Plan and His Plan will come to Fruition.

Also God-Incarnate, Jesus, asked us to be active participants in God's Plan, when He extended the invitation to, "Come follow Me".

When I have said, "the captives shall be released" this refers to those in hell and when I have said, "the dead shall rise" this refers to those in spiritual death.

Divine Justice and Divine Mercy go hand in hand.

I repeat: It is important what one does and why one does it and what one knows.

I also repeat: God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not for religious affiliations or lack thereof. A simple statement if people would actually read it and ponder it rather than just react to it.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Hi Pam,

You write to Onofrio:

"'m surprised to read this from you, Onofrio. Surely you must know that there is no dogma to atheism. It's *non*-belief, and follows no proscribed format."

While atheism is not dogmatic, neither is "belief" per se. Atheists, are, however, programmatic, in calling for separation of church and state. They do of course vary in how much of this they'd like to see. Some of us would like an ending of tax exempt status for all organized religions, the end of presidents and other elected/appointed officials consulting with religious leaders on civic affairs, etc., etc., all the way down to eliminating "God" from the inaugural oath.

Atheists would, I think, be happy to leave adherents of organized religions alone if they would kindly return the favor. And many do. My own quarrel is not with them. 'Tis with the conversionists, of whatever stripe.
_______________________
Btw., loved Lad, Flicka, Black Beauty, etc., etc.

Farnaz :)

Prospects

We have set out from here for the sublime
Pastures of summer shade and mountain stream;
I have no doubt we shall arrive on time.

Is all the green of that enameled prime
A snapshot recollection or a dream?
We have set out from here for the sublime

Without provisions, without one thin dime,
And yet, for all our clumsiness, I deem
It certain that we shall arrive on time.

No guidebook tells you if you'll have to climb
Or swim. However foolish we may seem,
We have set out from here for the sublime

And must get past the scene of an old crime
Before we falter and run out of steam,
Riddled by doubt that we'll arrive on time.

Yet even in winter a pale paradigm
Of birdsong utters its obsessive theme.
We have set out from here for the sublime;
I have no doubt we shall arrive on time.

-Anthony Hecht

Onofrio says:
"I'm simply refusing to submit to yet another dogma - that *strict* non-belief you and others extol".

I'm surprised to read this from you, Onofrio. Surely you must know that there is no dogma to atheism. It's *non*-belief, and follows no proscribed format. Just listen to the atheists on this thread - some are even willing to describe themselves as spiritual - something I would *never* do.

I think I was just born skeptical. I question almost everything, and am never happier than when doing research. The whole "god" thing just seemed absurd to me from as early as I can remember (not for lack of trying on my mother's part).

I suppose there must have been some age at which I accepted what I was told without question, but I can't remember it.

I developed an early interest in the theory and science of animal breeding. I think this came from books I read in elementary school - The Black Stallion (Walter Farley) series, the Lad: A Dog (Albert Payson Terhune) series, My Friend Flicka, Thunderhead, and The Green Grass of Wyoming by Mary O'Hara, as well as some books about horse racing from my father's bookshelf, although he was interested for other reasons. ;)

This led to an interest in genetics, embryology, evolution...on and on.

I also read books like The Hand of Mary Constable, by Paul Gallico - a mystery novel about debunking a medium who went to great lengths to convince clients - and fleece them.

Contrasted with things like this, belief in a magic man who is conveniently both silent and invisible; an immortal soul, also conveniently invisible and undetectable; in miracles, never seen; and in an afterlife, unproven and counter-intuitive; just didn't make any sense at all. Particularly when one knew that many previous religions, equally passionately believed in their time, had fallen by the wayside.

And on the basis of *what*? An ancient book put together by committee and written by men who were, by definiton, ignorant of nearly all science. A book full of contradictions and laughable untruths.

Anyway, the point is, I came to my own conclusions - no dogma.

PETERHUFF

You wrote,"What is the authority that you base your understanding of God on?"

I answered, "I met God, God chose me, I said YES."

You replied, "So have lots of other people who are wacko."

If you remember, that is exactly what quite a few people said about Jesus, is it not?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Daniel12,

I think Timmy's real logic flaw was not so much circular reasoning as appealing to authority. He states, without any proof, that religion is totally evil, and therefore anything done in its name is evil. Odd, that, because 'evil' is pretty much a religious term, and the basis of reason is to refer to facts for proof, and Timmy furnishes no facts. Kinda like a fundie claiming the 'authority of the bible' is all the 'proof' anyone needs. Sad.

To Onofrio from Daniel. Onofrio, it seems Timmy engaged in a little piece of circular reasoning in his criticism of an observation of yours. You said something to the effect that if nothing good can come from deity belief (or belief in something not there) because deity belief cannot have a positive effect on actuality, then nothing evil should come of deity belief because deity belief, once again, cannot have an effect on actuality. Timmy wiggled out of it by saying that deity belief in the first place is something of a piece of evil so not only does nothing good come of it, it fosters evil in the actual world by having been evil in the first place. Timmy engages in circular reasoning, a common logic fault found in any book on logic by saying that deity belief is evil because it cannot be good and it cannot be good because it is evil.

Hi Arminius, Moderate:

You're probably right about my needing to see the entire "Life of Brian." I've put it on my to-do list. (Sent BickusDickus to a friend and the bit about "individuality"! He loved it!)

Farnaz

Hi Persiflage,

Long time! How are you my friend? Came across this a couple of references to Gurdjieff. Are you familiar? I liked this quotation: "I cannot do anything."

Please to edify if possible...:)

Regards,
Farnaz

Hi Onofrio,

Thanks so much for the "Gawain" verse. The reason I mentioned the Prologue is that I've always delighted in the author's playfulness with the foundational myths of the Brits and his comment that more miracles seemed to appear in England than anywhere else!

The Romance is, of course, spectacular, with its tonal colorings, competing notions of time, etc., etc. A lover of the medieval and Renaissance, I.
Also, the Jacobean. Also, the Restoration. Also, also, and also. :)

Well, well, well, we see that Thomas "The Hallucinator" Baum is back with some of his "thumptations" that were added to the NT to "kick-up" the simple preacher man to deity class.

"come follow me"-
1a) Mark 10:17-22 = Matt 19:16-22= Luke 18:18-23
(1b) GNaz. 16a

Crossan analysis:
Item: 253
Stratum: II (60-80 CE)
Attestation: Single
Historicity: -
Common Sayings Tradition: No

- "father forgive them"

A single attestation from added to the NT to "juice-up" the crucifixion where there were no "christian" witnesses

Luke 23:34 "Some early manuscripts do not even have this sentence"

-"repent and believe in the gospel".

1a) Mark 1:14-15 = Matt 4:12,17 = Luke 4:14-15 =(?) John 4:1-3
(1b) Matt 3:2

Crossan analysis:
Item: 214
Stratum: II (60-80 CE)
Attestation: Single
Historicity: -
Common Sayings Tradition: No

"Lüdemann

Lüdemann [Jesus, 10] describes this passage as "a summary didactic depiction of Jesus' preaching of repentance under the influence of Christian missionary terminology." Mark is portraying Jesus as the model Christian missionary: aware that the time is fulfilled, motivated by the imminence of the eschatological events, calling for repentance, and offering a gospel to be received with faith. "

"John P. Meier

Meier [Marginal Jew II,430-34] looks at this item in some detail. Since it is clear that vs 14 comes from Mark, the question then becomes whether vs 15 is a summary of Jesus' preaching (created by Mark) rather than a memory of an actual saying of Jesus. While Meier is inclined to accept that the core saying "the kingdom of God has drawn near" may be authentic (since it seems to have independent attestation in Q (Luke 10:9 || Matt 10:7-8), he notes that it remains unclear whether it refers to a future eschatological event or to a present reality. Meier notes that Mark 1:15 and Luke 10:9 par use the perfect tense (eggiken), and that technically the expression can mean either "has drawn very near" or simply "is here." As Meier himself notes, this is all very well but rather besides the point, since Jesus most likely said the original form of this statement in Aramaic and we cannot know what precise expression he used.

He concludes:

... I think it is unwise to use Mark 1:15 parr. as one of the key texts to document either the future or the realized dimension of Jesus' proclamation of the kingdom.
This is not to say that the kingdom-proclamation in Mark 1:15 parr. has no bearing on the quest for the historical Jesus or the eschatology he proclaimed. The saying certainly has a claim to authenticity on the grounds of both characteristic vocabulary and multiple attestation. At the very least it does show that Jesus spoke about the kingdom of God drawing near, whether he thought that it had already arrived by the time he was speaking or whether he thought that it would soon do so. (p. 434)"

Atheists need to tighten up some of their thinking.

1) Atheists often trot out all examples of evil possible in existence when believers say that God created existence and that God is good, then atheists turn right around and embrace existence--in fact not only say there is a reason in humans equal to evil in existence, but that one day we will have a triumphant secular humanism and there will be a brotherhood of man. When atheists get themselves into a trap such as this is it any wonder that a believer will laugh and say that atheists have not only undercut their argument but they have demonstrated the possibility of God with their reason equal to existence and hypothetical brotherhood of man?

2) This strange notion of atheists believing nothing good can come of deity belief. But taking Christianity, whether Christ existed or not what we have is a figure of self-sacrifice in Western civilization which has yet to be equaled by any secular figure. We can indeed say that secularism is not yet definitely with proof that man without God will be as moral as religious man. In fact secular man seems far from the capacity for self-sacrifice when we consider that since the rise of humanism and the advance of medicine man has desperately sought to prolong his life to the point that now millions of old people languish on their deathbeds trying to eke out that last little bit of possible life and driving health care costs through the roof to the point that authorities say that one day we will not be able to afford medical luxuries and we will be back as we once were dying naturally, not prolonged by medicine.

3) The strange notion of atheists that believers are captive to an illusion or something not there while atheists are rational, free of illusion. But common parlance has it that if a man were to tell us he is capable of being totally honest with himself or without self-deception that we should not laugh--no, that would be rude--but rather just go "hmmm". If existence is so evil that the creator can only be a monster, how can existence become suddenly so good in atheist terms to not only support the advance of reason but result in a secular humanism and brotherhood of man? But I already mentioned that last point....

Thomas,
You said "You don't have a clue how horrible hell and spiritual death are, I do. God won the keys to both and He will use them in due time".

I have to ask, why do you believe there's a hell if no one is going there?

Not that I'm supporting Peter's viewpoint, mind you.

Hmmm, Farnaz is not a member of the JDL?? She has never denied it even after many requests to do so. Considering the mentality of the JDL, one assumes that they would even accept Jewish infidels such as Farnaz as long as they protect by whatever means the Jewish faith/myths.

PETERHUFF

You wrote, "The message Jesus brought comes along with repentance also."

This is true and as a matter of fact it was in the gospel this morning, "Repent and believe in the Gospel". The word Gospel means "Good News" not 'good enough news'.

You also wrote, "I have never denied God having a plan of salvation before the foundation of the world, just that you are mis-representing it in claiming that everyone will be saved."

Not much of a plan if it is not ultimately for ALL to be with God, considering that God asked us to judge no one, to forgive everyone and to condemn no one, do you honestly think that God asked us to be better than God?

You also wrote, "He won it back for those who are saved and not everyone is saved." and "So what happens to those who are not willing participants, who openly reject God and His means of salvation?"

What do you think being a Christian means?

Do you think being a Christian is getting into "the good place" or dying for those that throw it away?

Whether it is dying in the physical sense or otherwise, Jesus asked of us, "Come follow Me", He also said, "Father forgive THEM" and many other things.

I would like to present a scienario for you or anyone else to think about, I have mentioned it before but maybe not on here.

Imagine that you have kicked the bucket and you wake up in heaven, you couldn't be happier, it is much better than anything that you could have possibly imagined. You are looking around and then you kind of look down and see your mother or father, sister or brother, son or daughter, husband or wife or your best friend in hell, how heavenly would it be then?

If God's Plan isn't ultimately for everyone, than it is not worth didly.

You don't have a clue how horrible hell and spiritual death are, I do. God won the keys to both and He will use them in due time.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

rick22407,

Addendum: I don't judge others in terms of what I believe. If you ever catch me doing that, feel free to bash the crap outta me. I do sometimes judge people on these blogs when I feel they have exceeded the bounds of common decency. CCNL comes to mind.

rick22407,

In my own mind, I am absolutely certain. But this cannot be explained at all, so I can only say what I believe. I would never, never insist that it is the only way, I never preach it, I never talk about it unless asked. Also, hell has no real meaning to me. I'm not, for better or worse, your average Christian, although I follow many of the standard procedures, as it were, and honor them.

Arminius

If you don’t mind my asking, is your re-found belief in the nature of an absolute certainty, or a definite maybe? I think most of us probably believe: maybe yes, maybe know. Are you in the camp of leaning toward probably yes, but not absolutely sure and for sure don’t think that your good self and/or others who are not sure, are doomed to everlasting hell. Judging from your comments, I don’t expect that you are in the “doomed to everlasting hell” camp.

Peter Huff,

I fear you are making a mistake here in your approach. You, if I am not mistaken, have your belief firmly rooted in the bible and nowhere else. Please correct me if I am wrong here.

The basis of Thomas Baum's belief comes in his tale of what amounted to a direct meeting with God, and all else follows from that. I can relate to that, because I had a similar experience, if not remotely as profound as what Thomas experienced. I now know that God IS, that He is with me, that He has always been with me, and always will be. And the same is true for His children, all the peoples of Earth. The bible, to me, is not the ultimate source of truth, it is a door to truths which I can only barely see, let alone know.

PETERHUFF

You wrote, "God has made Himself known to man through His Word that we, His creatures, may have intimate fellowship with Him. And the culmination of His revelation was in sending His Son, the exact representation of the Father to man."

This is not exactly biblical considering that God's Plan is unfolding. Jesus did say that He would send the Spirit to guide us, so just in this fact alone, one should be able to surmise that His Plan is unfolding, it didn't stop.

Also when you wrote "exact representation of the Father to man", Jesus did say, "Phillip, if you have seen Me, you have seen the Father", so I would say it may be more than you realize, as in more than a representation even an exact representation.

The bible is not God, God Is. However you feel that you are following God, then do it, but it is not your job or anyone else's job to tell anyone else how to follow God.

When I wrote, " "Who gave you the authority to judge anyone's "claims"?"

You answered, "God's Word, the Scriptures. I'm to check out what a person says against His Word to determine whether or not that person speaks the truth."

I am not telling you or anyone else how to follow Jesus, you can reject what I say, just as I reject what people say concerning God being a loser which is what a tie between God and satan would add up to.

I am not judging what they say, I am flat out saying that God's Victory is TOTAL AND COMPLETE.

You wrote, "Thomas, we have an authority, a final reference that we check the teachings of anyone who claims to speak from God, and that is His Word. So when you bring a teaching that does not match His Word to accept it would be to deny His truth."

Doesn't it say that when the Spirit came that their eyes were opened up to what the Scriptures say? By the way, do you know that "His Word" is LOVE? It is not the bible, as a matter of fact right in the bible it says, "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us", does it not? The bible did not become flesh, Jesus did. The bible is about the Word of God, it is not the Word of God.

There is prophesy in the bible and not all of it has come about but it will.

You should discern but this is not the same as judging, like I have said about what some say about God being a loser, I do not judge when people say this, I reject it and since God chose me to tell the world that the Victory is TOTAL AND COMPLETE and includes ALL OF HUMANITY, I say it.

Besides satan being a liar and a thief and a deceiver, he is also a loser, a sore loser. The captives shall be freed and the dead shall rise, by the way, those that go straight to what we refer to as heaven are neither captive nor dead.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Thomas,

YOU: Onofrio stated that Socrates believed in a diety, he did not say one way or the other whether this "belief in a diety" was responsible for anything that Socrates said. You inferred something when no inference was given.

No Thomas. Onofrio most definitely was trying to make the case that it was the deity belief that was responsible for the wisdom. That was the whole point of the discussion. Go back and read the original posts or stay out of it, because you are speaking uninformed right now. You are wrong about this. Go back and read the posts.

YOU How do you know that for Socrates, in believing that there was something greater than himself, that this might have given him the freedom to think in larger terms, beyond himself?

We all have the freedom to think in terms beyond ourselves. The heavens are vast. We are tiny and insignificant in the grand scheme of things. No deity belief necessary for that.

YOU: I am not Socrates, so I can't say what may have enabled him to say whatever he said, but then again, as I have said, we are all different, God made each and everyone of us different.

We have differences. But we are not different. We are fundamentally the same, with minor differences. And no, God did not make each and everyone of us different. Just ask Onofrio or Farnaz. They'll tell you that natural selection did that. Not God.

Take care. Be ready
Sincerely
Timmy

Persiflage,

Tough post to deal with. At the outset, I'll say that I agree.

Mysticism is fascinating. In my return to belief, I briefly looked into it, and rejected the classical form because it rejects the community of faith, which I think is necessary, at least for me. But mysticism goes far beyond that, yes, even into physics.

Pursue any question in modern physics, and you reach a point where you have no firm answers, and some of the possible answers make no logical sense. Take a simple question: what is an electron? In the last analysis, we don't know. Is it a particle or a wave, or both? What is its mass, and how fast is it going? Enter Heisenberg - not only do we not know both mass and velocity, we can't, and when we try, we change both, and don't know either one anymore. And what is an electron actually made of? It's not quarks and gluons. We don't know. Maybe some day we will figure it out, but when we do, two or more even more mysterious questions will pop up. And the relations between all the multitude of particles defies logical understanding. It is all, in the last analysis, mystical - that which we know is there, but cannot reach.

Math offers no 'great truth' in and of itself. It is a tool for the various sciences. 1 + 1 = 2 tells us nothing profound, even though it took Russell and Whitehead over 300 pages in Principia Mathematica to prove it. And math certainly has its limits - Goedel had something to say about that. Also, there are problems that math simply can't solve, like the classical three body problem.

You are right, religious literalism cannot even begin to approach these mysteries - actually, religious literalism belittles the beauty and wonders that lie in the search.

'The Father and I are one' - a truth beyond literal interpretation. The Trinity, to me, is a mystery, but the concept starts, perhaps, with that statement. We see through a glass darkly. (Actually, a better translation is 'We see in a mirror dimly. Plato's cave, anyone?)

Pythagoras would probably first tell us not to eat beans.

Basho's haiku was beautiful and appropriate.

Continuing Thomas,

ME: " If you are not will you then repent?"

THOMAS: "As I have said, God chose me and I have said YES."

The message Jesus brought comes along with repentance also.

THOMAS: "I have asked no one to follow me and I have also said anyone would be foolish to follow me and I have also said that we are not to follow followers of Jesus even if the "followers" are legitimate followers but we are to follow Jesus.
As I have said, God has a Plan and has had His Plan since before creation and His Plan will come to Fruition."

Yes, the Scriptures call upon us to follow Jesus, and His teachings, and anyone who does not bring the message as it lines up in the pages of Scripture is to be rejected as preaching a false Jesus, a false gospel. I have never denied God having a plan of salvation before the foundation of the world, just that you are mis-representing it in claiming that everyone will be saved.

THOMAS: "Not only is God Real but satan is also real and satan will answer to God."

I'm not denying that either.

THOMAS: "As Jesus said, "All power and authority has been given unto Me". Isn't it something that God let us, humanity, throw it all away and God became One of Us, Jesus (God-Incarnate), and won it all back and asked us to be participants in God's Plan of Salvation for ALL OF HUMANITY?"

He won it back for those who are saved and not everyone is saved.

"Whoever believes is not condemned, but whoever DOES NOT believed is CONDEMNED already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." (John 3:18)

THOMAS: "Sometimes, we tend to underestimate God and/or put God in a box."

Yes, when we attribute something to God that He has not made known, or say something of God that is not true to His Word.

You too have put God in a box by making Him HAVE to save every single person that ever lived. That is not what Scripture says. So where do you get your authority from? Is the god who speaks to you different from the God who reveals Himself in Scripture?

THOMAS: "As I have said, Jesus is the Saviour of the world and He asked us to be willing participants in God's Plan."

So what happens to those who are not willing participants, who openly reject God and His means of salvation?

Hello Thomas

THOMAS: "You can listen and/or read what I say but the way that you follow Jesus is your decision not mine or anyone else's and also how I follow Jesus is up to me not you or anyone else."

How do I know I'm following the "right" Jesus? The Scriptures say that many people preach a false Jesus and a false Christ. The word anti-Christ can mean one who is opposed to Jesus or Messiah, or it can also mean one who is a substitute for Jesus, a false messiah, someone other than Jesus the Christ who people put their faith in. In the first century alone there were many false messiahs, all claiming to be the promised One sent from God.

ME: "Are you sure you are preaching the right gospel my friend?"

THOMAS: "Gospel means "GOOD NEWS", it does not mean 'as long as the news is good enough for me news'. God chose me and that is a good enough reason for me."

The Good News is that God has provided a way (The Way) that mankind can be in right relationship with God. Not all believe that message, so it is not good news for everyone. Scripture makes that plain, so don't give me that God will save everyone. That is not the case. Those who try to achieve good standing before God on their own merit fail because their good cannot measure up to God's perfection.

"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." (John 3:36)

See also 2 Peter 2:4-22 or Revelation 20:11-14; 21:7-8; 22:14-15, 18-19, just for starters.

Perusing the arguments for, against, and about religion, I'm reminded of Fritjof Capra's work of some years back (and recently re-published) that strives to compare mysticism and mystical experience with the physics of relativity and quantum physics (e.g. The Tao of Physics). He was among the first of a growing number of physicists pursuing analogies and commonalities between these two broad areas of human experience, and knowledge.

For him (and a good many others), the mythologies of religion point to ineffable mystical experiences and meaning that are simply beyond language and rationality - the finger pointing at the moon. As Capra points out, this has always been true of mystical experience.

The work of William James, Carl Jung, Joseph Campbell, among other investigators of mythology and mysticism, preceeded the more recent physics driven comparisons, although the greatest of the ealy quantum physicists were not without certain mystical preoccupations and proclivities themselves.

Capra maintains that the mathematical language of quantum physics in the same way points to immediate truths and peculiar discoveries that are beyond the symbolism employed to grapple with the unfolding knowledge related to our 'physical' reality.

Mathematics does not equal the reality of which it speaks, despite it's great predictive (and descriptive) value. It takes a mind (or many minds) to give shape to our physical reality - the two are inseparable. Essential truth is quite beyond the language that attempts to describe it.

While in no way attempting to draw perfect parallels in the sand, religious literalism falls short of the truth it tries to speak of, in the same way that Newtonian/Cartesian dualism falls short of explaining the mysteries of the atomic world. Newtonian relativism works enough for visible objects, but says nothing about the essence of their constituent parts - which are not things, after all.

For example, when Jesus reputedly says 'the Father and I are one' does this demand a literal interpretation, or something beyond descriptive experience? Is this laying the groundwork for the Trinitarian hypothesis, or something else altogether, metaphorically speaking? Aside from that, religion of all stripes seems historically replete with the number 3 - what would Pythagorus say?

Basho, the great master of haiku would simply state the essential truth (tathata) thusly:

The temple bell dies away
The scent of flowers in the evening
is still tolling the bell

Hi Thomas,

ME: "What is the authority that you base your understanding of God on?"

THOMAS: "I met God, God chose me, I said YES."

So have lots of other people who are wacko. I'm not saying you're wacko, but if that is the basis I have to determine if what you are saying is true - your authority - it leaves a lot to be desired. Lots of people claim to speak from God that say contradictory things. Logically they cannot all be true. Let's not make a mockery of truth.

ME:"What do I have to judge your claims on"

THOMAS: "Who gave you the authority to judge anyone's "claims"?"

God's Word, the Scriptures. I'm to check out what a person says against His Word to determine whether or not that person speaks the truth.

"Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false profits have gone out into the world." (1 John 4:1)

You don't test a spirit by turning a blind eye to what the spirit says. You test the spirit of the person by seeing if what is being said lines up with what God has said.

So you want me to believe everything you tell me based on your own authority? You say it, therefore it makes it true.

Over and over again God's Word reveals that we are to check out what someone says against His standard, and frankly your authority does not match His standard.

God has made Himself known to man through His Word that we, His creatures, may have intimate fellowship with Him. And the culmination of His revelation was in sending His Son, the exact representation of the Father to man.

"Righteous Father, though the world does not know You, I know You, and they know that You have sent Me. I have made You known to them, and will continue to make You known in order that the love You have for Me may be in them and that I Myself may be in them." (John 17:25-26)

"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and EXAMINED THE SCRIPTURES EVERY DAY TO SEE IF WHAT PAUL SAID WAS TRUE." (Acts 17:11)

"You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine." (Titus 2:1)

"As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines or devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work - which is by faith." (1 Timothy 1:3-4)

"For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough." (2 Corinthians 11:4)

Thomas, we have an authority, a final reference that we check the teachings of anyone who claims to speak from God, and that is His Word. So when you bring a teaching that does not match His Word to accept it would be to deny His truth.

Hi Pamsm,

Thanks for the detailed reply. After I answer Thomas' posts I will answer your questions. That will take a while. I'll make sure I wrap things up by next Sunday, the 18th. Thank you!

Onofrio,

the Santa thing was meant as an example. As soon as someone uses an example, you can of course always accuse him of broad generalization. It was also meant a little bit with tongue in cheek... But, seriously as an example of an arbitrary belief in the counter-evident, this being the case both for Santa and the rest of (yes, particularly Christian) religion. And as an example of the system of punishment and reward (if I were malicious I could also call it fear and bribery), which even you, I think, will not deny as being one of the pillars of most religions.

Your comparison Hitler/German vs. Bush/belief lacks logic: The "tertium comparationis" is missing. It would have to be:

Hitler's (he was Austrian, btw) crazy belief in a "German" racial superiority vs. Bush's crazy belief in his divine inspiration for his follies. (This belief is not a national feature.)

I don't have any difficulty with putting myself into Bach's religious shoes. If I had lived then, I would have been a believer. Everybody was. Remember, maybe, that I tried to call myself a "spiritual atheist", but I don't want to resuscitate that discussion.

And I notice with some amusement that you make such a fine difference between "bad religion" and "good religion".

Similarly, the religionists use to allege that someone who does not belief in God thinks there is nothing "superior" to him. On the contrary: My huge (spiritual? I don't find an adequate expression at the moment) admiration and awe for the inscrutable miracles of nature surpasses the religious ideas people invented in order to REDUCE (excuse the caps!) the vastness of those miracles to the small and limited human capacities of understanding.

Frederic,

"But Onofrio, deity belief IS a constraining power!"

To a few of us believers, deity belief is not a box, but a door into another kind of freedom, parallel to that of the freedom that reason can give. Please don't ask me to explain; as the old saying goes, "Ya had to a' been there!".

DMZ1

Welcome. Since you seem to be knowledgeable of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, do you care to express an opinion on the subject? Is it primarily about religion or an old fashioned land grab dispute?

Frederic,

"But Onofrio, deity belief IS a constraining power!"

So emphatic, Frederic. You almost read like a *believer*. Whence comes this power?

Yes the particular brand of *deity belief* subscribed to by Bush is ignorant, ugly, and dangerous. It's bad religion and it deserves to be attacked in detail. But I think that taking the Bush case as representative of all *deity belief* is inaccurate, unfair, and rhetorically lazy - just wilful tunnel vision. An analogy of the injustice - it's like making Hitler characteristic of all Germans. See, ludicrous.

You: "If you don't stop beating your sister, Santa Claus will not bring you any presents!" Positive result, eh?"

Again, this "utilitarian" angle is a crude caricature of *deity belief*. It may be broadly true of *bad religion* (and simply reeks of Christendom in particular). But Frederic! As if it's all reducible to this! Why rely on such simplex cartoons? It's unworthy of thee. Critical thinking about religions is not improved by reliance on such cliche broadsides. And do you really think that's the sort of thing that motivated Bach when he dedicated works to God?

You:"Therefore I am for open, creative curiosity to learn"

As am I. I would add to it "in a spirit of fairness". I think the creative curiosity you extol is better served by assigning credit where credit's due, religions included.

I don't advocate "clinging to man-made debunked archaic fantasies" either, Frederic. But nor am I convinced that all religions can be dismissed wholesale as archaic fantasies. That's not endorsing *deity belief*, Frederic. I'm simply refusing to submit to yet another dogma - that *strict* non-belief you and others extol.

TIMMY2

You wrote, "But why did you not correct Thomas and tell him that you did indeed assert that the deity belief was responsible for the wisdom. That was the basis off the whole discussion and the context of the challenge. I asked, show me where deity belief has ever created wisdom, and Socrates was your example."

Timmy2, you should read what people actually write not what you think that they write.

Onofrio stated that Socrates believed in a diety, he did not say one way or the other whether this "belief in a diety" was responsible for anything that Socrates said.

You inferred something when no inference was given.

How do you know that for Socrates, in believing that there was something greater than himself, that this might have given him the freedom to think in larger terms, beyond himself?

I am not Socrates, so I can't say what may have enabled him to say whatever he said, but then again, as I have said, we are all different, God made each and everyone of us different.

When you asked, "show me where diety belief has ever created wisdom", I won't show you but I will give an answer.

Diety belief has never created wisdom, God created wisdom.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Arminius,

I would expect no less of you, irenoclaymorist. Says a mere clamorist who knows.

Yea, there's a thorn in there, as you say. The 3 - I can't remember what it's called. I'm too lazy to dig up my old MidEng notes, you see. It was probably pronounced like Scots ch in loch, or even a heavy sort of gh/thick h. Northern dialect you see. If York had been England's capital, we might still be using this sound.

As for the Pythons - although they once tickled me asthmatic, I'm well over them now, except for a few unfading gems. My favourite skit of all is the philosophers' soccer match - ancient Greeks versus modern Germans, refereed by Confucius. And the winning goal is scored by...Socrates.

But Onofrio, deity belief IS a constraining power! Granted, fantasizing a deity, of course, can also bring some positive results, as long as you regard it from a strictly utilitarian and opportunistic, evidence-ignoring viewpoint:
"If you don't stop beating your sister, Santa Claus will not bring you any presents!" Positive result, eh?

The deity belief of Bush was an integral part of his cataclysmic presidency. Thus, he always knew "right" from "wrong", and could "honestly" be proud (and still is, gasp!) of "staying the course", as did the captain of the Titanic.

With belief in deity, we lose the most important learning tool of mankind (for me personally, it even touches questions of human dignity): Acknowledging and correcting mistakes, steering the wheel according to the course of the street instead of stubbornly holding the wheel in the "unchangeably correct" position. (Granted again, even when "turning" the wheel you can have an accident once in a while, lol!).

Therefore I am for open, creative curiosity to learn instead of clinging to man-made debunked archaic fantasies.

Moderate

Re DMZ's:
"Your posts are just transparent attempts to demonize by false association."

And my posts are just obscure attempts to falsify by demonic association.

So-fist-ical, I know.

Hi, Onofrio,

Yes, Timmy and I have been discussing Monty Python and Gibson's movies. I think it is nice that he and I can agree on some things. I always try to look for some sort of window of communication, even with Timmy and Spidey. Bun-Bun is the exception - he's hopeless.

Python... Python... The Pythian Oracle at Delphi, of course, but you already knew that.

Re Sir Gawain and the Green Knight: am I correct that the oddball 'p' is the Anglo-Saxon thorn? And what is the '3'?

Timmy,

Further to my last post to you, a few posts down.

Here's another way to put it. Would you agree that the two following statements describe possible conditions.

A) Irrational thinking can cause people to act in ways that have harmful effects on others. Those who act thus may believe that a deity has inspired/commanded them to do so.

B) Rational thinking can cause people to act in ways that have beneficial effects on others. Those who act thus may believe that a deity has inspired/commanded them to do so.

DMZ1:

You wrote to Bun-Bun:

"Your posts are just transparent attempts to demonize by false association."

Here, Here! We get a lot of that around here. There is a neat website Called Fallacy Files (www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html) that has a taxonomy of common fallacious arguments. Everyone here should take a look.

We all fall into these ancient traps. Aristotle's Sophistical Refutations is a good place to start. We are not the first generation to need that book, and we won't be the last. I guess that's why they call them "The Classics", eh? :^))

Deaer Farnaz:

"I went to YouTube to watch the "Always Look on the Bright Side" (title?) episode and found it too harrowing to sit through, too upsetting"

Sorry you found it upsetting. You really have to watch the whole movie. It is really funny, and spares no one in its "roasts". The Bright Side of Life kind of fits by the end of the movie. You just have to get the whole comic sweep of it all in one sitting for it to make sense.

Having learned The Passion of John, and a lot of really rigid theology, from some antediluvian Catholic nuns as a child, Brian was a just the ticket. Hilarious. I think we have to learn to laugh at ourselves and with others about our theological upbringings.

CCNL:

I have read every post on this thread. While Farnaz is, like almost everyone else, quite fuzzy on the actual history of the Arab-Israeli conflict and while she makes some outrageous statements (like the U.S. giving $10 billion annually to Egypt - which is patently false), I see nothing in any of her posts that sound like JDL or, worse, Kahane Chai. I didn't see any posts threatening to kill people for disagreeing with her, I didn't see her calling for the extermination of Arabs or anything similar in any way. Those kinds of views are hallmarks of the JDL and Kahane Chai, but Farnaz expressed none of that. Your posts are just transparent attempts to demonize by false association.

Arminius:

Bigus Dickus? I have a very important friend in Wome named Bigus Dickus! Years later, I still chuckle at that skit. I am going to watch Life of Brian again soon. Great humor piece.

Timmy,

You:
"Unreasonable thoughts and irrational beliefs are what cause deity belief. And then deity belief makes people do things like fly planes into buildings, Tell your children they can't play with the kids across the street, beat your child for masturbating, force your wife to wear a veil, think that global warming is part of God's plan, etc...."

You say that *deity belief* "makes" people do all these awful things, as if it is some sort of constraining power. So how is it that *deity belief* can "make" people do wicked things like conceive and carry out 9/11, but cannot "make" them do good things like conceive and carry out useful wisdom? Otherwise said: How do you know that *deity belief* necessarily has ONLY ill effects?

Farnaz, the "employee of the month at JDL",

The Muslims claim Jesus as one of their own but in Reality, History and Truth, he was a simple, Jewish, preacher man who was elevated to a deity by P, M, M, L, and J using the fortune telling of the OT to weave their fiction.

Farnaz,

I find it interesting that "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life" upset you. When I first saw it, I was slack-jawed, stunned at this totally outrageous and off-the-wall song. After a few minutes, the incredible irony hit me, and I started laughing.

Ah, yes, Biggus Dickus. Hysterical. Don't forget his wife, Incontinentia Buttocks, who does not make an appearance.

From well beyond prologue

For me þink hit not semly, as hit is soþ knawen,
Þer such an askyng is heuened so hy3e in your sale,
Þa3 3e 3ourself be talenttyf, to take hit to yourseluen,
Whil mony so bolde yow aboute vpon bench sytten,
Þat vnder heuen I hope non ha3erer of wylle,
Ne better bodyes on bent þer baret is rered.
I am þe wakkest, I wot, and of wyt feblest,
And lest lur of my lyf, quo laytes þe soþe

-----------------------------------------------
Sir Gawain and the Green Knight

Some of youse may be amused to learn that it is virtually a prerequisite for ordination in the highly conservative, Calvinist neo-Puritan Anglican Diocese of Sydney to be able to construct entire conversations with quotes from Python skits, and particularly from Life Of Brian.

Go figure...

As the Pythons, bar Gilliam, were products of abject Englishness and its odd repressions, it makes sense I suppose.

Dunno why I bother. Timmy and Arminius are now trading Pythonisms. Python, Python...reminds me of an oracle.

I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned the Philosophers Song, sung by that redoubtable chorus of beer-soaked Austral intellectuals the Bruces.

Iiiiiiiimannuel Kant was a real pissant...

Frederic, continued

What I'm getting at with the prodding is that Timmy likes to demand standards of evidential rigour from others that he himself does not practice. And when I take him to task on his bombastic inaccuracy, he tries to smear me as a religionist apologist. For me to demand a reasonable level of historical accuracy in accounting for the trinity is not the same as endorsing the trinity.

Is it not reasonable for the champion of reason to refrain from broadcasting cliched misinformation?

You seem to forbear all of this, because you are, as you say, a *strict* non-believer, and Timmy is too. My gripe is not with the content of the non-belief, but the method, and the attitude. Take Pam, for example, who is also firmly sceptical/rational. You won't find me semantically belly dancing around her. Why not? Because she argues cogently and carefully. Timmy blasts away like a loose cannon, all ablaze with unwarranted moral certainty. It has a lot in common with the unfounded dogmatism (though politely phrased) of Peterhuff, to which you are openly contemptuous, simply because Huff is a religionist. Timmy's methods are not much better, and I think they should be, if his cause is right.

I trade in hyperbole, pillory, irony, absurdity, and the poetic imagination. I try to out-fool folly. I know I am a Fool, Frederic. I'll leave the exposure and rational refutation of evil to you and other worthies.

Rest ye, sorceror :) .... Onofrio will cease with the demise of the arrogance at which he tilts. Like an unreal kobold in the basement - just the wind, in the end.

Frederic,

You to me, re my stab at wooden Timothean logics:
"since you can prove anything with such a method of arguing including its contrary, it proves exactly nothing."

Correct.

...and thus for what Timmy thinks he disproves. Your *contrary*. My point, exactly.

With regard to trinities, Timmy sneered at Arminius:
"I don't need my best against someone so deluded they believe in a trinity concept that was, (as a matter of historical-record) diabolically dreamt up by Roman politicians."

The trinity may well have been enforced by imperial edicts, once up and running as the *consensus* theology, but it was not *dreamt up* by Constantine or even the bishop of Rome, who was not yet quite the supremo he became in later centuries. (To champion is not to dream up) The other bishops were from all over the Empire. To call them *Roman politicians* is reductionist and misleading. Constantine wasn't interested primarily in the ontology of the Christian deity so much as getting all the bishops to AGREE on exactly what they believed. He cooked up the conference, not the theology. The trinity concept itself, as I have written to that Timmy-like wall Peterhuff, has a long pedigree going back to ancient Egypt. I won't bore you with a precis of the details. While they were still an obscure, persecuted sect - and long before *Roman politicians* like Constantine ever became involved - the earliest Christians were extrapolating trintitarian formulations from their epistles and gospels. YAWN!

Timmy asks: "'Wolftrap'. You mean that beautiful outdoor stage in Virginia? You saw Eric Idle there?"

Yup, that's the place. Also saw Spamalot in both of its DC visits. I've long been a Python fan. :)

And Vulgate Jesus, yes.

Onofrio,

"An egregious one involving Latin occurs in a *trial* moment where Jesus murmurs extra-canonically and miraculously to the right-by Pilate in the latter's native tongue. A glaring nod to Vulgate, pre-Vatican II *good old days* IMHO, a la Gibson pere. Get this - when he means business, Jesus steps aside from all the Levantine hurly-burly and talks the language of the conquerors. It's as if he de-Judaises himself in the very throes of his own demise. Just one telling tessera in Gibbo's fullblown sado-Iberian-polychrome-dolorosa of a film."
__________________
Actually, I don't think you are going to far, in your analysis. Seems I've heard or read observations along these lines. It not only "de-Judaizes" Jesus/Mel, but harks back to a pre-Renaissance historical imaginiation as you know.

At all events, Mel got it wrong anyway didn't he, since, as I post to CCNL, Jesus was actually Muslim....Ah BunBun, Ah Humanity!

CCNL The neurons of Moslems have been bred, born and brainwashed in the hallucinations of one womanizing, warmongering, greed-driven, illiterate, long-dead Arab since the seventh century CE.
_____________________
BunBun, Dear:

I don't know how to tell you this...but Jesus was Muslim as any Muslim will tell you.
_________________
CCNL: "The neurons of the Jews have been bred, born and brainwashed in the myths and warmongering of the OT for the last 6000 years."
_________________

And Jews have never read the "OT." Hmmm...Who did?

Hi Arminius, Mod, Onofrio, and All,

I went to YouTube to watch the "Always Look on the Bright Side" (title?) episode and found it too harrowing to sit through, too upsetting.

However, it suddenly came to me that it might have been intended to support a critique of salvific/sacrifice theology, what some Christian theologians have called the "dark side" of Christianity.

At any rate, I watched some other clips, finding hilarious "BickusDickus," which has me laughing even now as I recollect it.
_______________________________________

On the Passion: As I mentioned, my interest in it was from a cultural-materialist perspective. I traced it from its initial opening in the Middle East, Dubai, to be specific, to its first scheduled release in NYC's most densely populated Muslim neighborhood. By the middle of that week, which, btw., followed several weeks of unrelenting hype, all three major networks had visited and revisited the film.

The film was then released to other neighborhoods and in Long Island. The cynicism, racism, and exploitation involved in its distribution, the media's complicity (all major networks, several cable networks) moved me, and brought me to phase two of that project: American cultural responses.

These included directions to Catholics for viewing the film, gang riots near where I work and elsewhere, protests and defenses from journalists, letters from Christian, primarily Catholic, but also Protestant clergy, a couple of imams, objecting to the film. The failure of the Times and other national newspapers to report on the violence was unsurprising, expected, a theme (unreported racial violence) that I have tracked.

Like Pam, many I know who saw the film considered it virulently racist. Others did not.
---------------------------
As for Gibson, he has always struck me as a brilliant actor. Pam says that as well racist, he is homophobic, and more. I understand that he is a member of a radical Catholic group, that, as Pam says, his father is a holocaust denier, and that's about the sum of my knowledge.
--------------------------
Onofrio,

No problem quoting Chaucer. How about "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight"? Maybe the prologue, which I'm fond of!

Arminius:

I didn't know Gibson had done Hamlet, to say nothing of being good in it. I will look that up on Netflix and see if they have it. The guy has done some good work in his time.

I think he is playing himself in the Lethal Weapon series as Martin Riggs. A wild and crazy guy barely in control when he is at all.

As to The Passion, I think it was a serious and moving portrayal of the last days of Christ. Graphic at the level of Normandy Beach landing scenes of Saving Private Ryan, to be sure. I thought Gibson's playing the Roman soldier who pounded the nails in was a good symbolism for all Christians to contemplate.

Timmy,

I must agree, Gibson's Hamlet was his best. True to the Bard, great acting, and tragedy in the classical style - in your face and personal.

Here's a couple "On Faith" from Rowan Atkinson before he was Mr Bean.

Here he plays the receptionist to Hell.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFGrQMD6Uqc

And his Gay Christian sketch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPUE9xpxjcc&feature=related

Arminius,

Thanks for the sperm link. Man that sounds dirty.

I thought Gibson's Hamlet was his best.

For All: Here a classic piece from "The Secret Policeman's Other Ball" where they show their genius with no words at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRRnYolWslg

Pamsm,

"Wolftrap". You mean that beautiful outdoor stage in Virginia? You saw Eric Idle there?

I’m a limberjack and I’m OK
I sleep all night and I work all day
…
I put on women’s clothing
And hang around in bars
…
I wear high heals
Suspenders and a bra
…
I wish I’d been a girly
Just like my dear Pa Pa

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clPYfaTvHT0&feature=related

Hi, Timmy, et al,

Here ya go for 'Every Sperm is Sacred':
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8

Gibson also did a very good Hamlet.

Pamsm,

Thanks for the galaxy song flash link, that's great!
Do you have one for "Every sperm is sacred?"

Having seen your post earlier on Mel Gibson, I must urge you to see (if you haven't) the Southpark episode "The Passion of The Jew". You will watch it twice and laugh harder the second time.
Any video store that carries TV shows should have it. Also, the Richard Dawkins episode (which is actually a three parter) called "Go God Go". And then of course, the "Mormans" episode is also highly recommended.

Cheers

The neurons of Moslems have been bred, born and brainwashed in the hallucinations of one womanizing, warmongering, greed-driven, illiterate, long-dead Arab since the seventh century CE.

The neurons of the Jews have been bred, born and brainwashed in the myths and warmongering of the OT for the last 6000 years.

Treat said breeding and brainwashing with Reality, History and Truth and then there will be peace!!!!

Here's where to hear that one sung - with graphics:
http://www.v-r-a.org/ppp/Galaxy/FlashSee.htm

Dear Farnaz,

It has been many years since I saw the movie. Did Pilate use Latin in his conversations with Claudia in the movie?

Mel Gibson seems to spend a lot of time drunk, and like many other drunks will say stupid things at times, especially when feeling hurt. He surely made a fool of himself on several occasions. I believe we are seeing a man melt down under the public spotlight, as often happens to figures in the entertainment industry. I find it really sad.

Still, his work in Braveheart, The Patriot, We Were Soldiers (Once and Young) and The Passion of the Christ are all reflections upon courage and fidelity, which when taken together (to borrow a turn of phrase from John Malkovich) have the “stink of art” about them. Gibson is not the first artist in history with really significant character faults, and he won't be the last.

Still, the media drumbeat back then, in my opinion, seemed far fetched and out of line at times (including the NYT to which I subscribe). There were numerous suggestions that the Passion of the Christ would cause American Passion Riots if shown. Just like the last time, right? Lets see... When was the last time? Passion Riot in North America? Uh... Never. Gee whiz, I guess not everyone is brimming over with hatred for their neighbors waiting for a chance to explode. Not even Catholics.

Timmy,
Thanks for that bit of Eric Idle's genius. Used, I think, as a preamble to the Bright Side song...or so he used it in "Not the Messiah (He's a Very Naughty Boy)" at Wolftrap last summer.

Timmy,

"The moderate,
Thanks for the Python. one of my all time faves.
Here's another,..."

We all do need a good laugh once in a while. Good debate, in good spirits.

There is an interesting article in today’s WP, “Peace Is No Longer in Sight” by Tom Segev, a columnist for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz and the author of "1967: Israel, the War and the Year That Transformed the Middle East". ___ Mr. Segev’s theme is that peace and the two-state solution are not possible, the Obama administration may be more useful and successful by trying merely to manage the conflict, aiming at a more limited yet urgently needed goal: to make life more livable for both Israelis and Palestinians. ___ I agree with Mr. Segev except to say that the conflict cannot be managed. It must be allowed to burn itself out; which will result in a single Palestinian state bounded by Jordan to the east, the Mediterranean to the west, Lebanon and Syria to the north, and Egypt to the south.

Oh no frio,

YOU: You're tripped up by the implications of your own two-tone logic, Timmy. You're arguing with yourself now. Incoherently.

Uh, no. Plain and simple. I showed you my words. And then I showed you yours, which I had to surgically remove from mine, you did such a good sewing job.
You were arguing with your own words not mine.

My words: Wisdom can not be created by deity belief.

You have erroneously extrapolated "therefores" from this statement that simply do not follow and put these words into my mouth to argue with. It is the only way you can counter my claim. You failed to counter it by example, so out comes the straw man. And I know that typing out the word "straw man" does not make it so. But you, making up words to put into my mouth, to premise your essay with, does.

YOU: If it's absurd, it's because you made it so.

No sir. That was you, with your erroneous extrapolations that not only do not follow from what I said, but are, as you have pointed out, absurd.

YOU: Besides, where's your response to my other query?

Yes, smart of you to quickly change topics at this point. I would too if I was too stubborn to just give up on my ill fated mission to prove a statement false, that I know myself is true, but that damn Timmy said it with so much self assured confidence that I just have to try and trip him up somehow and prove him wrong. It's quite pathetic, but you keep on trying to show that deity belief can create wisdom. I do enjoy your efforts and flailing.

But here is the response that you want from your other query where you stand on ever so slightly more solid ground.

Frederic2 already answered somewhat but I will add my 4 cents as well.

Politicians involved in the council of Niceaea.

Constantine
The Pope
The bishops of Rome

I did not say they were senators. I said they were romans and politicians. Is it your contention that Constantine was not a politician? Is it your contention that the Pope was not a politician. Is it your argument that the bishops of Rome were not politicians.

Separation of church and state is a relatively new phenomenon, and yet even today, almost all clergy are politicians.

But forget all of that. I will concede. The council of Nicaea was not an act of politics. It was divine inspiration with the utmost of spiritual integrity. And believing in the trinity is not the deluded behavior of the duped. There are no historical records that show it was invented for political reasons. Arminius is on sound ground with his belief. Not a dupe. My bad. Trinity rocks!

But i will not concede that deity belief can created wisdom until I see one example that is not as laughable as "the collective works of Socrates".

Onofrio,

"sorcerer", no way, much too much honor! But as to Bach, I'd like to play a Suite for you...

I don't see what is so funny about a statement that Christianity with the trinity, in its over and over (for centuries) disputed Athanasian end-shape (arrived at "democratically", not by any "divine" inspiration!), was enforced POLITICALLY towards the end of the 4th century by the Roman emperor Theodosius as the official religion of the empire, penalizing deviations (heretics) by death? Or would you maintain that an emperor is not a politician?

So, you will have to reserve your Aristophanean Gracchus scene for a better occasion, I am afraid...

I enjoy very much the "uncertainty principle" in all its applicable fields: Poetry, offering and demanding wonderful free associations, multiple meanings; music with experience, feeling and insight beyond language, science with Heisenberg and beyond.

But once in a while I also enjoy a stringent thread of thoughts, without hopping around in the different levels of argument and meaning.

How can anyone seriously argue that a "non-entity" (non-belief) can not produce a "thing" or a "wisdom", or "non-wisdom" cannot produce anything good or evil? If you lack the "wisdom" about a car approaching you at high speed, you might experience "something".

It is amazing to see you juggle with concepts like thing, matter, belief, wisdom (as compared to ACTUAL wisdom!), evil, illusion, truth, untruth, each of which fills libraries with speculations about their meaning (back to "semantics", lol!). It is fun to stir the brain, but since you can prove anything with such a method of arguing including its contrary, it proves exactly nothing.

I think I stick by the simple platitude that the quest for knowledge is better than the pride of ignorance.

"The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the most tragic example in modern history of the folly of trying to base political arrangements on the myths in ancient books."

"Myths of ancient books?" You have tremendous support for your basic stance on seperation of Church and State, but you let your disdain for the religious show in that statement. Just remember, more than half of the people in your country actually believe the stuff in those books.

Sad to see a reporter so out of touch with her country...

Daniel12
You to me:
"Something to the effect if ACTUAL wisdom cannot from belief in something not there than ACTUAL evil cannot come. Correct me if I am not understanding what you said."

Daniel, my purpose in saying it was to draw attention to absurdities lurking in Timothean logic. The premises are not my own. The fact that something sci-fi-speculative hatched in your mind as a result is cool.

So you're excursioning into the realms of mind over/in matter, and the possibility of actually bringing that about. And also the notions of the necessary untruth, and utility of illusion, as per the Card and K. Dick tales you precis. Glad to have helped you into that trip. I daresay Persiflage, who posts here betimes, could impart some amazing Eastern insights on all of this. Thanks for the Ender's Game tip, and the mind trail. If you haven't already seen it, I can recommend the most recent few Doctor Who series for some mind-bending play with Time and Consequence.

"Thanks for the good reading."

Hey, you're welcome, Daniel. And thanks for the creative spin on said reading.

Cut to a Disney montage of Timmy Mouse, clinging precariously to his great tome of certainties, as a conjured throng of his own wooden logics pour forth a sea of liquid poppycock. To a fortissimo burst of brass, the sorceror Frederic suddenly interrupts the chaos, and wills away the tumult with a Bach aria and august reprimand...

Timmy,

You're tripped up by the implications of your own two-tone logic, Timmy. You're arguing with yourself now. Incoherently. If it's absurd, it's because you made it so. Just declaring *straw men* won't work its magic forever, especially when they're your own.

Besides, where's your response to my other query. Here it is again, with interest, in case you forgot:

You to Arminius:
"I don't need my best against someone so deluded they believe in a trinity concept that was, (as a matter of historical-record) diabolically dreamt up by Roman politicians."

There you go with your fantasy history again, Timmy, Evidentialist Extraordinaire. Which *Roman politicians* actually *diabolically dreamt up* this trinity concept? It's a *matter of historical record*? Do tell. Which records? I'd love to see the minutes of THAT meeting.

Papyrus Timotheus, recto, V-VII

>I've hit upon a solution, Gracchus! A perichoretic divine unity of three hypostases. Pardon my Greek, but I reckon that ought to do it!

>>Excellent, Gaius, true genius in the pre-modern sense!...Um, do what?

>Why, control the masses with evil priestcraft of course, and enhance our imperial power. Don't you know anything, Gracchus?

>>But don't we already have imperial power?

>Of course, but this way we'll get even MORE!

>>Gaius, you're...diabolical.

>Mwahahahahahaaa

Seriously, let's have the evidence, slam-dunker.

With respect to Mel Gibson's mythical presentation of the crucifixion of the simple preacher man:

From Professor JD Crossan as published in his book, Who is Jesus? :

“My best historical reconstruction would be something like this. Jesus was arrested during the Passover festival, most likely in response to his action in the Temple. Those who were closest to him ran away for their own safety. I do not presume that there were any high-level confrontations between Caiaphas and Pilate and Herod Antipas either about Jesus or with Jesus.

No doubt they would have agreed before the festival that fast action was to be taken against any disturbance and that a few examples by crucifixion might be especially useful at the outset. And I doubt very much if Jewish police or Roman soldiers needed to go too far up the chain of command in handling a Galilean peasant like Jesus. It is hard for us to imagine the casual brutality with which Jesus was probably taken and executed. All those "last week" details in our gospels, as distinct from the brute facts just mentioned, are prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered."

Farnaz, hello

Re your friend. I assume she's the one you mentioned once before, the brilliant one, like a sister. Yes, also surreal to be able to argue, confer, and meld with minds across the globe in forums like this. Illusions gather and increase, yet possibility too.

Yes, I thought I'd opt for the earthy charm of the original Chaucer rather than a tidied up modernisation. Not too obscure, I hope.

I've seen POTC once. Harrowed me. I had my antennae up for manipulation, but ended just swamped by the brutality.

On subsequent reflection: Through the rumour/posture of exacting verisimilitude, Gibbo managed to convince most everyone his film was representing actuality - a near doco shot live. Yet under this bogus aegis a whole host of routine cinematic manipulations were snuck through.

An egregious one involving Latin occurs in a *trial* moment where Jesus murmurs extra-canonically and miraculously to the right-by Pilate in the latter's native tongue. A glaring nod to Vulgate, pre-Vatican II *good old days* IMHO, a la Gibson pere. Get this - when he means business, Jesus steps aside from all the Levantine hurly-burly and talks the language of the conquerors. It's as if he de-Judaises himself in the very throes of his own demise. Just one telling tessera in Gibbo's fullblown sado-Iberian-polychrome-dolorosa of a film.

I'm probly reading too much into it tho'. Just my pedantic *take*.

It's intriguing that you needed the Hebrew tale to go archaic to dig it; a charming inversion of the usual direction. Yea, words ain't just words, eh? Sometimes I attempt to read German scholarship, which is slow work for me. When dealing with a German translation of a Mid.Eg. text, I often go back to the ancient language to grasp the modern one. Berlin via Karnak, inverse Rosetta-wise.

Language is neat, for it is not neat.

Daniel said: (we humans are all united by then under one government)

Careful now. "by then" implies you think it's inevitable, and this kind of thinking really perturbs Arminius. Get a grip! Nice pipe dream pal! Maybe you want to live in such a homogenized world but Arminius sure doesn't. It's never going to happen anyway. Until God comes that is.

On the Passion of the Christ,

If you have not seen the Southpark episode "The Passion of The Jew" it is an absolute must. Possibly the funniest episode ever. Their send up of Mel Gibson is roll on the floor funny.

My other favorite Southpark episode is the Richard Dawkins episode where he gets nailed by Mr./Mrs Garrison. They take the piss out of atheists. It's genius. Those south park guys are the kings of irreverent.

OMG and then there's the Mormon episode. Again, I was literally on the floor laughing.

Seriously, those three Southpark episodes are some of the funniest religious send ups of all time. Python was the original, but these guys take it to the next level.

To Onofrio from Daniel. On the same theme that I wrote to you about a few posts back on whether deity belief or belief in something not there in general can lead to wisdom or unwisdom you might want to check out "ender's game" by Orson scott card. This book is delicious to relate: in a world of the future the earth is being menaced by an alien enemy and what the earth's government does (we humans are all united by then under one government) is search thoroughly for boys who excel at a particular "video game". The boys are educated from birth and they get eventually to play this "video game". But get this, they think it is just a game but they in actuality are in control of the earth's forces against the aliens. Ender, the hero is in actuality the earth's greatest warrior and he wipes out the enemy left and right. Why the boys were taught it is just a video game though, is because if they knew it was actuality they might falter, break under the pressure, or have severe pangs of conscience from not only killing the enemy but being responsible for thousands of earth deaths (sometimes ender must sacrifice an earth warship to position himself in a better place to attack). Illusion, belief in something not there--or I should say, disbelief in something all too actually there. A fascinating book. One of Card's best.

The moderate,

Thanks for the Python. one of my all time faves.

Here's another,

Whenever life get you down, Mrs. Brown,
And things seem hard or tough.
And people are stupid, obnoxious or daft,
And you feel that you've had quite enu-hu-hu-huuuuff!
Just - re-member that you're standing on a planet that's evolving, and revolving at 900 miles an hour,
It's orbiting at 19 miles a second, so it's reckoned,
the sun that is the source of all our power.
The Sun and you and me, and all the stars that we can see,
are moving at a million miles a day,
In the outer spiral arm, at 40,000 miles an hour,
of the Galaxy we call the Milky Way.
Our Galaxy itself contains 100 billion stars,
it's 100,000 light-years side-to-side,
It bulges in the middle, 16,000 light-years thick,
but out by us it's just 3000 light-years wide.
We're 30,000 light-years from galactic central point,
we go round every 200 million years,
And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions
in this amazing and expanding universe.
The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding,
in all of the directions it can whizz,
As fast as it can go, at the speed of light you know,
twelve million miles a minute, and that's the fastest speed there is.
So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
how amazingly unlikely is your birth,
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
because there's bugger all down here on Earth.

Oh no Frio,

Thank you for being back on topic momentarily.

YOU: If deity belief can never create wisdom, because deities are patently unreal, and unreal things cannot bring about real things and conditions like wisdom.

Stop right there. I never said any of these things. Here you go again with a whole wasted post because you start with your premise, not mine. I never said it was "because deities are patently unreal". I never said "unreal things can not bring about real things and conditions like wisdom". And since this is the premise for your whole post, your whole post is moot. But damned if you didn't just thrash that straw man to bits.

I just said that deity belief can not create wisdom.
All of that other garbage and extrapolation is all yours, not mine. Nor does it follow from what I said. What one needs to do to refute my statement, is show that it can created wisdom. You know, with an example. Like you tried to do with Socrates, and failed.

YOU: "How can deity belief create unwisdom?"

It doesn't. Deity belief is the result of unwisdom.

YOU "as well as bloodshed, intractable turf wars and all the usual evils attributed to it - since these things are also actual, real, and unreal things cannot bring about actual, real things and conditions"

If only I had said that "unreal things can not bring about actual, real things and conditions" you would have a point. But alas, I did not.

YOU: If it is valid what Timmy says about deity belief per se - that it is unable to effect anything good, then it stands to reason that deity belief is also unable to effect anything evil in the real world.

Not at all. Because I didn't say that it can not bring about real conditions. I just said it could not create wisdom.

YOU: "The evil that is done, is brought about not through deity belief but by the wicked, wrong, unreasonable thoughts, decisions, and actions of human beings"

Unreasonable thoughts and irrational beliefs are what cause deity belief. And then deity belief makes people do things like fly planes into buildings, Tell your children they can't play with the kids across the street, beat your child for masturbating, force your wife to wear a veil, think that global warming is part of God's plan, etc....

YOU: Therefore because deities are unreal, then deity belief can never ACTUALLY create evil conditions, since it cannot ACTUALLY create good ones either.

I just listed a miniscule portion of the evil conditions that it creates, itself having been created by unreasonable thoughts and irrational beliefs. Can you name the good? Can you name the wisdom?

YOU: And before you deny, deny, deny, Timmy, the logic, the ratiocination I've used here is YOURS.

Nice caps, but it doesn't make this statement true. In fact I have just shown it to be entirely untrue. It is your logic my friend. And I agree with you, it doesn't work. But mine does.

Reality and Religion 101:(for those eyes that have not seen)

Lesson 1-

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was either the embellishment of the lives of three different men or a
mythical character as was mythical Moses, the "Tablet-Man" who talked to burning bushes and made much magic in Egypt.

Many of the 1.5 million Conservative Jews and many of their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT.

Current crisis:

Realization that the Jews are not god's chosen people.

references:

1. www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

2. and as per Farnaz, the atheist/infidel Jew and employee of JDL?.

Lesson 2:

Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, who also had embellishing/hallucinating/ plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the massacre in Mumbai, the assassinations of Bhutto and Theo Van Gogh, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.

And who funds this muck and stench of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

Current crises:

The Sunni-Shiite blood feud and the warmongering, womanizing (11 wives), hallucinating founder.

To Onofrio from Daniel. I was fascinated by your reasoning thirty or so posts back about whether or not anything good can from a belief in a deity or in general belief in something not there. You said something to the effect that if nothing good can come from deity belief than nothing evil should come of it. Something to the effect if ACTUAL wisdom cannot from belief in something not there than ACTUAL evil cannot come. Correct me if I am not understanding what you said.

But from my understanding of what you said I got all sorts of futuristic ideas to the effect that we will not only use actuality to further human education, we will learn when and how to fabricate unreality for student advancement. If both good and evil can come from deity belief or belief in something not there, then theoretically we should be able to minimize the evil aspects of unreality and maximize the positive aspects for purposes of education. Hell, we might even employ the evil aspects for military purposes--hoodwink the enemy far beyond todays propaganda and misdirection. I think I might write an essay on this if you do not mind. I will own up to the stimulus of the essay not being my original thought. I think it would make for a fascinating science fiction novel too. In fact the science fiction writer philip k. dick wrote a piece where he has travelers on a very long space voyage (they are artificially sustained so they do not age as rapidly) being placed in an illusionary world to keep their minds stimulated and so they will not suffer the psychological problems associated with being cooped up in a small environment for a very long time.

Thanks for the good reading.

Onofrio,

I fully agree with you: Pam's excellent, I would say "final" arguments against PH merit to be published as an example of intelligent, human, flexible, reasonable, empathetic thinking vs. what I would call "Professional Infantilism".

I have given up long ago to argue with his circular reasoning.

It is remarkable for me to observe the huge creative, ironic, sarcastic, even poetic mental powers, the whole gamut from highbrow condescension down to juvenile name calling manifested on this thread once you have found a common enemy like Timmy. Talking about patterns!

Timmy's pot boils over many times, but his basic posit, if I understand it right, is nothing but to say that religions are superfluous and most of them have brought a lot of misery to mankind, to which I agree and to which, strangely enough, Farnaz also agrees, all while building herself up as the most fervent Timmy sarcastic.

I might add, that religions served a "necessary", or let's call it "unavoidable" historic purpose (my own profession would not exist as a classical musician if it were not for Christianity!) and profoundly shaped the overseeable human history, but it does not serve any additional enlightenment of our species to drag along all the debunked myths of yore.

There is no basic difference between the belief in PH's god and the belief in Santa Claus except that the debunking of the latter is sanctioned, for children around the age of 6-9, while the former is forbidden, sacrilege, blasphemy, for some punishable with death. The mental processes are identical for both. Go figure!

So, Arminius, the "last" religious war was the 30 years' war, as "historians" maintain? I don't think you believe this yourself!

Pam,
Bravo to your responses to Peter Huff!

CCNL, BunBun, whatsa matta? Klan meeting ended early? No American Nazi Party fun to be had? Gays to bash? Etc...?

Nobody, not even the fascists, racists, xenophobes, homophobes, sexists, wants to play with yooo? What will yoo doo?

OH NO. {:0

And we still don't know if the female infidel, Farnaz works for the JDL.

Pam,

Went to youtube to hear choir--very funny! Sent link to friend.

Farnaz :)

Hi Onofrio,

Just got off the phone with a friend from Pakistan--Still find it surreal to speak in "real time" to people from another side of the world!

Thanks for the Chaucer, and you are a splendid poet!

On this:

"n matters linguistic. An Aramaic scholar connected to the univ at which I fringe said that the Aramaic used in POTC would not have been accurate for 1st century."

I heard very little since I saw only isolated shots. It did sound odd to me, but I could make out some words. As for Latin, I don't know it, and maybe I'm recalling incorrectly, but I thought I'd heard Jews speaking it. Scholars went ballistic about what they heard! As well, there were evidently anachronisms. Ah, purists! My primary concerns were with distribution, media coverage. In other words, I was interested in it as a cultural materialist perspective, pardon my French.

Speaking of ancient ME and European languages, A. B. Yehoshua, the eminent Israeli novelist, wrote a novel that required medieval Hebrew, for which there are documents, but, of course, no recordings!

I don't read modern Hebrew and figured that was the language in which he'd written, so I read the translation (English). Then about a year after the novel was published, he came to the US to speak, and I went to hear him. People insisted he read from the novel in Hebrew.

"Oh, well," thought I (sigh). But it was breathtaking! It turns out, he'd gone to the linguists at his university and they'd reconstructed spoken medieval Hebrew for him. Being as gifted as he is, he'd spun it into a kind of prose poetry.

Language is neat, she opined....

Farnaz,

As well, thank you for the unicorn. :)

Farnaz,

On matters linguistic. An Aramaic scholar connected to the univ at which I fringe said that the Aramaic used in POTC would not have been accurate for 1st century. Was more mediaeval. Do you have a view on that?

After Melg's drunken rant-and-such I thought one might make a film about him called the Bashin' of the Pissed. Scholars would be consulted to construct the script in the original Malibu dialect of Australo-Yank. [You prob know, but for the benefit of onlookers] In Austral vernacular, *pissed* means drunk rather than angry, as in US. But I guess Melg was both, eh?

Pamsm,

Have just now checked into this thread again, and wanted to say how impressed I was with your point-for-point responses to Peterhuff's Calvinist certainties. I salute!

Respect.

CCNL, BunBun, whatsa matta? Klan meeting ended early? No American Nazi Party fun to be had? Gays to bash? Etc...?

Nobody, not even the fascists, racists, xenophobes, homophobes, sexists, wants to play with yooo? What will yoo doo?

OH NO. {:0

Moderate,

Sorry, but the linguist in me can't resist. They (the chars. in the Passion) should have been using Aramaic, Greek, and Old Latin, or a variation thereof. To the best of our knowledge Hebrew was still spoken, btw., but they could have gotten away with Aramaic alone if that had been the only problem. Linguists could have and should have been brought in to do this. They have undertaken linguistic reconstructions before, needless to say!

At any rate, I only saw cuts from it, at the request of the director of Catholic Studies at out college. He was not happy about the film and wanted to prepare faculty.

To reiterate: (and we still don't know if Farnaz works for the JDL)

Back on the topic i.e. the Holy Land conflict:

Jesus, the simple preacher man, died in about 33 AD/CE. His body was disposed of somehow. No one knows how. It was definitely not raised/taken to Heaven because Heaven(if it exists) as per Aquinas and JPII is a spirit state.

After ~1976 years, said preacher's body has decomposed into its basic components but mostly water. This water has been scattered during decomposition by bacteria, insects, animals, wind, fire, and/or rain and ends up in all the normal sources/containment of water to include human beings.

Bottom line: the Israelis and Palestinians
have statistically, however minute, some of the simple preacher man's former body in them. Unfortunately, said "Jesus" water has not made them holy just adding proof to the fact that said
semi-fictional, embellished Jesus was not supernatural or any different than the normal human.

But just think about how much "Jewish water" now resides in Palestinean bodies and vice versa after thousands of years of decomposing bodies in the area!!! i.e. Brother/Sister Water fighting Brother/Sister Water!! The irony of it all!!!

And added "food" for thought, all the current bodies on earth have the volume of one sugar cube if you removed the space amongst the neutrons, protons and electrons in our bodies. Said Sugar Cube would weigh approximately 500 million gravity tons. Do the math!!! (Phil Berman, Astronomy Magazine, December 2008)

Bottom line: We need to preserve and protect that Sugar Cube by recognizing the basics of who we really are!!!!

My favorite Monty Python bit:

All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.
Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings,
He made their brutish venom.
He made their horrid wings.

All things sick and cancerous,
All evil great and small,
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all.

Each nasty little hornet,
Each beastly little squid--
Who made the spikey urchin?
Who made the sharks? He did!

All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small,
Putrid, foul and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.

Amen.

It's wonderful to hear it sung - the sweetest little choir voices imaginable. Hear it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooaGhYFHIzg

Mel Gibson and his father belong to a Catholic church that doesn't recognize the reforms of Vatican II. His father is a holocaust denier. Mel is well known in the industry as antisemitic, homophobic, misogynistic, and racist.

I saw The Passion and found it exceedingly antisemitic. I was very sorry afterwards that I'd put money in his pocket.

CCNL says:
"Bottom line: We need to preserve and protect that Sugar Cube by recognizing the basics of who we really are".

Better not let the sugar cube get too close to the Jesus water.

Moderate,

Last on this:

You write:" My mind boggled at the character problems that seemed to indicate on the part of the writer."

Interesting. Given the context, I admired Rich for the courage he showed. Following its opening in Dubai, the only New York City neighborhood it was scheduled to open in was Muslim; that is, it was scheduled to open in the most densely populated Muslim neighborhood in New York City. How much cynicism does that show by the distributor (Gibson), cynicism and racism all the way around....

There followed a week of national media hype, containing endless errors by ignorant journalists, etc. By Wednesday of that week, the movie was opening in many more theaters. And so it went.

Rich wasn't discouraged. Neither, as I wrote, were any number of clerics, including priests. It made 750,000,000 for Gibson though, and as noted by a colleague, "That's the important thing."

I would like to see a film about Bishop Hudal, the rat line, etc. These are facts, and most Christians know nothing about them. If we want a way out of religiously motivated anti-Jewish racism, honest confrontations with the past and present would be a way to good start.

Moderate,

"Gibson is bit of a sot, and had some bad moments himself, but so did the journalists of the time"

Except that Gibson when arrested drunk spewed anti-Jewish and anti-Black racist filth. Why was I not surprised? :)

Moderate:

"It did elude the national media."
_________
I was being sarcastic. There is no way in hell that the Times, for instance, did not know about it, not given where it happened and where it was reported. Sorry...but you raised the topic!

"Beyond the hilarity of all those Biblicals speaking Latin? "

Actually, that was Aramaic, not Latin."

Arminius is right, Mod. I'm familiar with Aramaic, read it, and recognize it. They did use church Latin, which a number of other linguists, as well as Bible scholars noted. It wasn't only certain reporters who had a problem with the film, btw., nor only Bible scholars.

Priests and ministers were highly critical of it, as were imams--Several wrote letters to the Times. I'm surprised you never saw them. A Muslim student of mine said and this is a quote: "It was the most racist movie I've ever seen."

That, and the violence, broken windows, etc., was enough to discourage me. That it first opened in Dubai didn't help.

As I said, it would be helpful if the other "Abrahamics" left us Js out of their stories. It might also be helpful if there were films about church sponsored antisemitic violence--authorized by the churches. Yet, we never seem to see such films, never have.....

Oh well.

Good night all. Another day tomorrow. Be well.

Farnaz,

"Evidently quite a bit of it went on, all of which somehow eluded the national media."

It did elude the national media. I was on the look-out for it, and none was reported that I ever saw. Of course, there was none in my neighborhood, or where I work either.

Arminius,

"... do you have any opinions about 'The Passion of the Christ'?"

I think there was an extreme reaction by Mark Rich and others at the NYT and other publications. Gibson included himself as the actor who nailed Jesus to the cross to symbolize that we all have done this, not "The Jews" of first century Palestine.

Gibson is bit of a sot, and had some bad moments himself, but so did the journalists of the time. I remember one who described The Passion as "sadomasochism in the unattractive sense". My mind boggled at the character problems that seemed to indicate on the part of the writer. :-)

As Farnaz just said "What can you do"

"Beyond the hilarity of all those Biblicals speaking Latin? "

Actually, that was Aramaic, not Latin.

Farnaz,

Re 'The Passion of the Christ'. Briefly, because I am about to crash and burn into bed, it moved me profoundly. This is very, very personal. I got nothing antisemitic out of it, but I can see how those already infected with it could reinforce their bigotry from the movie.

Oh, yes, the languages - both Latin and Aramaic. The Latin was wrong - they used 'Church Latin', i.e., medieval Latin, not the Latin of the Caesars. I can't answer for the Aramaic.

Hi Moderate,

"Could take time and steady guidance from Vatican leadership over time to make real progress"

Of course.

Arminius:

Farnaz and TheModerate,

"Regarding this discussion of RCs, Christianity, and antisemitism, do you have any opinions about 'The Passion of the Christ'?"
__________________
Beyond the hilarity of all those Biblicals speaking Latin? LOL!

Didn't see it. Very close to where I work, there was antisemitic violence--gangs. Not pleasant. Evidently quite a bit of it went on, all of which somehow eluded the national media.

I tracked its distribution history for something I had to write. It opened first in Dubai... There's more on this, not that pleasant.

Don't know what to say really. It made 750,000,000 for Mel Gibson, and as the head of our school's Catholic Studies Center put it, "That's the important thing."

What did you think of it, Arminius?

Farnaz,

"Passion plays, not only the domain of the RCC, of course don't help, but what can you do."

The Passion of John in particular has been used to bad effect by RCC folk. I have seen it done. John Paul The Great knew this. I have to look into what Benedict has to say about it. He worked for John Paul, and I hope he continues the program. Could take time and steady guidance from Vatican leadership over time to make real progress.

Part 5
PETER: “…when He came to this earth and became a man He would be justified in living eternally (for only the soul or being who sins dies) but He chose to die in the stead of those who would believe in Him - that is on their behalf to reconcile them to God by fulfilling His perfect justice on their behalf. That shows His love and sacrifice for others. How many would die to save a noble or righteous person, let alone a thief or murderer?”

Why only those who believe in him? Why is belief so important? If God truly loved his creations, he should forgive without belief, or else make belief easy by making his existence obvious. Why not make repentance the criterion?

And why does sacrificing himself to himself satisfy? How does that make the sins of humans easier for him to take? Clearly, nothing has changed among humans.

PETER: "Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact sin is lawlessness. But you know that He appeared so that He might take away our sins. And in Him is no sin." (1 John 3:4-5)
God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that IN Him we might become the righteousness of God." (2 Corinthians 5:21)”

But we haven’t become righteous. Our sins haven’t been taken away.

PETER:"You shall have no other gods before Me...You shall not bow down and worship them." There are no other gods besides God, so there are none before Him and none to worship.

Aren’t you directly contradicting him here? There are many references in the bible to other gods.

ME: But you *do* judge him, Peter. When you say that he’s "good", or "perfect", or worthy of worship – or any of the other words of praise that you use, you *are* judging him.

PETER: “I am not judging Him for any wrongdoing He has committed for He does not do wrong. What right do I have as His creature to judging Him? I say that He is good and just and perfect and worthy of worship because these things are true of Him”.

Sorry, but having 42 children destroyed by bears just for teasing someone about his bald head is not my idea of any of the words you just used. Nor is killing the children of Job to settle a bet. Nor having someone stoned to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath.

PETER: “God's nature is good, just, loving, true, majestic, beautiful, perfect”.

Right. If you’ll pardon the sarcasm.

And Peter, you didn’t even mention the article you read. You had promised me a reply. What about the Rhesus monkey that nearly starved to death because he wouldn’t pull a lever to get food after he discovered that doing so gave a shock to the monkey in the cage next to his? Natural empathy.

PART 4
PETER: “In most societies up until recently many of the Ten Commandments were incorporated into their legal system. Laws like God established such as,
"You shall not murder (or kill - by killing meaning taking an innocent life).

OK, let’s talk about this a little bit. You say the ten commandments were incorporated in the laws of “most societies” - or rather, *many* of the ten commandments. Which do you think were left out? Which “incorporated”? What do you think makes the difference?
You are aware, are you not, that “most socieities” don’t recognize the bible? In fact, the only ones with anything like universal inclusion are the aforementioned killing, stealing, perjury ones. These apply pretty universally to the human condition, and predate the Judeo/Christian religion. They weren’t incorporations of the ten commandments, they were just commonsense laws.

You also say they were incorporated “until recently.” What are you referencing here? The laws of the USA? Never has federal law told us that we must have no other gods, or keep the Sabbath holy, or honor our fathers and mothers, or make no graven images, or refrain from coveting (that’s the very basis of our economy!), or any of the others.

And I love your parenthetical explanation of the killing commandment. Who says so? Isn’t that *your* interpretation? Who gave you the right to interpret? Or any human, for that matter? It says what it says, Peter. And didn’t you already tell me that there was no such thing as innocent life? I’m so confused…

PETER: “But God is the Maker of all life so He has the right to take it and He does so only because of wrongdoing”.

Really???? Because of *wrongdoing*?? What about those babies? What did they do wrong? Did they roll and tumble in the womb on the Sabbath? I guess that’s similar to picking up sticks…

And what about all the people who *really* do wrong, but lead long and prosperous lives?

PETER: “Since Jesus never did wrong…

Let me stop you right there. I’m getting a little tired of hearing this. Isn’t anger one of the seven deadlies? And pride? Wasn’t Jesus often angry, most notably at the moneychangers in the temple? Didn’t he show pride when he claimed to be the son of God? Wasn’t he a doubter on the cross (“why have you forsaken me?”)?

Dear Moderate,

No offense, but, all things considered, I think we'd all be a lot better off if the other "Abrahamics" could just leave us Js out of their narratives!

Farnaz

PART 3
PETER: “Why do some believe that Hitler's Germany was wrong and others that we should eliminate those consider weak, or useless, or terminally ill, those who are not like us; euthanize them or use them for experiments so that we can live ‘better’? For the evolutionist and atheist it has to do how we are hard-wired, how our biological bags of matter are made up? If my bag is made up different than yours, why is it wrong?”

Again, a rare occurrence. What percentage of humanity do you imagine subscribes to a Hitlerian world view? I’d guess that it’s 1% or less. Remember that the aberrant ones are the ones that make the news, simply because they are so different from the rest of us. This may make it seem like there are more of them than there really are. Again, what is good for the social group is what makes the difference between right and wrong.

Another thing you should understand is that humans evolved in small tribal groups made up mainly of related individuals, and the signals that trigger empathy are geared to this dynamic. The natural empathetic impulse is thwarted when people can be made to seem like aliens (this is how the military does it, and that’s why there are usually unflattering epithets for the enemy), or when a bomb can be dropped from far away, with no visual perception of the consequences on a human scale.

PETER: “God is necessary”.

Not at all. The things that I pointed out to you from the bible – Job, and the other atrocities committed by God, make it clear that he could never be acceptable as a moral arbiter. No one beyond early childhood is going to accept that he has to do something simply because someone says so – particularly someone who doesn’t abide by his own decrees. Can you say “evil dictator”?

PETER: “You fail to recognize that God does not take innocent life. "(A)ll have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23)

Oh, puh-leeze! “Falling short of the glory” is deserving of capital punishment? Of eternal torture? And infants die in childbirth and by other, sometimes horrific, means every day. This isn’t taking “innocent life”?? Or is it “original sin” that taints them? Because an ancestor thousands of years ago, who coldn’t have known any better, was disobedient to a god who gave him his nature and put temptation in front of him, every infant in the world is deserving of the most horrible punishment imaginable? What a sick way to look at things.

PART 2
PETER: “But the question still remains, which subjective human individual, group or culture decides? Look around at this world and what people call good that 10-20 years ago was looked at as wrong. So how can it be right now and wrong then or was it always right but no one previously knew it? If nobody previously knew it, how do you know that what you know now will not be wrong in another 10-20 years? The whole question of right and wrong becomes absurd.”

No, it doesn’t. The needs and views of society change, and the decisions are made by your social group. Even theologists change their minds. These are all gray-area problems, though. No human society will ever decide that it’s OK to take whatever you want from whomever has it, or to kill someone just because you don’t like the cut of his jib.

PETER: “You are basing your value system on feeling, nothing more than feelings, or the biological impulses from your brain. In a Chance world my responses do not have to be the same as your, for Chance implies willy-nilly”.

The feelings and biological impulses are put there by evolution, which has nothing to do with chance. Only the variation is random – the selection isn’t random at all. Whatever succeeds is what survives to pass its genes to the next generation. There is nothing random or chancy about that.

Peter: “Why do some people have empathy for an old lady crossing the street and others just want to run her down?”

Who do you know like the latter?? I think someone like this would be beyond sociopathic – well into serious mental illness, and not free for long.

Farnaz and TheModerate,

Regarding this discussion of RCs, Christianity, and antisemitism, do you have any opinions about 'The Passion of the Christ'?

PETER: “but why is it possible to discern any qualitative value without an absolute, objective standard, something to measure your ideal by?”

Peter, nature is messy. It has shades of gray. The ideal is social harmony. That is the standard. But this can be an evolving standard. Some things are pretty cut and dried, like killing, stealing, and lying (as the ten commandments recognized). These are almost always socially destructive. But even these aren’t non-negotiable. The commandment says simply that you shouldn’t kill – no fine print, no sub-clauses – but I don’t see many fundamentalists who think it’s wrong to kill plants and animals in order to eat, or people in order to defend your life or your country. I’ll bet that if your children were starving, and if only one person had food – lots of it – and refused to share, that you wouldn’t steal some if you saw your chance. And if someone asks how you like the meal they spent hours preparing for you, do you say you don’t like it, if that’s the case? Shades of gray.

PETER: “You say yes, by empathy. The question is whose? What happens if a person does not empathize or feel the same way you do on what is ‘right’ or ‘good’ because their hard-wiring is different from your hard-wiring? Then who determines?”

The social group. That’s why we have a legal system. Empathy is personal, but the basic perception that others of our species (and even other species, to some extent) are like us and have feelings like ours, is selected for by nature because it works, and is present in most of us. But evolution works by selecting from traits that vary. If there were no variation, nothing would evolve. Therefore, there will always be some who are sociopathic, or mentally ill, or who can be taught to overcome their natural impulses (soldiers, gangs, etc.).

PETER: “In effect, what you are saying is because more people feel a woman has the right to choose to abort and can empathize with a woman not wanting an unwanted baby that abortion is right. It all boils down to feelings and majority for you. There is no right about it.”

There is a right for the mother, too. And a right in consideration of what kind of life the child can expect, if born. This is one of those gray areas, with valid points to be made on both sides. Society has opted for one side currently, but it could change.

TheModerate,

"Right. So how was the Latin?"

I assume you mean the wonderful scene where the Roman Centurion corrects Brian's bad Latin. That, to me, was the funniest thing in the whole movie, I was ROTFLMAO. Romani domum ite! 100 times!

Hi Moderate,

Re: John Paul II

I think he made a valiant effort, overcame a many obstacles, compromised as he had to.

The problem is that not everyone in the Vatican, let alone in the RCC accepts what one finds about Js on the Vatican web site, if they even know about it.

Case in point: A couple of months ago, a young woman from Ecuador told me that she had become so terrified about what she learned about Jews in parochial school that she refused to return for a week. Her mother had to explain, convince her, etc.

Passion plays, not only the domain of the RCC, of course don't help, but what can you do.

Farnaz,

We never did finish the conversation on what you thought of John Paul II's work on turning the Catholic Church around on its long history of prejudice against Jews. What did you think?

Thanks for the link, Arminius!

All,

The outrageous ending of 'Life of Brian' is available here, on video, featuring 'Always Look on the Bright Side of Life'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1loyjm4SOa0

The Unicorn in the Garden

Once upon a sunny morning a man who sat in a breakfast nook looked up from his scrambled eggs to see a white unicorn with a golden horn quietly cropping the roses in the garden. The man went up to the bedroom where his wife was still asleep and woke her. "There's a unicorn in the garden," he said. "Eating roses." She opened one unfriendly eye and looked at him.

"The unicorn is a mythical beast," she said, and turned her back on him. The man walked slowly downstairs and out into the garden. The unicorn was still there; now he was browsing among the tulips. "Here, unicorn," said the man, and he pulled up a lily and gave it to him. The unicorn ate it gravely. With a high heart, because there was a unicorn in his garden, the man went upstairs and roused his wife again. "The unicorn," he said,"ate a lily." His wife sat up in bed and looked at him coldly. "You are a booby," she said, "and I am going to have you put in the booby-hatch."

The man, who had never liked the words "booby" and "booby-hatch," and who liked them even less on a shining morning when there was a unicorn in the garden, thought for a moment. "We'll see about that," he said. He walked over to the door. "He has a golden horn in the middle of his forehead," he told her. Then he went back to the garden to watch the unicorn; but the unicorn had gone away. The man sat down among the roses and went to sleep.

As soon as the husband had gone out of the house, the wife got up and dressed as fast as she could. She was very excited and there was a gloat in her eye. She telephoned the police and she telephoned a psychiatrist; she told them to hurry to her house and bring a strait-jacket. When the police and the psychiatrist arrived they sat down in chairs and looked at her, with great interest.

"My husband," she said, "saw a unicorn this morning." The police looked at the psychiatrist and the psychiatrist looked at the police. "He told me it ate a lilly," she said. The psychiatrist looked at the police and the police looked at the psychiatrist. "He told me it had a golden horn in the middle of its forehead," she said. At a solemn signal from the psychiatrist, the police leaped from their chairs and seized the wife. They had a hard time subduing her, for she put up a terrific struggle, but they finally subdued her. Just as they got her into the strait-jacket, the husband came back into the house.

"Did you tell your wife you saw a unicorn?" asked the police. "Of course not," said the husband. "The unicorn is a mythical beast." "That's all I wanted to know," said the psychiatrist. "Take her away. I'm sorry, sir, but your wife is as crazy as a jaybird."

So they took her away, cursing and screaming, and shut her up in an institution. The husband lived happily ever after.

Moral: Don't count your boobies until they are hatched.

-James Thurber

"I seem to recall that "Life of Bryan" was controversial. Did it offend some people? Friends (of different faiths) always told me it was hilarious, though."

My Mother In Law was offended. Her daughter was not. Times change, I guess.

"He who conquers his anger has conquered an enemy." -German proverb

Arminius:

"It is 'Brian', I looked it up on Mother Web. My bad, not yours."

Right. So how was the Latin?

Timmy,

"I see your faith serves you well."

Arminius reverts to his Celtic heritage under assault. Put down your war hammer, and he might sheath his dirk and go back to his Christian ways.

Frothing at the mouth anything, belief or disbelief, gets us nowhere, Onofrio says to all the Robespierres out there.

Is there, maybe, in the mind of Timmy2 no distinction 'tween fact and truth?

TheModerate,

It is 'Brian', I looked it up on Mother Web. My bad, not yours.

Onofrio, Regarding your reply to Timmy,

Yet another good broadside against St Timmy.

The Prince of Reason did proclaim:
"I don't need my best against someone so deluded they believe in a trinity concept that was, (as a matter of historical-record) diabolically dreamt up by Roman politicians."

First, note the beginning, "I don't need my best..." - the ego there is hugely apparent, he knows all the answers, and will not stoop to give a good reply.

Next, 'diabolically(!) dreamt[sic] up by Roman politicians'. So the Council of Nicaea was held in the Roman Senate? BWAH HA HA HA HA HA!

Third, 'diabolically' - judgmental in the extreme. Where does this joker get the demented idea that all religion is evil, causes all wars, and probably famines and plagues as well, not to mention warts and hemorrhoids. I suppose he believes that Jimmy Carter's total dedication to housing the homeless, feeding the hungry, helping the sick, all based on his religious beliefs, must somehow be evil.

Arminius and Farnaz:

Was it actually spelled "Bryan"? Well mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!

Onofrio,

Boring you are not. Funny you are. Keep it up.

Timmy,

You tom Arminius:
"I don't need my best against someone so deluded they believe in a trinity concept that was, (as a matter of historical-record) diabolically dreamt up by Roman politicians."

There you go with your fantasy history again, Timmy. Which *Roman* politicians actually *diabolically dreamt up* this trinity concept? It's a *matter of historical record*. Do tell. Which records? I'd love to see the minutes of THAT meeting.

I've hit upon a solution, Gracchus! A perichoretic divine unity of three hypostases. Pardon my Greek, but I reckon that ought to do it!

Excellent, Gaius, true genius in the pre-modern sense!

And I'd be interested to see your comments on my Timmy-logic precis just now given.

Moderate,

"We could all use a bit of a joke now and again."

Right you are, Mod. Truer words....

Hi Arminius and All,

Well, it looks like the Moderate just gave you something you can put in your office. I think I'm going to put it in mine, too.

ONOFRIO:

"I would much rather belly dance..."

Words to live by. :)

Farnaz,

"...found terrible treasures,..."

That kind of movie. You have to see the actors read these lines. It really is a classic comedy. We could all use a bit of a joke now and again.

Hi All,

I seem to recall that "Life of Bryan" was controversial. Did it offend some people? Friends (of different faiths) always told me it was hilarious, though.

Timmy,

words and music by Eric Idle

Some things in life are bad
They can really make you mad
Other things just make you swear and curse.
When you're chewing on life's gristle
Don't grumble, give a whistle
And this'll help things turn out for the best...

And...always look on the bright side of life...
Always look on the light side of life...

If life seems jolly rotten
There's something you've forgotten
And that's to laugh and smile and dance and sing.
When you're feeling in the dumps
Don't be silly chumps
Just purse your lips and whistle - that's the thing.

And...always look on the bright side of life...
Always look on the light side of life...

For life is quite absurd
And death's the final word
You must always face the curtain with a bow.
Forget about your sin - give the audience a grin
Enjoy it - it's your last chance anyhow.

So always look on the bright side of death
Just before you draw your terminal breath

Arminius,

Sorry to be so boring, but it's about time I gave Timmy a taste of his own irrefutable logic. It's also the logic of many faithful anti-religionists (some of whom may not be as atheistic as they think). They're not used to considering the full implications of their favourite slam-dunkery. I actually disagree with the premises of my on-the-run logic, but it works according to Timmy's own simplex terms of reference.

I would much rather belly dance...

Hi, Farnaz,

'Life of Bryan' is priceless, even to a believer such as me. What should be remembered about this remarkable movie is that it does not satirize religion per se, it brutally satirizes how people screw it up. The sermon I mentioned is not on the web anymore, that I know, but I can check. It was delivered about 3 years ago by an Episcopal priest who has a wicked sense of humor, and is one of the finest persons I have ever had the privilege to know.

To TheModerate: at one time, while I was still working, I was trying to make 'Always Look on the Bright Side of Life' the theme song of our department.

Dear Moderate,

Yes, I must see it. I just visited some "Life of Brian" quotation sites and found terrible treasures, this among others:

Spectator I: I think it was "Blessed are the cheesemakers".

Mrs. Gregory: Aha, what's so special about the cheesemakers?

Gregory: Well, obviously it's not meant to be taken literally; it refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.

Arminius,

YOU: "Is that really the best you can do?"

I don't need my best against someone so deluded they believe in a trinity concept that was, (as a matter of historical-record) diabolically dreamt up by Roman politicians.

You do all of my work for me.

Dear Farnaz,

"Moderate's post is from Monty Python?"

The Life of Brian specifically. Great movie if you haven't seen it.

Long live the People's Front of Judea!

No, Long live the Judean People's front!

But most of all, always look on the bright side of life...

Onofrio, you wrote to Timmy, Prince of Reason,
"If it is valid what Timmy says about deity belief per se - that it is unable to effect anything good, then it stands to reason that deity belief is also unable to effect anything evil in the real world. The evil that is done, is brought about not through deity belief but by the wicked, wrong, unreasonable thoughts, decisions, and actions of human beings."

ME: Excellent. I have said something similar to His Reasonableness before, and he of course replied in his usual vacuous manner. It beats me how religion caused any of the many, many wars since the 30 Year's War (generally agreed among historians as the last religious war), or how religion prompted the conquests of Rome, the Huns, or the Mongols, just to mention a few. St Timmy has a lot of explaining to do.

Timmy, et alii,

Here's a bit of bog-logic for the Blog Bogomil (sorry, O Ecclesiae Drugunthiae, I merely jest),

An implication of Timmy logic:

If deity belief can never create wisdom, because deities are patently unreal, and unreal things cannot bring about real things and conditions like wisdom

THEN

How can deity belief create unwisdom - as well as bloodshed, intractable turf wars and all the usual evils attributed to it - since these things are also actual, real, and unreal things cannot bring about actual, real things and conditions.

Otherwise said.
If it is valid what Timmy says about deity belief per se - that it is unable to effect anything good, then it stands to reason that deity belief is also unable to effect anything evil in the real world. The evil that is done, is brought about not through deity belief but by the wicked, wrong, unreasonable thoughts, decisions, and actions of human beings.

Therefore because deities are unreal, then deity belief can never ACTUALLY create evil conditions, since it cannot ACTUALLY create good ones either.

And before you deny, deny, deny, Timmy, the logic, the ratiocination I've used here is YOURS.

Dear Arminius:

"I once heard that choice bit of Monty Python woven into a great sermon."

It was too good. I couldn't pass it up. I hope Thomas saw The Life of Brian too, an gets chuckle out of the memory. :-)

Onofrio, Moderate,

Great posts! Thank you!

Arminius,

Moderate's post is from Monty Python? There is a sermon based on it? Is it on the web?

Farnaz

Timmy, you lamely replied to me,
"I see your faith serves you well. Gee why would I be so harsh on a religion that can transform people like this. lol. Every time you write to me, Arminius, you prove yourself a hypocrite. Here comes another. Look out! The wrath of the Christian is coming. lol."

Is that really the best you can do? Pathetic.

Thomas to me: "If I remember right, that is NOT what Onofrio said, what He said was that Socrates did believe in a diety."

Onofrio replied: Bless you, Thomas Baum. I appreciate your solidarity on this. Thanks for making the effort, sir.

But why did you not correct Thomas and tell him that you did indeed assert that the deity belief was responsible for the wisdom. That was the basis off the whole discussion and the context of the challenge. I asked, show me where deity belief has ever created wisdom, and Socrates was your example.

So I'll correct you Thomas since Onofrio won't. (I certainly understand why he wouldn't want to)

TheModerate,

I once heard that choice bit of Monty Python woven into a great sermon.

Arminius,

YOU: Timmy, you insignificant cockroach, just stuff it"

I see your faith serves you well. Gee why would I be so harsh on a religion that can transform people like this. lol. Every time you write to me, Arminius, you prove yourself a hypocrite. Here comes another. Look out! The wrath of the Christian is coming. lol.

Dear Thomas

Brian: "We humans are not all the same, as a matter of fact we are all different, ..."

Crowd: "We are all different!

Brian: "We're all individuals"

Crowd: "We're all Individuals!"

One man: "I'm not..."

Crowd: "SHUT UP!"

With respect to Jews marrying non-Jews: In 1954, my older sister started to date a Jewish fellow. Both worked at the same company. They contemplated marriage until the fellow's mom threatened to kill my sister because she was not Jewish. Very difficult with much crying and sadness and a memory I did not need.

Thomas,

YOU: We humans are not all the same, as a matter of fact we are all different, every human being that ever was, is or will be are different. I have said that we are all equal in the eyes of God, that is not the same as saying we are all the same"
We are all the same fundamentally. We have different traits and personalities, but we are fundamentally the same. Human.

Thomas: "Jesus knew that we would not all come together in "brotherhood", that is why God came up with His Plan which He has had since before creation"

How do you know this. I've seen no Bible verse that says this.

YOU: You asked me what I think about Imagine and I answered, you did not ask me what John Lennon thought and/or was trying to say"

I then asked you how you could take that away from a song that is clearly against religion, relates on no way to any religious doctrine, and says nothing about God or his plan. It is an example of how far one can stretch the truth to see what they want to see. My interpretation however is right there on the page.

YOU: By the way, have you read the article about John Lennon that is in guideposts?

Yes. I've always known that John Lennon was a very spiritual person. But spirituality and religion are two very different things.This story takes place the year Lennon wrote the words, "and no religion too". I imagine his church visits during that year inspired those words.

It would appear that Timmy, besides lacking any sense of humor, is also paranoid. Oh, for shame, that we make fun of His Imperial Egoness!

Farnaz, we await your reply eagerly!

Onofrio - nice replies to Tim-ba-yah.

Farnaz,

And, Timmy, Arminius is correct. You owe Thomas Baum an apology, too.

No I don't.

Farnaz: And you owe the Moderate an apology for attributing to him a horrible thing that you, not he said, as Thomas Baum made clear.

You can be so obtuse. I wasn't me who attributed it to The Moderate. Get some glasses. I take full credit for it.

Farnaz:

Continued.

FARNAZ quoting me: "And now for a humor break.
One of my best friends is a jewnostic comic from Toronto name Simon Rakoff. He has some of the funniest Jewish material I've ever heard. One of his lines is about how the word is really "Jew" but they thew in the "ish" to indicate their lack of actual religion. "Are you a Jew?" "Jew-ish"

Excuse me , what is the issue with this?????
It's a funny joke. I've seen it make thousands of people laugh.

FARRNAZ QUOTING ME: Still don't know why they didn't go for Brazil. It's awesome down there, and not a muslim in sight.

Another funny joke, that's not really even a joke. We'd all be better off if they went for Brazil instead of the holy land that Allah promised to Islam. Including the Jews. Unless you think the holy land is important.

FARNAZ QUOTING ME: Yeah, the Jews have done nothing to racialize themselves right? Like making it a egregious offense for a Jew to marry a non Jew. Of course one can convert if one wants to marry a jew, but it's still not as preferable to the real deal"

Farnaz's false claim that this is not true is a joke. I have far too much experience with this to give her pathetic attempt to pretend it's not true one ounce of credibility. Maybe in your New York reconstructionist community it is not so rare for a Jew to mary a non Jew, but in the vast majority of Jewish households, if one of the children falls in love with a goy, they have a huge problem on their hands. I've seen hearts o'plenty torn apart over this. I've had best friends balling their eyes out on my shoulder over this. I've seen Jewish mothers threaten to disown their children. It's heartbreaking. It's awful. It's pointless. And it's prevalent.

FARNAZ QUOTING ME: "And I'm pretty sure the claim is that God gave a parcel of land to the Jews before judaism was a religion. It seems he gave it to a race, not a religious denomination. Give me a break."

Here I made a mistake. I should have used the word "ethnicity", instead of "race". But simply replace that word and this sentence holds true. It's not me that rallied this delusional hubristic religious belief around one particular ethnicity. That was the ancient Jews who did that. And that is self racialization. So is the marriage thing. And so is creating words for the "non Jew".

The lies from Farnaz's post to me,

Farnaz: I see Timmy2 has returned with more, so here are a couple of Timmy2 highlights brought to you by Farnaz, a "Jew Supremacist."

Lie number 1. Timmy never called Farnaz a "Jew supremist".
This is how Farnaz works. She is the very slimiest of demagogues.

FARNAZ: Timmy's desperate grasp at John Stewart's coat-tails to explain his "Jew Supremacy cant is recent."

Lie number 2. No it isn't. Timmy brought this up as soon as people started freaking out about the use of this joke term.

FARNAZ: Earlier he incomprehensibly defended his rhetoric by listing a group of his Jewish friends (some of my best friends are....)

I don't need to defend my "rhetoric". I didn't say anything antisemetic. And many of my best friends ARE Jewish. And I can joke with them about all of this stuff because they are true atheists Jews, who could care less about the tanakh. I can trash it all day long and they will join in as would John Stewart because they all know it is document of delusion, and that criticizing it is not criticizing ethnic Jews. But Farnaz can not separate the two.

FARNAZ: This did not prevent Timmy from trying to enlist other bloggers to attack me, because I stood up against his slander"

Farnaz has no sense of irony here as she tries to enlist bloggers against me whilst accusing me of the same.

FARNAZ: Oh no, he slammed a blogger who attempted to point out the problems with his rhetoric (calling him a little dog),

It was a comparison to a cartoon, and it was apt.

FARNAZ: ignored another blogger who did the same,

Lie. Never ignored any posts.

FARNAZ: Engaging him, trying to reason with him has thus far come to naught.

Funny I feel the same way about you.

FARNAZ: After being called on for his "Jew Supremacy" problem, Timmy first replied thus:

I don't have any such problem. You have a perception problem

Farnaz quotes me: "I use the word Jew just like my very best friends Noam Rosen, Simon Rakoff, Noah Segal, and Ira Levy use that word. I use it in conversation with them all the time as they use it. It's not a pejorative term. It's just quicker to type and easier to say."

I stand by this. Nothing wrong with it. It all entirely true and relevant.

Timmy, et alii

So here's an original thought/bunch of 'em, from the "little dog" who can only ever ape the elegant Farnaz shamefully...

Godoggerel

Virtue, venom, or virus?
Or vacuum to inspire us?
Volcanic Mosaic alighter
burning arid peaks, or fighter
for a striving tribe, or breath
of sun, or antidote for death?
The denied, proclaimed, or shielded
name for nothing's game is wielded
over times and tales, left and right,
a deciding blade, wheeling bright,
and bright the longing it bleeds
from serf and rebel, in creeds.

Timmy,

'nother dip, unafraid, into the frayed fray we've made?

You to T.Baum, re Jesus:
"That is why I have asked both you and Arminius for your opinions on this but you won't give them, so I have only my own to go on for now. Until either you or Arminius give me some other opinions on how Jesus would respond. But don't worry, I'm pretty confident I know how he would respond."

Nutshell. Kernel. Petard.

Whole problem wit your gist right here, Tim-ba-yah. You lay down demands to put up, to air views, to make cases. But you've already made up your mind. You're already sold on the The World According to Robespierre. Maybe, just maybe, people sense that, and hold back. Or maybe, they respond, and you're so busy fulminating that you don't notice.

Hell, you already know exactly what Jesus would have said! So WWJD? I know - exactly what you would do!

He IS the Messiah! And how the mockers mock...

Rick Warren would be so proud of you.

Farnaz,

...all potential fauxs pas aside, I have an hopefully-apposite beau jangle to second your MLK et Kenya graces.

Of sondry doutes thus they jangle and trete,
As lewed peple demeth comunly
Of thynges that been maad moore subtilly
Than they kan in hir lewednesse comprehende;
They demen gladly to the badder ende.

--------------------------------------------

Chaucer - The Squire's Tale (Frag.V, Gp.F, lines 220-224)

Here is a link to an amazing clock that the folks here may find of interest. It keeps up to the second track of everything from the national debt, to world population, to oil depletion and much more. ___
http://www.poodwaddle.com/worldclock.swf ___

Farnaz!

Much appreciation for your support hereamong. I hope not for desolees from no Tim-ba-yah tho'...

I was going to term you La Belle Flaneuse, but then was struck that in Francais such might not be the compliment I intend. :0 So flaneuse pending... :)

Thomas Baum,

You:
"Remember the other day when I butchered your name by accident, you said it looked bad dental work, could also be a pro-bono dentist."

:)

"Have you ever went diving on the Great Barrier Reef? I hear it is or at least was a very nice place."

Haven't ever been to the Reef, I'm afraid. It's still magnificent, all tales tell, but suffering from the effects of climate change and agricultural run-off. There are grim prognoses from those in a position to know about these things.
I have snorkelled in waters closer to home, which is small beer compared to the Reef, but still wonderful. One time, in a Sydney estuary, I had an alarming encounter with a shark!

"God made us a nice place and took His Time in making it, of course He also created Time, and we sure do seem to have a knack of tearing it up and each other up for that matter, sometimes it could almost remind someone of spoiled children."

As one who has descended to the level of playpen spatting at times, I take your point, Thomas. But I do enjoy the odd fourish fit. As long as nations refrain from such, I will be content.

But they don't refrain, do they, 'cos they is me.

Thomas Baum,

You to Timmy, re me:
"If I remember right, that is NOT what Onofrio said, what He said was that Socrates did believe in a diety."

Bless you, Thomas Baum. I appreciate your solidarity on this. Thanks for making the effort, sir.

We have learned to fly the air like birds and swim the sea like fish, but we have not learned the simple art of living together as brothers.
~Martin Luther King, Jr., Strength to Love, 1963

Sticks in a bundle are unbreakable.
-Kenyan proverb

PAMSM :

"If you can't see that that statement is general and not specific, then there is nothing more that I can say to you."

Ok. Talk to you some other time, maybe. ;-)

Dear PAMSM:

"It's interesting that you would write this defense of the wrong capitaliztion, when, in fact, it wasn't your error, but a typo on my part. Is that knee-jerk combativeness just part of your nature?"

It was silly... Try and keep a sense of humor... Life is brighter that way.

Frederic!

Boy is my face red! You are, of course, absolutely correct. Thank you for the correction. Another beer, bartender, for medicinal purposes only!

Arminius,

"ad" requires accusative: AD HOMINEM.
"HOMIMUM" ("HOMINVM") is genitive plural.

All the great wisdom.

Pam and Moderate,

AFAIK, Latin terms are not routinely capitalized in English. If you want to be a classical purist, though, capitalize each and every letter, therefore AD HOMINVM, the V being the U, and also write I for J. Miniscule (lower case) letters were a later medieval creation.

The Moderate wrote:

"My reference to "Atheists who used to frequent this blog" is clearly specific to the particular people in the argument back then. So you falsely imputed a generalization that I did not make".

If you can't see that that statement is general and not specific, then there is nothing more that I can say to you.

MOD: "The capitalization of “ad Hominem” does appear as in “Argumentum ad Hominem”. That said, it appears much more commonly elsewhere as Ad Hominem, Ad hominem, and ad hominem. So would it be ad hominem to say: “ad Hominem [sic]” [sic]? :-) Perhaps our latin grammarian friend Arminus could help us?"

It's interesting that you would write this defense of the wrong capitaliztion, when, in fact, it wasn't your error, but a typo on my part. Is that knee-jerk combativeness just part of your nature?

What I was questioning was your usage - "went all...ad hominem" - not your capitalization. But since you brought it up, "ad Hominem" is never correct. Even "argumentum ad hominem" isn't capitalized except when used as, or in, a title. And "ad" is only capitalized when it begins a sentence.

Ah, yes, Timmy the Omniscient, the Omnipotent, He Who Never Errs, the Supreme Illustrious Potentate of the Great God REASON (all genuflect here).... ah, yes, Timmy, who does not even have the common human decency to apologize to someone that he has wrongly accused. Timmy, you insignificant cockroach, just stuff it.

Oh, and Timmy2--You owe Onofrio several apologies. I suggest you start as soon as possible.

PAMSM,

Thanks for the reply. See, we disagree, but we can still be friends. We just agree to disagree. Just like Susan and me: she says the conflict is about religion; I say no way, it’s about land ownership and human dignity.

You say there are no do-overs, we can’t go back; I say: Yes We Can! The Palestinians will continue their asymmetric war of attrition, with the backing of Iran and Syria via Hezbollah and Hamas; which Israel cannot win…until the last Israeli is dead, or emigrates back to America or Europe or where they came from.

If that doesn’t work, the march of time and the demographic bomb will convert Israel, the West Bank and Gaza into a single Palestinian state.

TIMMY2

You wrote, " Tell me how you think that Jeusus would respond to someone saying that we humans are all the same and should be able to come together as one brotherhood of man, with love and understanding."

We humans are not all the same, as a matter of fact we are all different, every human being that ever was, is or will be are different. I have said that we are all equal in the eyes of God, that is not the same as saying we are all the same.

Jesus knew that we would not all come together in "brotherhood", that is why God came up with His Plan which He has had since before creation.

I would say that this is pretty much what Jesus would say.

You also wrote concerning how I think about Imagine, "Too funny. And the lines about "No Heaven" and "living for today" and "No religion too" these lines all tell you that Lennon was trying to say that only God will bring us together on the seventh day????? I'd call that a stretch,".

You asked me what I think about Imagine and I answered, you did not ask me what John Lennon thought and/or was trying to say.

I have also said many times that it is not about religion but is about having a relationship with God.

Something else that I have said many, many times: God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof, something to think about not just to react to.

By the way, have you read the article about John Lennon that is in guideposts?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Yesterday was busy - I see I have lots to answer, so, short ones first:

Rick22407

ME: Native Americans have every reason to think that their ancestors were treated abominably by my ancestors. Indeed they were…

RICK: "Yes, but the living conditions of the Native Americans on their reservations does not compare to that of the Palestinian refugees in their camps. They also do not outnumber us, surround us, and have the means to attack us with ever more powerful and accurate weaponry, gladly provided by the Chinese, Russians and Iranians who gleefully anticipate our coming demise".

Never said they did - I wasn't making a direct comparison, merely agreeing with DITLD that ownership of land changes - mainly by force, and you can't simply go back. It was wrong to carve Israel out of Palestine for religious and historical reasons, and to assuage American/English guilt. As has been said, a chunk of Germany would have made more sense (the old thing about victors and spoils), but that was 60 years ago, and now it's in the same category - no do-overs.

British and European immigrants to America took Indian land by force, deceit, introduction of disease, and outright massacre. They thought it was their God-given right - manifest destiny. It was horrible, and wrong, but here it is, and the descendants can't go back.

And, Timmy, Arminius is correct. You owe Thomas Baum an apology, too. And you owe the Moderate an apology for attributing to him a horrible thing that you, not he said, as Thomas Baum made clear.

Hi Everyone,

I see Timmy2 has returned with more, so here are a couple of Timmy2 highlights brought to you by Farnaz, a "Jew Supremacist." Timmy's desperate grasp at John Stewart's coat-tails to explain his "Jew Supremacy cant is recent." Earlier he incomprehensibly defended his rhetoric by listing a group of his Jewish friends (some of my best friends are....) mentioned how Italians are different from Jews, told a joke etc. None of these sad strategems worked for him since they were so transparent.

This did not prevent Timmy from trying to enlist other bloggers to attack me, because I stood up against his slander. Oh no, he slammed a blogger who attempted to point out the problems with his rhetoric (calling him a little dog), ignored another blogger who did the same, simply contradicted others. Anything, but reflect...

What he doesn't seem to recognize is that the bloggers on this thread are perceptive people who believe in tolerance. He could apologize and move on, but he won't. Engaging him, trying to reason with him has thus far come to naught.

__________________________
Just a Couple of Timmy's Jewish Problems

After being called on for his "Jew Supremacy" problem, Timmy first replied thus:

I use the word Jew just like my very best friends Noam Rosen, Simon Rakoff, Noah Segal, and Ira Levy use that word. I use it in conversation with them all the time as they use it. It's not a pejorative term. It's just quicker to type and easier to say.

And now for a humor break.
One of my best friends is a jewnostic comic from Toronto name Simon Rakoff. He has some of the funniest Jewish material I've ever heard. One of his lines is about how the word is really "Jew" but they thew in the "ish" to indicate their lack of actual religion. "Are you a Jew?" "Jew-ish"

He has many more funnier than that but this one I thought was on topic.

January 7, 2009 10:49 PM

January 7, 2009 10:49 PM
Still don't know why they didn't go for Brazil. It's awesome down there, and not a muslim in sight.

January 7, 2009 9:09 PM
---------------------------------------------
Yeah, the Jews have done nothing to racialize themselves right? Like making it a egregious offense for a Jew to marry a non Jew. Of course one can convert if one wants to marry a jew, but it's still not as preferable to the real deal. Sounds like Jew supremacy to me. And I'm pretty sure the claim is that God gave a parcel of land to the Jews before judaism was a religion. It seems he gave it to a race, not a religious denomination. Give me a break.

January 7, 2009 7:30 PM
______________________________
I still don't know why the Jews didn't go for Brazil.
Oh yeah. God promised them the holy land.
But it has nothing to do with religion. It's about land and justice. lol

January 7, 2009 1:53

Arminius,

YOU: "Sure, I was critical in my reply, and I won't apologize. But Thomas Baum would never do that, and you owe him an apology"

Yes he would, yes he did, and no I won't.

We see Thomas "The Hallucinator" Baum continues to hallucinate about god and his/her/its plans.

Back on the topic i.e. the Holy Land conflict:

Jesus, the simple preacher man, died in about 33 AD/CE. His body was disposed of somehow. No one knows how. It was definitely not raised/taken to Heaven because Heaven(if it exists) as per Aquinas and JPII is a spirit state.

After ~1976 years, said preacher's body has decomposed into its basic components but mostly water. This water has been scattered during decomposition by bacteria, insects, animals, wind, fire and/or rain and ends up in all the normal sources of water to include human beings. Bottom line: the Israelis and Palestinians have statistically, however minute, some of the simple preacher man's former body in them. Unfortunately, said "Jesus" water has not made them holy just adding proof to the fact that said semi-fictional, embellished Jesus was not supernatural or any different than the normal human.

But just think about how much "Jewish water" now resides in Palestinean bodies and vice versa after thousands of years of decomposing bodies in the area!!! i.e. Brother/Sister Water fighting Brother/Sister Water!! The irony of it all!!!

And added "food" for thought, all the current bodies on earth have the volume of one sugar cube if you removed the space amongst the neutrons, protons and electrons in our bodies. Said Sugar Cube would weigh approximately 500 million gravity tons. Do the math!!! (Phil Berman, Astronomy Magazine, December 2008)

Bottom line: We need to preserve and protect that Sugar Cube by recognizing the basics of who we really are.

Thomas,

YOU: How do you know that "we all know how Jesus would respond"?

Because the Jesus attitude is not too hard to figure out, Thomas. But instead of answering a question with a question, why don't you answer the question with an answer. Tell me how you think that Jeusus would respond to someone saying that we humans are all the same and should be able to come together as one brotherhood of man, with love and understanding. How do YOU THINK He would respond to someone saying these things?

YOU: "Have you ever thought of giving other people credit for thinking even if they may think differently about something than you?"

Yes i do. That is why I have asked both you and Arminius for your opinions on this but you won't give them, so I have only my own to go on for now. Until either you or Arminius give me some other opinions on how Jesus would respond. But don't worry, I'm pretty confident I know how he would respond.

Your interpretation of "Imagine" : That God's Plan is unfolding before our very eyes and His Plan will come to Fruition on the seventh day with the new heavens and the new earth.

Too funny. And the lines about "No Heaven" and "living for today" and "No religion too" these lines all tell you that Lennon was trying to say that only God will bring us together on the seventh day????? I'd call that a stretch, but that would be an insult to stretches. I guess people can read anything they want into something that could not be more straight forward in it's meaning. But that's religionists for you. Spin spin spin.

TIMMY2

You can try the http I put in for the article on John Lennon, 'At our best' p40 and the article is: Travels from the heart, I saw him standing there, The day John Lennon came to her church.

http://www.guidepostsmag.com/in-this-issue---september-2008/

Hopefully, this will get you there.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

ONOFRIO

Remember the other day when I butchered your name by accident, you said it looked bad dental work, could also be a pro-bono dentist.

Have you ever went diving on the Great Barrier Reef? I hear it is or at least was a very nice place.

God made us a nice place and took His Time in making it, of course He also created Time, and we sure do seem to have a knack of tearing it up and each other up for that matter, sometimes it could almost remind someone of spoiled children.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

TIMMY2

You wrote to Onofrio, "Yeah, remember how you could not support your posit that Socrates' wisdom would not have come about without his belief in a deity?"

If I remember right, that is NOT what Onofrio said, what He said was that Socrates did believe in a diety.

Onofrio, if I am wrong about what you said on this, please correct me if you happen to read this post.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Timmy,

Sure, I was critical in my reply, and I won't apologize. But Thomas Baum would never do that, and you owe him an apology. Not that you would ever do that....

TIMMY2

You wrote, "And the same goes for you, Thomas. We all know how Jesus would respond to that post, but you and Arminius both responded with venom."

Could you refresh my memory about what post you are talking about. Also, what was the venom from me that you are talking about?

How do you know that "we all know how Jesus would respond"?

It seems that there might be a lot of people who might say how they think that Jesus would respond but do you really think that all of these opinions would concur?

Have you ever thought of giving other people credit for thinking even if they may think differently about something than you?

Which happens to bring up what you asked me earlier on this post about the song, Imagine, when I wrote, "By the way, I have always liked the song, Imagine, it is just that I look at it differently than you do."

And you asked, "And what way is that?"

That God's Plan is unfolding before our very eyes and His Plan will come to Fruition on the seventh day with the new heavens and the new earth.

Whereas, you seem to think that man will bring it about, do you need to go any further than this blog site to see that man, as in humanity, tends to not always get along.

Seems as if it is in our nature, our human nature, to bicker and sometimes that bickering flares up.

As I have said before, my job is not to distribute rose-colored glasses. My job is to tell the whole world that: God wins, satan loses, a tie in unacceptable.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

The Moderate,

BTW, I think more people would have had positive things to say about your original love bomb idea, but I ruined it by endorsing it first. From then on, agreeing with you would be agreeing with Timmy. No one here could stomach that. ;)

The Moderate,

YOU: "Though Timmy agreed with the love bomb idea I put forward, there are many things he posts that I find really prejudiced in general, and discourteous in particular to you. I hope he can get past those problems and actually start to think things through"

I hope that you will show me the things that I need to think through.
I dig your logic Mod, and I was sad to see no one else weigh in on your love bomb idea, the only optimistic and actually plausible suggestion I've heard on this thread. It is a reasoned suggestion, not a kumbaya pipe dream as Arminius would call it, and I see no solid argument against it as a serious plan option.

But back to me needing to think some things through.
Though I'd really like to see Pam pick up that gauntlet you threw down (it was so juicy), I'd love to have a go at your logic verses mine on any issue you think I am missing the boat on, or being prejudiced about. I know I won't have to battle with any straw men from you. You will stick right on point, I can tell. No need for straw men when you don't let emotion get in the way of logical argument. If I am missing something, I have confidence in you being able to help me see it.

PS: I used to be very courteous to Farnaz until she started playing the slimy racism, and bigot, and anti-semitic demagoguery card. People who pull that on me become my pet project. It's one thing I don't forgive without an apology and a retraction. I don't attack people, I attack bad ideas and irrationality. (religion) People who accuse me of attacking people not religion need to back it up with example, or zip it.

Farnaz,

It is not necessary for you to slam a list of 20th century anti-Semitic atrocities into my face. I know them.

It is not necessary to explain to me the existence of many different religions. I am basically informed about them, even if less than you.

One last (!) attempt to get my – simple – point across, (and I would kindly ask you to tentatively follow this chain of thoughts before freely associating anything to it):

1. When HUMANS LEAVE CAUSAL (this includes, of course, cybernetic, creative open, even Heisenberg-like) THINKING, not only where there is unavoidable and admitted ignorance, BUT BY PRINCIPLE, a religion appears. In this very instance, the doors are opened to ANY irrational acts, for better and (much) worse. Since ignorance about nature was all-prevailing in former millenia, all humans had some religions.

2. A religion then serves as a tribal bond for a group of people. (Groups were VERY separate in old times!).

3. Every religion on your list is a "tribal" (in a wide sense of the word) materialization of this phenomenon, while its cultural traits and specifics depend on historical, ethnic, and political circumstances.

4. It seems (ha!) that in human history the knowledge of nature, even the knowledge of social behavior, have developed and advanced. The former phases (irrational, magic, mythic, superstitious, “supernatural” thinking), however, where not abandoned to give way to the newer phases; they are being dragged along through the centuries together with the accretion of knowledge, instead of being replaced by them. And let’s keep in mind that magic thinking is a lot cozier than critical, open, doubting thinking!

5. This applies to ALL religions. The fact that historically Judaism preceded Christianity (with its roots in Judaism), does not constitute an argument for “it is the Jews own fault”, and I think, nobody really could intelligently argue like this (inverted “Post hoc, ergo propter hoc”- fallacy!).

6. If honest uncertainty is replaced by a specter of “truth”, the danger arises that the possessors of truth will not tolerate “untruth” (you find this even in such a "religion" as Scientology!). In most religions, including Judaism (as far as my information of the “”OT”” goes) horrendous atrocities are committed and defended in the quest to realize this “truth”, which of course is “Gods truth”.

7. Truth necessarily includes "justice". Realizing “truth”, then, is understood as something basically positive, therefore no “conscience” will arise in the perpetrators of their “truth crimes”. Eichmann was as mediocre a person as you can find anywhere (Hannah Arendt, “The banality of evil”, and I am sure you are familiar with the Milgram experiments!)

8. My intention is not to defend racial or religious crimes, but simply to understand their origin. And I repeat, understanding the origin is necessary to avoid the repetition of the atrocities. And, please, it does not mean to justify them!

Onofrio,

YOU: "Cornered me? Laugh on, Robespierre of the jiggling jawbone"

Yeah, remember how you could not support your posit that Socrates' wisdom would not have come about without his belief in a deity? Because this would make it foolish for you to reject deity belief yourself, (which you have done) given that it could bring someone something as great as the wisdom of Socrates, or the morality of Jesus? Remember how you could not answer the question of why you would reject such a thing then? And if your answer is that it can help some people achieve something as great as that, but not others, then what is the fundamental difference between these people?

Do you really not remember being stuck there?
Do you not remember that the Socrates thing was the only thing you offered as wisdom coming from deity belief?

Have you answered that question and I missed it?

Arminius,

YOU: 'Deluded Timmy. You insist that when religion is 'deleted', apparently by some 'final reason-engendered solution', everybody will cease from war and dance in the streets, singing kumbaya.... and if you believe that, boy, have I got a deal for you on beach front property in Kansas. Cash only, no checks."

No Arminius. Like some other notable posters on this thread, you always have to make up my point of view to argue with. none of you can match one of your accusations to an actual quote of mine and have it hold up. You all make up your own version of Timmy to argue with. Example above. Find me saying anything about religion being "deleted" by some "reason engendered solution". You can't. Find me saying anything about street dancing, and kumbaya singing. You can't. But if you put those words in my mouth, then you sound like you actually have an argument. But if you try an quote any of my actual words to match one of these straw men, your argument falls apart. Or rather, you don't have one at all.

When you do try and argue with my actual words, you end up getting yourself into an embarrassing position, like when Timmy the atheist was saying that the whole world of humanity could and should drop all our borders, and come together as one brotherhood of man, because we are all fundamentally the same, and there are no reasons for separate countries ethnic and racial and religious divisions, and Arminius the Christian piped in calling that a fantasy pipe dream and told me to "get a gripl" and told me that humans are incapable of such a thing, it's "not in our nature", we will always fight etc.

You say you call yourself a Christian because of a man named "Jesus". I asked you how Jesus would have responded to my post and you responded with venom, and no answer for how you think Jesus would have responded. Like most Christians, you are the very definition of a hypocrite.

And the same goes for you, Thomas. We all know how Jesus would respond to that post, but you and Arminius both responded with venom. It is so typical. I know you are now chomping at the bit to bring more venom. I hope that you do. Cement my argument for me that deity belief has not helped either of you be Jesus like in any way. Don't feel bad though. You're not alone. It can't do anything for anyone.

Onofrio,

Continued.

YOU: I actually wrote to Farnaz that I didn't think you were antisemitic, more a loose cannon.

I took note. Unfortunately it was a brief interlude from your feeding the crows. Before long you were right back to things like "Women = Dogs".

YOU: "But some of your *reasoning* and rhetoric is wide open to antisemitic readings. I've tried to highlight that, not to smear you, but more to warn you. I hate to see you - Hopeful Imagineer that you are - using the terms of the real dark side seemingly unawares"

I hear you here. But I am aware. I know I am extremely provocative and perhaps recklessly so at times. But i've no time to spoon feed those who can't differentiate between "Jews" the religion and the ethnicity. And I've no time to caudal reconrstructionists who can't separate to two because of some emotional connection through ethnicity. John Stewart is a true Jewish atheist. He trashes the RELIGION of his ethnic ancestors with no guilt that he is betraying his ethnicity. And I should be able to do the same without being called antisemitic. The religion is entirely fair game no matter what Hitler did to an ethnicity for non religious reasons.

Onofrio,

YOU: I think you'll find I've called you none of those things.

Not as directly as Farnaz, but you imply sarcastically with you semantic ballet. But you did directly accuse me of saying "Women = dogs". And you are guilty of a hundred more such slimy straw men and purposeful slander all along the way. "Women = Dogs"???? Words ain't just words.

YOU: I have taken you to task about the antisemitic implications of some of what you have written.

You've been wrong on each occasion because you have (purposely, I think) misread my use of the word "Jews" to mean the ethnicity rather than the religion. Perhaps you don't distinguish, but I certainly do. I trash the Jewish religion as I trash all religions. When I use the word "Jews" in this context, it is the same as saying "Christians". It refers to people have the deluded belief, that God has a special relationship with their people, and that the creator of the universe promised them a piece of land in the Middle east. It does not refer to ethnic Jews. It does not, for example, refer to John Stewart. He is an ethnic Jew, but not only does he not believe any of that covenant BS, he mocks it in a sketch using the phrase "Jew Supremacy". The ethnic part of him, that makes him an ethnic Jew, is invisible to me. It is a non thing to me as are all ethnicities and races. They are just skin color and eye shape, and hair texture, and things that make someone no different than me fundamentally. As for culture, take away religion, and it's just food and clothing differences and a few other things that we can all share. Nothing that makes us so different that we need different styles of government or even different governments. This is why I see religion, and nationalism, and racism, and ethnocentrism, all as pointless divisions between a humanity that could be one, all working together for a sustainable existence.

Just like the Christian religion, and the Muslim religion, I should be able to be harsh on the Jewish religion and all of it's delusions without being accused of being anti-Semitic. I'm not anti John Stewart, I'm anti dangerous delusion.

Blacks play ping pong? Why should they play ping pong? Is there even a slight amount of money there? Forrest gump was good at ping pong in the movie of the same name. If forrest takes a dump in the woods does it go gump?

I really have no doubt if blacks got a genuine opportunity to play, say, hockey they would dominate--they are quicker of foot and hand than any other race. Asians could very well rival them in agility. The white sports advantage I have heard of over blacks is in the area of sheer strength and grappling sports--olympic weightlifting and wrestling. It seems their advantages do not work so well at those sports for pretty obvious reasons.

As something of a closing meditation, Timmy, I genuinely believe that the human race will not be kind to itself as global warming increases, the environment collapses, WMD spread. These problems are only going to get worse precisely as the biological sciences scrutinize individuals and races for similarities and differences. In fact even if we did not have the former problems I believe the advance of genetics will be awful enough precisely because the human race for the first time will begin to think of what it should make of itself not only in the cultural sense but in the biological sense. The deep question of our human future will be upon us like a weight. No doubt many will say the human race must be biologically more intelligent than now. But if that is the case does that mean we will be moving away, virtually making obsolete, the races and ethnic groups that do not test high on I.Q. now? I strongly recommend that the most intelligent among us and in power reflect on this problem. What decision is to be made? If all the decisions are awful to contemplate will the human race be able to go ahead and withstand the pang of conscience? Things to think of...I better go now, the post is getting long.

And still the infidel does not address the issues especially that of being an employee of the JDL!!!

And again staying on topic:

How about some Religion Reality 101? Arminius does need some added convincing that Jesus was simply a peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man. And please realize that the atoms and molecules of this preacher man are by this time spread all over Palestine and Israel making the area the Holiest of Holy Ground. That fact alone should bring peace to the area!!!

Ok Timmy, Daniel back again. I will let you examine the evidence for cultural achievements between races. I will just say that between Jews, whites and Asians virtually all of what we hold as relevant for modern culture not to mention modern culture itself has been created.

Going to a bookstore would be instructive. Arrange into piles by races and see what comes up. Do I really have to continue? Would you like an ugly fact about the U.S.? We jail blacks disproportionately, essentially culling the less intelligent and criminal from the rest. Our very society in its structure is in biological and eugenic terms selecting for the more intelligent of them. We are already deep into the dilemma I speak of and which I believe will only get worse as the genetic sciences advance. I do not believe education equalizes individuals or races. I have always doubted the efficacy of education. I believe educators have it backwards. They say it is the education that makes one, say, a Phd. I believe the phd earner would not have gotten a phd in the first place if he was not clearly more intelligent than the average.

Tell me, do you really believe the most gifted people go about saying they are what they are because of primarily their teachers? No, the more gifted are deeply aware of their capacity to teach themselves...

To be absolutely clear and to highlight the dilemma in terms you can understand now, there is a massive contradiction between left wing desires for society (that all people be considered intellectually equal, etc.--essentially left wing political views) and the science of our society which is championed disproportionately by the left. The left desires all knowledge of difference between races and sexes be swept under the rug in the political sense, but the sciences rush ahead and point out more differences with every passing day. To be really really exact, how is society to keep up with the advances of especially the biological sciences?

To address some of your lesser issues you brought up, you could very well be right it will be only in fifty years before we are knee deep into problems. Another thing you mentioned, this "organic overcoming of religion", I do not believe it is possible through simply education--in fact it would not be termed organic if it did mean education. And Timmy, are you sure you are not a supremacist in your own way with this "organic overcoming"? It sounds like you mean a biological advance over stupid religious man. Is this what you mean? A biological movement away from religious man but, say, a left wing embracing of homosexual man? Not that I have anything really against homosexuals--I have had homosexual impulses myself. In fact I seem to be something of double in every way.

I better post now before it gets too long.

Hi Timmy, Daniel here. First I should say before you consider me a fascist or white supremacist that I am not exactly pleased myself with what I had to say. I do believe the dilemma is actual and I believe it will only be worse if it is denied.

Second I should say I am a white person. This is important concerning what I have to say next. Asians--specifically northern Asians--and Jews routinely score higher on I.Q. tests than all other people. If you are white as I am, then I can say we come next on I.Q. tests. I am not going to get into what ethnic groups or races come after that. It is not important and we would be cruel to belabor it.

Jews win nobel prizes out of all proportion to their numbers...

Evidence directly from one's eyes would be something like wherever there are black people we have backward culture. Hispanics the same. Just look at the slums of Haiti or Brazil not to mention africa. And all the mexicans fleeing that corrupt, virtually drug dealer controlled country.

As for blacks being better than whites at sports, they go for the money. The history of boxing reveals they dominate. This white winning today you speak of is really the first since Marciano in the fifties. Blacks really do not like hockey or swimming or skiing. If they were to enter those sports en masse I suspect they would dominate. Blacks like football, baseball, basketball. They are narrower of hip and wider of shoulder than all other races--and so obviously faster (they have a preponderance of fast twitch muscles). I better go now because this post is getting long and I might not be able to get it through. I will continue in another post in a minute.

CCNL BunBun,

AWwwwwww! Poorr Thing!!!! Jihadist won't play, Deb Chatterjee answers with reason your Puff pasted slander of Hinduism....

Oh!! What will yoo doo? And your fellow Muffinists don't want yoo?

OH NO :-(

Indeed considering the her lack of addressing the issues of her employment at JDL, the sudden absense of Observer12, and her obsession with defending Judaism even though she is a confirmed atheist/infidel does make one pause about who Franaz really is. Maybe we should send her some pagan jewelry so she can at least "look the talk"!!

CCNL BunBun,

AWwwwwww! Poorr Thing!!!! Jihadist won't play, Deb Chatterjee answers with reason your Puff pasted slander of Hinduism....

Oh!! What will yoo doo? And your fellow Muffinists don't want yoo?

OH NO :-(

All right, CCNL, BunBun, you asked for it, and in your usual cowardly way, after the ruccus you stirred up had died down. I see you've returned from your Klan meetings, your American Nazi Party talk, your gay bashing god-knows-what.

Now, slimy BunBun, is it wwat that got your sexist, racist, heterosexist panties all in a a tangle? Do you want me to post some choice bits of your despicable self? Take your facist, antisemitic, racist, islamophobic, hetersoexist self back to your nazi swamp.

Your bilge isn't wanted here. Scroll down.

Well, looks like Farnaz is again living up to her JDL, "blog hogging" award.

Hmmm, and again so far Farnaz has not proven much about her using multiple ID's. Tis easy to do if you have access to multiple computers/e-mail addresses. And she says nothing about her possible relationship with the JDL.

And Observer12 is still silent about the situation.

Hmmm, will we really ever know??? Maybe we should ask the Shadow?

Hey, a simple cross hanging around Farnaz's neck and she would be free from all these AS "ghosts".

Ditto for some pagan jewelry and available on-line at reasonable prices e.g. http://www.ladyhawkstreasures.com/jewelry.htm

After all she is a confirmed atheist/infidel. She might as well live, talk and dress like one!!!

And hmmm, the original gang of four, we do believe, was composed of Farnaz, Psuedo, Arminius and Sparrow. Could be Observer12 aka Farnaz and The Jihadist were also part of the Bun-Bun parade???

How about some Religion Reality 101? Arminius does need some added convincing that Jesus was simply a peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man. And please realize that the atoms and molecules of this preacher man are by this time spread all over Palestine and Israel making the area the Holiest of Holy Ground. That fact alone should bring peace to the area.

Oh, and Timmy,

You, quoting me to you:
Me: "As to never having any points of my own, I think you'll find that Socrates' daimon can contradict you there
Short memory..."

You:
"LOL. I swear I laughed for a half an hour. That was indeed your idea. And I cornered you with it."

Cornered me? Laugh on, Robespierre of the jiggling jawbone.

The Joker is always trumps...

Thank you, Persis.

Arminius,

"As far as I'm concerned, he can proceed forth and attempt an airborne fornication at a rolling torus-shaped pastry"

Truly visionary, inspired! Sleep well, my friend.

Farnaz

Honest Onofrio,

Peace to you as well, and thanks for all the kind words, wisdom, sparkly prose and poetry.

Farnaz

Dear Moderate,

Thanks so much for the kind words! Much appreciated.

Farnaz

Farnaz,

I've completely had it with Timzilla. As far as I'm concerned, he can proceed forth and attempt an airborne fornication at a rolling torus-shaped pastry.

I'm off to bed. See you on the morrow.

Dear Farnaz,

"When I first saw his attribution of this swill to the Moderate, I was shocked."

Thank you. And rightly so.

Though Timmy agreed with the love bomb idea I put forward, there are many things he posts that I find really prejudiced in general, and discourteous in particular to you. I hope he can get past those problems and actually start to think things through.

Farnaz,

Yea, I know it again, and sit saddened. I have tried with Timmy, and I end a dog. Fitting after the godoggerel I've yapped.

Peace

Hi Arminius,

"have I got a deal for you on beach front property in Kansas. Cash only, no checks."

LOL! How about a car owned by an old lady who live in Texas, only driven once your twice?

Farnaz :)

Hi Onofrio,

You say you wrote to me: "I actually wrote to Farnaz that I didn't think you were antisemitic, more a loose cannon."

Yes, you did. It was in the context of my referencing Rosemary Ruether, the eminent Catholic theologian who believes that there is no point in trying to use facts with anti-Jewish bigots, racists, etc. I'd said that IMHO, it was always worth a shot.

You agreed, explaining that the facts might be useful to the likes of Tim since he was more rhetorician than racist, or words to that effect.

So, I offered him some suggestions....Did you happen to notice his reply to this "Jew Supremacist"? If not, I'll paste it.

Farnaz

Hello Moderate,

Bun-Bun... Hmmm... It kinda fits, except for the difference in IQ and lack of originality, of course.
_____________
Actually, if I'm not mistaken 'twas the inspired Arminius and Wiccan who Christened BunBun thus.
_____________

Re: Cats

Are you a man, Moderate? If so, then there are at least four men on this blog who like cats: You, Arminius, Onofrio, NorrieHoyt. So much for that "conceit," as Arminius put it.

Farnaz

Timmy,

You to me, re stoushing:
"I told you, it ends when someone stoops so low as to call me a bigot, racist and antisemitic. I don't take it lightly. No more love bombs for you until I get a retraction and an apology."

I think you'll find I've called you none of those things. I have taken you to task about the antisemitic implications of some of what you have written. I actually wrote to Farnaz that I didn't think you were antisemitic, more a loose cannon. But some of your *reasoning* and rhetoric is wide open to antisemitic readings. I've tried to highlight that, not to smear you, but more to warn you. I hate to see you - Hopeful Imagineer that you are - using the terms of the real dark side seemingly unawares.

Words aint't just words...

Ruff, ruff.

Deluded Timmy,

YOU: "There is nothing autocratic about my philosophy."

ME: Utter, complete, stinking horse poop. You insist that when religion is 'deleted', apparently by some 'final reason-engendered solution', everybody will cease from war and dance in the streets, singing kumbaya.... and if you believe that, boy, have I got a deal for you on beach front property in Kansas. Cash only, no checks.

Timmy2:

'm surprised you didn't defend her insanity of calling Susan jacoby "owned" because she was scared to write farnaz's "truth to power" that has nothing to do with "On Faith:. Perhaps you thought wiser. I've never seen you disagree with her on even the tiniest point. Even her beloved Pseudo disagrees with her sometimes. But not you. Little dog.
_______________________
Still to skeered to go mano a mano with me, amigo? Awwww...not to worry. I'm done after this.

So far, you've failed to enlist others in your attacks against the Big Bad Farnaz, yet you persist with Susan Jacoby. Contrast yourself with her, little man. Do you actually think Susan Jacoby will join you?! Even your ego-demented viscious, name calling self must consider the wittle Timmie may be self-deceived.

We are all owned, Timeroo. We make our beds and we take our chances. When the darkness turns to pitch, some of us get up and put on the lights, even if it means the fridge may be empty for awhile.

Some, like the Colin Powell of old sleep with a night light. If he hadn't shut it off to tell the UN about the Iraqi WMDs, a lot of people would be alive today.

Sometimes the stakes are high, sometimes low. Susan Jacoby is under no obligation to slay the Vampires I have chosen to go after. I have no doubt she's identified plenty of her own.

Speaking of Vampires, leave Onofrio, Pseudo, at al out of this. Everyone on this thread disagrees, with me, with one another, from time to time. That's the name of the game. You can do that in a democracy. But you wouldn't know about civil disagreement, Timbucktoo, would you?

The socialization process passed you by....

Arminius,

Arminius,

YOU: Poor Timmy, victim of his own utopian vision, can't understand why people are offended by his autocratic attitude. At least CCNL is ahead of him there, since Bun-Bun intends to offend everyone.

I intend to offend the deluded. I see that I have succeeded in your case.

And the "autocratic" reference in your post is a straw man invented by you. There is nothing autocratic about my philosophy.

Onofrio,

Onofrio,

YOU: "Given my Austral origins, I choose to be a dingo/blue heeler cross - good guards and very persistent at nipping heels of the herd"

I am well aware. You have identified my hearding dogs that I was discussing with Pam earlier. Sydney is licking my foot right now, and Boomer is staring at me like he does for hours on end.

I like cats... I see how it is.

Bun-Bun... Hmmm... It kinda fits, except for the difference in IQ and lack of originality, of course.

Oh no Frio,

YOU: That's not very reasonable or loving, Love Bomber"

I told you, it ends when someone stoops so low as to call me a bigot, racist and antisemitic. I don't take it lightly. No more love bombs for you until I get a retraction and an apology.

YOU: As to never having any points of my own, I think you'll find that Socrates' daimon can contradict you there"
Short memory...

LOL. I swear I laughed for a half an hour. That was indeed your idea. And I cornered you with it. Short memory.

And I accept Farnaz's denial that she does not use multiple aliases. But you are her shadow and nothing more it seems. We'll see. Let's see how many new and fresh ideas you bring from here on in or if I am right and you offer nothing but support for Farnaz against my actual on topic arguments.

I'm surprised you didn't defend her insanity of calling Susan jacoby "owned" because she was scared to write farnaz's "truth to power" that has nothing to do with "On Faith:. Perhaps you thought wiser. I've never seen you disagree with her on even the tiniest point. Even her beloved Pseudo disagrees with her sometimes. But not you. Little dog.

Farnaz,

Indeed there is a low-level bias here in America against men who like cats. This is not a big deal, and is about the same level as my looking down on anyone who eats brussel sprouts, so it's more of a conceit. I am protected, since I like both dogs and cats.

Arminius,

"It is a well known fact that everybody loves puppies and babies in general. When a Jack Russell looks at you, it is with a totally adorable and hopelessly innocent puppy face."

That's it! Of course, you are right!
_______________
Onofrio and Arminius,

Onofrio writes that keeping cats is perceived down under as a betrayal of masculine heritage...Is that true in the US, too? Elsewhere?

Farnaz,

"CCNL is a woman in leather?"

Well, he seemed so. Certainly walked like a woman, though I must admit, talked like a man. S/he was going by what I presume to be a codename - I think it was LOLA.

Onofrio,

You write, "greetings from one who has been officially ratiocinated into your yapping canine sidekick."

I found the Tim-posts on this. I don't know what to say about those Tim-dark ravings. Your replies--You're a better being than I am, Onofrio.

Farnaz

Hello there, Arminius

I wish you well with your new abode. Moving ain't among my favourite things. On the matter of pets, I be a cat person, which I generally keep quiet. In my homeland, a male who likes cats is assumed to be a traitor to his gender and his country. Despite this prejudice against male cattists, the movement is far more widespread than the anti-cattists would like to admit.

Farnaz,

Actually, there is no mystery why we love Jack Russells. It is a well known fact that everybody loves puppies and babies in general. When a Jack Russell looks at you, it is with a totally adorable and hopelessly innocent puppy face. This may be the ultimate canine defense mechanism against humans, and undoubtedly protects them from punishment when they really get in trouble, which is often.

Arminius,

Meant to write: "Go ye not unarmed into such dangerous visions...."

Arminius,

"This is a disturbing image of Bun-Bun. Makes me picture an aged honkey dominatrix that frequents the S&M leather bars in the seedy side of a large city. I may have nightmares...."

Go ye not unarmed such dangerous visions....

Farnaz and Onofrio,

This is a disturbing image of Bun-Bun. Makes me picture an aged honkey dominatrix that frequents the S&M leather bars in the seedy side of a large city. I may have nightmares....

Hi Arminius,

You know it's funny about JRs. They drive folks nuts, but we all love them! Me too! Why?

Farnaz

Hi, Farnaz,

Jake, my Jack Russell, was not my idea. It was a gift to my daughter from a boyfriend, and since she was college bound, I inherited the little rascal. He really is likable, though. And now that he has a good place to run, he doesn't bounce off the walls and ceilings quite as much.

Onofrio,

CCNL is a woman in leather? Uh. Reminds me of a thread awhile back in which, somehow, the topic of his (?) sexuality arose. 'Twas with the pagans, and Bun was cursing gays. The thought of Bun in thro's of rapture was more than all could bear, so, bravely, we endeavored to condole. :0

Farnaz

Hello Farnaz,

Tim-beleaguered Persis, greetings from one who has been officially ratiocinated into your yapping canine sidekick. Given my Austral origins, I choose to be a dingo/blue heeler cross - good guards and very persistent at nipping heels of the herd.

You can borrow my brain as long as you like, on the condition that you lend me your intellect. I daresay it would help me not to bungle my thaumaturgical endeavours.

Hi, Onofrio, you wrote
"Arminius is actually a persona of that sly mastermind Thomas Baum (have you noticed how often they agree?)"

And that was worth a great laugh here! You have a gift for writing, for sure! Poor Timmy, victim of his own utopian vision, can't understand why people are offended by his autocratic attitude. At least CCNL is ahead of him there, since Bun-Bun intends to offend everyone.

Hi Arminius,

I'm afraid you're right about CCNL. There's just too much hatred, paranoia, backstabbing. Everyone from gay people to Jews to Catholics to Protestants to Muslims to Hindus to atheists to agnostics. Only his own unique brand of Catholicism will do. Scary stuff. Scary.
____________________

On a separate note, O Brave Arminius! What courage it took to get a jack russell! Much do I them love, but alas, no yard hath Farnaz. :)

Farnaz

Hi Onofrio,

Thanks for the kind words. Btw, I would like to be you for twenty minutes a day. Could that be arranged? Could use a bit of inspiration with my prose!

What say you? How's your Austral Fundament thaumaturgy (secularly speaking)?!

Farnaz :)

Hi DITLD,

Thanks for the kind words. Actually, I didn't notice your post, probably wouldn't have noticed Mary Cunningham's if CCNL hadn't pasted it here and on at least one other thread. I even missed it here, but then he posted it again!

To tell the truth, I don't know how anyone could post under two or more identities since we have to sign up and then log in, but that's beside the point. MC's a long-time Accuser and not just of me. Then there's an Anon who used to accuse both Victoria and me, someone who accused Jihadist.

It should be quite obvious from anyone who has read this blog for awhile that I am not (a)Observer12, (b) Pseudo, (c) Sparrow, (d) Jihadist. I'm also not Arminius. :)

Also, I don't believe Pseudo is Jihadist or that Jihadist is Victoria.

All this is quite insane and paranoid. And you're quite correct--It won't affect Gaza. Nothing of what we say will, I guess, although there is a wonderful line in a poem by Marianne Moore that reads something like this, "I must fight within myself until I find what causes war."

Amen!

Farnaz :)

Timmy,

You, re likening Farnaz and myself merrily to dogs:
"I was comparing you to to a classic cartoon. It was not friendly. It was meant to point out how pathetically suck upee to Farnaz all of your posts are."

That's not very reasonable or loving, Love Bomber. If you want to keep the ethical moral ground you've claimed as your own, you should start being, well, more ethical. Try living up to your own rhetoric.

"You never have any points of your own but you just back-up everything Farnaz says and defend her against all attacks."

Shrill. I'm sure Farnaz would love to take some credit for what has elsewhere been called my "semantic belly dancing", but it's all my very own persiflage.
As to never having any points of my own, I think you'll find that Socrates' daimon can contradict you there.
Short memory...

"I think you might be one of her other aliases now that CCNL has shed some light on her clandestine style of bloggery. Makes sense to me."

Joining the CCNL conspiracy bandwagon now? As I've said before, 'Careful, Timmy.' If you want to go down that road, here's a few more tip offs:

CCNL is an agent provocateur for the CIA. He's really a black woman in leather.

Arminius is actually a persona of that sly mastermind Thomas Baum (have you noticed how often they agree?)

Thomas Baum himself is a crypto-Calvinist mole whiteanting Opus Dei. His *debates* with the illusory Peterhuff are confected just to throw the counter-Calvinist spies off his scent.

And, since we're into the exposes now, it needs to be pointed out to all that you're neither Canadian, nor a skateboarder, but a member of a secretive international cult HQ'd in Switzerland, testing the temperature of public opinion before launching their long-plotted Illuminati Coup - Motto "Ratio or Death".

As for me, well I gotta go and take a call from the Elders of Zion. They want an update...

It's a slippery slope, O Paranoid Imagineer.

Daniel ITLD,

Your description of Bun-Bun (CCNL) is exact. Between his bigotry, his backstabbing, and his constant pasting of the same crap, he offends everyone, to his utter delight. He has no friends here - hell, even Spidey has people here that at least view him with compassion and kindness, including myself now.

Hi Arminius,

When you have time, you've got to visit the dog poetry site and have a gander at this:

"The Twa Dogs" by Robert Burns

Farnaz :)

Farnaz

Don't let CCNL upset you. That is what he is trying to do. I am skeptical that anyone would go to the trouble to pose as more than one person, because we are all anonymous, here, anyway, and none of us have any purpose at all here, but to throw out ideas for a few others to read and possibly to chat. It is not as though our comments can really effect the war in Gaza, or anything else. So, if anyone would take the trouble to pose as more than one person, they would be taking this whole Forum way too seriously.

And also, even if someone would pose as more than one person, what would it matter anyway? I reallly could care less. It doesn't hurt anybody, and as far as I can see is not anything particularly bad. So what if someone is suspicious of such things? These are unimportant non-issues?

So what? Who cares. He is just trying to upset you. If you get upset on this blog, it should be over something better than silly CNNL.

I am sorry I made my comment in reply to Mary Cunningham. I was briefly confused because of your reference to yourself in the third person. Yet, when I read what CNNL made of it, I could not agree at all with him.

Hi Arminius,

A jack russell! It's good that you have outdoor space!

Farnaz :)

Farnaz,

I am a dog and cat person! I have an elderly golden retriever, and a jack russell that drives me nuts. And three cats. Even had a ferret once, a truly lovable beastie. I have the dog poetry site bookmarked for later reading, thanks.

Hello, Thomas Baum,

I've been meaning to thank you for the comments I post below. Timmy, had, in fact, made the remarks you quote, not once, but several times. When I first saw his attribution of this swill to the Moderate, I was shocked. Never would I have thought the Moderate capable of such thinking. At any rate, I couldn't find anything like it in the Moderate's posts and was reassured. I agree with you. This is not the sort of thinking the Moderate's capable of.
------------------------------------------
ThomasBaum Author Profile Page:

THEMODERATE

Concerning your post of 1-8-2009 at 1:32 PM, the post that I sent was to Timmy2 and the "you" in the "To The Moderate you wrote" was referring to Timmy2.

Thomas Baum:

You erroneously wrote:

"To The Moderate you wrote, "But Farnaz is blaming everyone else for the racialization of the Jews, when they did it themselves by declaring to be God's chosen people.""

Timmy addressed that to themoderate. themoderate did not, and would not, write such a statement.

January 8, 2009 4:33 PM |

BTW, "Jew Supremacy" is another joke line I lifted from the Daily Show with John Stewart where he used that line in a sketch referring to the covenant issue.

Much like Farnaz, John Stewart is an atheist Jew.
Unlike Farnaz, John Stewart is not too emotionally charged and attached to his Jewish heritage that he can not joke, and even harshly criticize, the elements of Judaism that deserve criticism.

Farnaz, to me: "you are dishonest, hostile, bigoted"

Me to Farnaz: You are an admitted pedophile.

There. Now we're even in baseless accusations and demagoguery.

Arminius,

"Looks like we have a new foe in the strange persona of Timmy. His attack on you was truly ad hominem"

Excuse me? You need to look that word up.
My attack on Farnaz was that she called me a bigot, a racist and an antisemite. She did. She just did it again. How can that be ad hominem?

I also accused her of demagoguery. She is guilty. Calling someone a racist on a public forum, who is not a racist, is the scummiest form of demagoguery. She has no more evidence that I am a racist than CCNL has that she has multiple identities. I will now add hypocrite to the list of names that I will call her.

I am out there trying to find common ground with her and she persists in her repulsive baseless accusations of the lowest form.

Hi Arminius,

I've been reading here, but saw no spot to jump in until now. I've been very busy moving into a new house, rented. Very comfortable here, dogs love the great fenced back yard, etc. Cats are adjusting, but I won't let them out yet.

Looks like we have a new foe in the strange persona of Timmy. His attack on you was truly ad hominem. I'll try to be active tonight.
-------------------
Serendipity! Scroll down. I just gave you a link to a site with dog poems!!

Congratulations on the new house--hope you enjoy it!

Farmaz :)

Hi, Arminius,

Thanks again for the kind words. On another (unrelated) note, someone just sent me a link to a site with famous dog poems!

I know you're a cat person. Do you also like dogs? If so, you might want to check out this site. Great fun!

http://famouspoetsandpoems.com/thematic_poems/dog_poems.html

Friend Farnaz,

I've been reading here, but saw no spot to jump in until now. I've been very busy moving into a new house, rented. Very comfortable here, dogs love the great fenced back yard, etc. Cats are adjusting, but I won't let them out yet.

Looks like we have a new foe in the strange persona of Timmy. His attack on you was truly ad hominem. I'll try to be active tonight.

Timmy-Here are two posts of yours to me, written in rapid fire order. Ad hominems and name-calling won't do it. Onofrio has tried with you and so have I and so has Arminius and so has Pam. But, clearly, it is to no avail because you are dishonest, hostile, bigoted. "Jew Supremacy" indeed.

This latest try of yours won't work either. People who post here are too smart for it. On this thread, the "weak-minded" I referred to in my post to CCNL is limited to you. BIG lies won't work here.

I'm done.
____________________

Farnaz,

"I hope I have "shed some light" on my identity. Scroll down for my replies to ccnl. Why, after, you seemed to understand, did you have to buy into the slander of someone who is universally recognized on this cite as troubled, by most, as a hater, a bigot? Numerous have been the complaints to Mr. Waters about CCNL. And, then, you go further and accuse Onofrio...."

"Why, Tim?"

Because I wouldn't put anything past someone who would stoop to such a slimy use of straw man demagoguery as you have in accusing me of being a bigot, and a racist, and an anti-semite. You are the lowest of the low. A dishonest debater. A demagoguer of the highest order. I don't take kindly to your repulsive and irresponsible accusations. You are my new pet project. Get used to it, or apologize and retract.

January 9, 2009 6:33 PM
------------------------------------
Farnaz!!

More common ground!

"I don't think the organized religions are necessary at all, as you assert. Indeed, I would just as soon see them all disappear tomorrow. They represent another means for power to exploit the benighted. Along with gender, complectedness (race), sexual preference, nationality, religions serve to divert attention away from actual injustice, either by promising relief in a hereafter or by scapegoating or both"

January 9, 2009 6:25 PM

Farnaz,

I throw your own words to CCNL right back in your face with regards to your accusations that I am a bigot, a racist and an antisemite.

YOU TO CCNL: (but now me to you) "You will force me to bring this to a place, I'd rather not. Either prove your ridiculous accusation, or apologize, and stop posting for awhile. Chesid, but I am not supernaturally generous. Weak minded people listen to specious Accusations as you know. People of conscience don't use them. SATAN = ACCUSER."

Farnaz,

"I hope I have "shed some light" on my identity. Scroll down for my replies to ccnl. Why, after, you seemed to understand, did you have to buy into the slander of someone who is universally recognized on this cite as troubled, by most, as a hater, a bigot? Numerous have been the complaints to Mr. Waters about CCNL. And, then, you go further and accuse Onofrio...."

"Why, Tim?"

Because I wouldn't put anything past someone who would stoop to such a slimy use of straw man demagoguery as you have in accusing me of being a bigot, and a racist, and an anti-semite. You are the lowest of the low. A dishonest debater. A demagoguer of the highest order. I don't take kindly to your repulsive and irresponsible accusations. You are my new pet project. Get used to it, or apologize and retract.

Hello Arminius,

Thanks old friend, and welcome back! Yesterday, I was going to send out a plea for your return, but figured you might need a bread!

Thanks so much for your support. How have you been?

Farnaz

CCNL:

You write: "It is noted that her "blog hogging" has dramatically decreased since the multiple ID observations were published. And Observer12 appears to be silent about the situation."

You also wrote that I am a "blog hog." As for Observer12, he comes and goes, just as many others do. BUT you see, I don't have anything to prove. YOU do. The burden of proof rests with the "prosecution." Congratulations. You have officially joined the ranks of the paranoid.

Again, I ask you to apologize and take a break. I wish you no harm, but slander is dangerous, as the pslamists of old knew. I'M no saint, Chesid or no.
----------------------------
CCNL Author Profile Page:

And Farnaz, the atheist/infidel/"blog hog" award winner continues to show her male side!!! Must be some residual Jewish DNA left over from her descendents who committed all the atrocities so vividly described in the OT.

January 9, 2009 3:40 AM
-------------------------------
CCNL Author Profile Page:

And JDL's Blog Hog Award for this thread goes to??

You guessed it, that "dainty", atheist/infidel member of Judaism named Farnaz!!!

January 9, 2009 12:47 AM

Hi, Farnaz,

Well, Bun-Bun has gone over the edge. Anyone with more than a few dozen brain cells to string together knows instantly that you are Farnaz, and no one else. Poor Bun-Bun continues to bolster his low self-esteem by causing trouble. I wonder if he also writes obscene graffiti on walls with spray paint cans?

Farnaz!!

More common ground!

"I don't think the organized religions are necessary at all, as you assert. Indeed, I would just as soon see them all disappear tomorrow. They represent another means for power to exploit the benighted. Along with gender, complectedness (race), sexual preference, nationality, religions serve to divert attention away from actual injustice, either by promising relief in a hereafter or by scapegoating or both"

Timmy2

“…but do you really think that the US and others will ever let Israel fall?”
____________________

I don’t think we can stop it. The old days of the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming military might are past. The new tactic is asymmetric warfare. The opposition will never attack us head on.

They will hide, use urban warfare, hit and run tactics, fire the random ballistic missile, which will soon be replaced with the longer range and more accurate GPS guided Land Attack Cruise Missile (LACM). These missiles will be fired from cover, avoid radar detection by flying low altitude profiles, and can be launched from long-range anywhere in the Middle East.

We will soon be occupied with our own problems just trying to avoid bankruptcy with our $10+ trillion national debt which will grow by $1.6 trillion next year; if the Chinese will loan us the money. And they are losing their appetite for US treasury bills. They could ruin us just by refusing to buy any more of our debt and dumping their massive holdings on the world market. The world is fed up with financing our glutinous behavior and our foreign wars; and it’s for sure we cannot finance them ourselves.

If this isn’t enough we will be running out of oil in a few decades. The race is on to see if we can convert to renewable energy sources before the oil supply runs dry. Saving Israel’s bacon will be the last thing on our mind.

`CCNL:

I KNOW what has your panties all in a knot. I suggest you take your demented self for a brief vacation. You're doing yourself no good by trotting around from thread to thread like a scared rabbit with this swill. You will force me to bring this to a place, I'd rather not. Either prove your ridiculous accusation, or apologize, and stop posting for awhile. Chesid, but I am not supernaturally generous.

What MC did is deplorable. What you did is despicable. Weak minded people listen to specious Accusations as you know. People of conscience don't use them. SATAN = ACCUSER.

Timmy2:

You write to CCNL:

I think you might be one of her other aliases now that CCNL has shed some light on her clandestine style of bloggery. Makes sense to me.
-----------------------------
I hope I have "shed some light" on my identity. Scroll down for my replies to ccnl. Why, after, you seemed to understand, did you have to buy into the slander of someone who is universally recognized on this cite as troubled, by most, as a hater, a bigot? Numerous have been the complaints to Mr. Waters about CCNL. And, then, you go further and accuse Onofrio....

Why, Tim?

Farnaz

Hmmm, so far Farnaz has not proven much about her using multiple ID's. Tis easy to do if you access to multiple computers/e-mail addresses. And she says nothing about her possible relationship with the JDL.

It is noted that her "blog hogging" has dramatically decreased since the multiple ID observations were published. And Observer12 appears to be silent about the situation.

Hmmm, will we really ever know??? Maybe we should ask the Shadow?

Hey, a simple cross hanging around Farnaz's neck and she would be free from all these AS "ghosts".

Ditto for some pagan jewelry and available on-line at reasonable prices e.g. http://www.ladyhawkstreasures.com/jewelry.htm

Thomas,

I could not find the article. I clicked on "in this issue" but I could not find Sept 2008 or any of the other stuff. Can you send a link?

YOU: By the way, I have always liked the song, Imagine, it is just that I look at it differently than you do.

And what way is that?

ON CCNL'S POSTS ABOUT ME

First, I'm not addressing this post to him, since he addressed none of his mary cunningham cuts and pastes to me.

Instead CCNL has trotted around from thread to thread like a rabbit pasting MC's accusations along with accusations of his own.

I understand that this is the move of a deeply troubled and desperate man. I would like to end this here and now. In Judaism, there is a word "Chesid," which is uselful in secular discussions of morality and ethics. It refers to Just Kindness and Compassion. (I don't know if my ending this here is just, but anyway.)

Hmmm....BunBun (CCNL) My second reply to Mary Cunningham aka Speed 123 aka the here and now aka peer review, et al.
------------------------------
Farnaz2 Author Profile Page:

Mary Cunningham:

BTW.

These were not CCNL's "gang of four," but you also left out "Pseudo," whom you also accused me of being.

January 9, 2009 5:52 PM

Hmmm....BunBun (CCNL):

My first reply to Mary Cunningham:
______________________________________________
Farnaz2

Mary Cunningham (Speed123, thehereandnow, peer review, etc.) writes to DITLD:

Mary_Cunningham Author Profile Page:

DITLD:

You wrote ===>Something is a little odd here

Oh, Farnaz2 and Observer12 are the same persona, that's clear. She made a mistake, logged out as Observer, logged in as Farnaz,then--without realizing her error--posted as if she were still logged in as Observer. She's probably Sparrow4 and MightySparrow as well. CCNL used to call them the "Gang of Four" but they were really four-in-one, all the same person. (Kind of like the Holy Trinity only one better!)
____________________
Mary Cunningham aka Speed 123 aka the here and now aka Peer Review:

Still up to your old tricks. Sorry to disappoint. First, Farnaz doesn't speak German. Second, she is Jewish and from Iran. Third, she discovered this blog a long time after Observer12 evidently did.

Sometimes, she may occasionally write in the third person (see other threads) but she never accuses unless first accused, never starts fire but will not use a cup of water to put out the ones that others do. Farnaz wonders why u are so threatened by her, why you have always been.

Sorry, MaryC, err Speed, err the here and now err whatever. NOt even a nice try. You have to log sign in and log in in order to post on this blog.

When will you learn to stop blaming victims? Who is responsible for the anti-Jewish bigotry in Arroyo's post?

January 9, 2009 5:47 PM | Report Offensive Comment

Hmmmm!!!

Hmmm, just noted this on Tony S-A's Vatican and Anti-Semitism comments' page:

"Mary_Cunningham :

DITLD:

You wrote ===>Something is a little odd here

Oh, Farnaz2 and Observer12 are the same persona, that's clear. She made a mistake, logged out as Observer, logged in as Farnaz,then--without realizing her error--posted as if she were still logged in as Observer. She's probably Sparrow4 and MightySparrow as well. CCNL used to call them the "Gang of Four" but they were really four-in-one, all the same person. (Kind of like the Holy Trinity only one better!)

But you have to ask yourself why construct such an elaborate ruse? This is, after all, an American blog and there are plenty of natural sympathizers for the Israeli point of view as well as many who also possess a visceral, almost vicious anti-Catholicism (and some of these are Catholics!)

There are a few clues: 1) she is almost always around, 2) she is formidably well prepared with briefs to defend any and all positions she takes, 3) if someone criticiques the briefs, she merely piles on more and rarely answers the criticism 4) she intentionally--during times of ME crises--diverts the discussion on the Jacoby to anti-Semitism or the perfidies of the Church, 5) she periodically engages in what I call online muggings against the more independent bloggers who look like they might challenge her view, 6) she brings in her foul-mouthed 'clones' (Obs.12, Sparrow) to do her dirty work, kind of a Dr Jeckyl and Mr Hyde manoeuvre.

So I would say she is a propagandist, paid for by a pro-Israeli or some kind of anti-Defamation Jewish group. Since atheists tend to be more left wing and critical of Israel, she concentrates most of her efforts amongst the atheists. The anti-defamation work is her business, the detour into a vicious anti-Catholicism is probably pure pleasure."

Frederic:

Onofrio writes to you:

If *religion* was involved in the Shoah, it was not religion in general (hence Farnaz' rhetorical challenges re culpability of Buddhism or Hinduism), but a specific religious matrix - Christendom. For many posters on these On Faith boards, *religion* is virtually synonymous with those epic villains Christendom and Islam, with the Jews thrown in as original instigators. But it's worth reiterating that the term *religion* should not be deployed in such a way as to obscure the specific culpability of Christendom with regard to antisemitism. This has the consequence of letting Christendom off the hook, and tarring other religions with a too-broad brush.

I'm well aware of the endorsement of extreme judeophobia in the works of such seminal Christian figures as Chrysostom and Luther, and of the religious/ideological aspects of antisemitism in general. In battle with Timmy, I was trying to show that by the time of the Shoah, the antisemitic momentum powered historically by Christendom (not *religion* in general) had been totally subsumed by a racialism to which distinctly religious sanction was no longer necessary.

January 9, 2009 7:25 AM
_____________________________________________
Frederic to Onofrio
Religion (Christendom and Judaism) is involved in the holocaust in some historical context.

Religion (especially the monotheistic versions, this to Farnaz) may be necessary, which you seem to claim, for better or worse. The Nazi (or much earlier) "racialization" was a fiendish additional means to stress the religion-originated hatred ("blood").

As a strict non-believer in the supernatural (for me the natural is super enough), which is at the basis of every religion, I just tried, and obviously failed, to trace the context.

I was ready to accept your first post (7:23), but the second (7:37) seems a little skewed to me...

January 9, 2009 7:59 AM
____________________________________
Farnaz to Frederic:

First, I don't think the organized religions are necessary at all, as you assert. Indeed, I would just as soon see them all disappear tomorrow.

They represent another means for power to exploit the benighted. Along with gender, complectedness (race), sexual preference, nationality, religions serve to divert attention away from actual injustice, either by promising relief in a hereafter or by scapegoating or both.

Continues below

Continued
With the rise of proto-nation states, antisemitism became increasingly useful to feudal lords, kings, the Roman Catholic Empire, alike.

"Christendom and Judaism" did not cause antisemitism. Jews did not organize specious debates to prove their religion was superior. Jews did not slaughter themselves, burn themselves to death, etc. They did not leave a trail of blood across Europe during the Fist Crusade. They did not enforce the wearing of armbands with stars of David during the reign of Pope Clement. They did not pile up rooms on top of rooms relegating themselves to "ghettos," cause themselves to die of tuberculosis, etc.
They did not prevent themselves from associating with Christians. They did not continue to execute themselves, rape themselves, torture Jewish children during Crusades. They did not deport themselves from country after country.

They did not sponsor either the Church run Inquisition or that run be Isabella the Catholic.
They did not in the seventeenth century rip open the stomaches of women and sew living cats in them. They did not prevent themselves from working, traveling. They did not settle themselves in the Pale of Settlement. They did not run Pogroms. They did not sponsor the Holocaust, tighten immigration laws around Christendom so Jews couldn't leave from still unoccupied nations.

They did not try to keep news of the actual atrocities from the people. They did not implement a quota system on the number of Jews who could attend college in this country, a quota that did not officially end until the 1960s. The late William F. Buckley Jr. had plenty to say on this regarding Yale.

They have not spread antisemitism to the Middle East, Korea, etc.
__________
Frederic,

In short, Judaism did not lead up to the Shoah, did not cause the Shoah, or spread antisemtism all over the world. "Religion" as a phenomenon did not either. For your convenience, I have listed those religions that, I believe, have the largest numbers of adherents. I may have left out one or two. Please tell me which religion(s) bear responsibility for the Holocaust. (Thanks in advance!):

Animism
Buddhism
Hinduism
Sikhism
B'hai
Islam
Jainism
Shintoism
Wicca
Zoroastrianism
Roman Catholicism
Protestantism (e.g., Lutheranism)
Orthodox Christianity

Rick,

"So when Israel finally falls in the not so distant future, these corrupt leaders will suffer the same fate"

We'd all love to see those leaders suffer their due fate, but doo you really think that the US and others will ever let Israel fall?

TIMMY2

I read an interesting story about John Lennon in Guideposts magazine recently that you might like to read, I found it interesting.

If you are interested in reading it you can go to guidepostsmag.com then click 'in this issue' then 'Sept 2008' scrow down to 'At our best' p40 and the article is: Travels from the heart, I saw him standing there, The day John Lennon came to her church.

By the way, I have always liked the song, Imagine, it is just that I look at it differently than you do.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Susan,

There's a reason why your post has received so many responses — it's excellent!

DTLD

“The Arab states have a ton of American supplied military hardware. Lack of high-tech weaponry is not what is holding them back. It is lack of organization and motivation…

…In most Arab states, the main enemy is not Israel, it is "the people." It is more important to keep the people ignorant, poor, and disorganized than to organize a military effort against Israel.”
_________________________

They have the hardware, but they had to agree not to use it against Israel in order to get it. If they went against that agreement, they would be destroyed by the USA if not Israel first.

The enemy of the Arab people is not the people themselves but their leaders; who have sold out to the USA for trillions in foreign aid and oil revenue and military hardware to protect them from their own people.

So when Israel finally falls in the not so distant future, these corrupt leaders will suffer the same fate.

PETERHUFF

You wrote, "What is the authority that you base your understanding of God on?"

I met God, God chose me, I said YES.

You also wrote, "What do I have to judge your claims on"

Who gave you the authority to judge anyone's "claims"?

You can listen and/or read what I say but the way that you follow Jesus is your decision not mine or anyone else's and also how I follow Jesus is up to me not you or anyone else.

Then you wrote, "Are you sure you are preaching the right gospel my friend?"

Gospel means "GOOD NEWS", it does not mean 'as long as the news is good enough for me news'. God chose me and that is a good enough reason for me.

Then you wrote, " If you are not will you then repent?"

As I have said, God chose me and I have said YES.

I have asked no one to follow me and I have also said anyone would be foolish to follow me and I have also said that we are not to follow followers of Jesus even if the "followers" are legetimate followers but we are to follow Jesus.

As I have said, God has a Plan and has had His Plan since before creation and His Plan will come to Fruition.

Not only is God Real but satan is also real and satan will answer to God.

As Jesus said, "All power and authority has been given unto Me". Isn't it something that God let us, humanity, throw it all away and God became One of Us, Jesus (God-Incarnate), and won it all back and asked us to be participants in God's Plan of Salvation for ALL OF HUMANITY?

Sometimes, we tend to underestimate God and/or put God in a box.

As I have said, Jesus is the Saviour of the world and He asked us to be willing participants in God's Plan.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Daniel,

YOU: "I have a rather dystopian view of the world"

Indeed. I don't think you needed to clarify that. I have debated with many of your fellow dystopians. I sense a strong "self loathing" quality in these people, as in yourself. Not personal self loathing but species self loathing. You seem to be of the mindset that the world would be a utopian place without us damn humans around. Wouldn't it be great if it were just you and the animals? Ahhh, utopia.

YOU: "and I believe not least because they are so powerful that the europeans and their outliers (america, australia, etc.), the northern asians, the jews, and possibly the people of India will discriminate against the rest of the world and not want to breed with them because in comparison they so obviously lack intelligence.

They do?
Can you show me the scientific data on this obvious lack of intelligence?

YOU: "Ugly and appalling view no doubt, but is it worse than today when a person can observe that black people are better at sports than whites or that women are less violent than men"

Black people are better at sports?
Why are all gold medal winners at the olympics not black then?
Why are there only three professional black hockey players?
Why is the UFC heavy weight champion, a white guy who beat the snot out of a black guy?
Why are there no black ping pong champions?

YOU: "but one cannot say that jews, japanese, the citizens of Hong Kong, singapore, etc. are more intelligent than most other people? It seems the more intelligent people must hang their heads in shame these days"

Good thing for you you did not make that list, and so you can hold your head high like the rest of us dummies.

YOU: "I think the next couple centuries are make or break centuries for the human race"

I think you give us too much time here. Try the next 50 years.

YOU: "And I think the human race will botch it completely.

I am more optimistic to be sure.

YOU: "We will keep trying to see all people as equal"

Fundamentally, they are. In all ways that matter.

YOU: "overcome religion"

I don't like the word overcome here. I would phrase it "organically let go of ancient superstitions".

YOU: I would suggest the human race wise up now to the evident dilemmas facing us.

We're trying. Thanks for the suggestion.

YOU: "I leave the humanizing and overcoming of the problems to you. It seems the best I can do is be the bearer of bad news and be hated by all. Good luck to you Pam and good luck to the world. you will need it"

Is this a suicide note?
Don't do it Daniel! Thee is hope. Hang in there!

Asks the husband: "What is the green stuff in this soup?"

Wife's answers, option No. 1:
"It's parsley".

Option No 2:
"Here you go again bit.ching against my cooking!"

Both options are "plausible", but I have a feeling that the second one predominates here.

If asking for a plausible reason of historic developments across the ages, including the damaging effect of all the religions involved, is taken as sympathizing with mass killers, is even shrewdly used to "debunk" a pattern of "it is the victim's fault" etc., alleging a "tacit" Nazi mentality (see option No 2), we cannot call this an intelligent discussion anymore - therefore I will ..."and by opposing end it", as far as I am concerned, to quote WS.

If the Arabs want to win a war against Israel, they will have to do more than launch a few feeble missiles on Israeli kindergartens or send suicide bombers to blow-up civillian busses. This has ZERO military effect and just makes them mad.

Such an unsuccessful strategy could go on indefinitley, forever.

If they want to orangize an effective military force against Israel, they could do it. If they think they need nukes, they could get them. If the cause is really worth it to them, they could risk Israel's nukes.

If they want it enough, it is easily do-able.

They just don't want it enough.

Rick22407

What you said is not true. The Arab states have a ton of American supplied military hardware. Lack of high-tech weaponry is not what is holding them back. It is lack of oganization and motivation.

In most Arab states, the main enemy is not Israel, it is "the people." It is more important to keep the people ignorant, poor, and disorganized than to organize a military effort against Israel.

They talk a good talk. But talk don't win no wars.

Daniel,

YOU: If the Arabs want to get rid of Israel, or conquor it militarily, and then dictate terms to it, then why don't they? The Arab world in total, has alot more people and resources than Israel. All they need to do, is get oranized and do it. If they do not, then it is because they do not want to.

You forget one very important factor. Nukes.
And as Rick pointed out, the US of A.

Rick,

YOU: Israel is doomed to continued attack by ever more advanced weaponry as technology and time advance

true dat.

YOU continued: "if they continue to maintain an apartheid racist state in the middle of Arab land"

This part is moot. All they have to do for the first part of your sentence to come true is continue to exist.

The love bomb is worth a shot. I'll kick in a hundred bucks.

Oh no Frio,

YOU: I recall you making the claim on one of these recent threads that you don't descend to abusive name-calling.

True

YOU: So what's with this woman = bulldog thing?

You tell me, you said it, I didn't.

YOU: "is that your idea of a friendly dig?"

I was comparing you to to a classic cartoon. It was not friendly. It was meant to point out how pathetically suck upee to Farnaz all of your posts are. You never have any points of your own but you just back-up everything Farnaz says and defend her against all attacks. I think you might be one of her other aliases now that CCNL has shed some light on her clandestine style of bloggery. Makes sense to me.

YOU: "A witty quip? Maybe you should start practicing what you so fulsomely preach, O Lennonist Love Bomber"

I do exactly that. Until someone calls me a bigot or a racist. Then they become my pet project. Congratulations.

YOU: "On this thread, I have challenged assertions you've made that appear to blame Jews - through their diabolical book-god - for antisemitism"

I could not have been more clear that I do not blame the Jews for antisemitism and that they did not deserve any of the persecution they have been subject to. I correctly pointed out the documented fact that they played a roll in racializing themselves by praying on a book that claims that God made a special covenant with their kind, and by creating a word for the "non Jew" and for being exceptionally ethnocentric.

YOU: 'Now, the tacit implication of both these notions of yours, Timmy, is that the Jews are partly/originally responsible for bringing exile, harassment, and massacres on themselves"

No. Only for (partly, originally) racializing themselves, just as other ethnicities have done. I denouce all exile, harassment and massacres against any race or racialized ethnicity or racialized religion. There is a great distinction here that only the thickest of skulls can repel and thereby miss. Congratulations, old thick skull.

YOU: "I'm just linking up the ends of the daisy chain you made, Timmy"

No you are demonstrating the thickness of your brain pan.

YOU: In the childlike dualist belief system that informs most of your posts, the god Reason saves people, and the devil Religion stirs up all the ills of the world, like holocausts and intifadas.

And the farmers curse the god of the crows.

What a waste of bandwidth you are.
Crawl back under your rock now.

DITLD

Yes they have more people and natural resources, but they don’t have the US supplied military hardware. They have learned the hard way that they can only win a war of attrition: a suicide bomber here, a ballistic missile there, more advanced cruise missiles in the future, with the inexorable march of time, technology, oil supply depletion and the demographic bomb working in their favor.

If the Arabs want to get rid of Israel, or conquor it militarily, and then dictate terms to it, then why don't they? The Arab world in total, has alot more people and resources than Israel. All they need to do, is get oranized and do it. If they do not, then it is because they do not want to.

On ho, Frio,

YOU: My position is always that *religion* is an integral aspect of human behavior, for better and for worse.

On "integral" you have no back up for your assertion. I think you are thinking of spirituality here, which is very different from religion. Spirituality is integral maybe, but religion?, no sir.
As for "for better or worse", I have demonstrated, and you have been unable to rebut, it is most definitely for worse.

YOU: contra Timmy - the Love Bomber who likens women to dogs -

Onofrio is an admitted pedophile.
There now we're even on baseless repulsive accusations.
YOU: was to protest his use of the Shoah et alii to score cheap shots against how bad *religion* is"

No cheap shots necessary. Religion has destroyed it's own reputation. I simply raise awareness to it's own depravity.

YOU: In battle with Timmy, I was trying to show that by the time of the Shoah, the antisemitic momentum powered historically by Christendom (not *religion* in general) had been totally subsumed by a racialism to which distinctly religious sanction was no longer necessary.

How could this be a battle with Timmy when Timmy does not disagree with this one bit? Look in front of you sir. It's just a straw man that looks like Timmy. And the farmers curse the God of the crows.

YOU: I think Timmy and other posters here, in their haste to score points against their all-villain *religion* have got Nazi antisemitism - the actual villain - the wrong way round"

You are so annoyingly obtuse. I have never indicated that I think that religion had anything to do with Hitler's holocaust. I think you must have gone to the university of misperception. You get everything wrong, all day long.

Timmy:

“…It leaves me a little confused though… I'm not sure what stolen land you refer to here? Do you mean all of it? Do you mean uncreate or relocate Israel? I can't imagine that you do. So I assume you mean back to the original UN borders. Well it has been made pretty clear that the Palestinians will never stop attacking Israel so long as it exists no mater what…I'd kick in a hundred bucks. If we all did that we; could end this thing right now because they'd all be rich and to busy waterskiing to fight.” January 9, 2009 3:16 AM

You are right; even if they went back to the 1947 U.N. partition, the Palestinians and other Muslims in the region (not just Hamas and Hezbollah) would never accept it. That is where we were when the 1948 Arab-Israeli war broke out, and it was not started by extremist groups like Hamas but by all Arabs in the region. Israel is doomed to continued attack by ever more advanced weaponry as technology and time advance if they continue to maintain an apartheid racist state in the middle of Arab land. With millions of destitute Palestinians surrounding Israel and living in Refugee camps instead of in their own homes on their own land, don’t expect to see a successful diplomatic resolution to the conflict.

You ask if I mean to abolish or relocate Israel. No, that is not for me to decide. But if the Israelis are as smart as they claim to be, the 7 million Israeli Jews would be looking for passage to join their 6.5 million brethren in the USA.

Frederic,

You to me:
"I was ready to accept your first post (7:23), but the second (7:37) seems a little skewed to me..."

My skewed assertion does apply to certain posts on this thread; I did not have yours in mind.

Timmy,

You cockadoodling to the great audience:
"Farnaz seems quite intent on making everyone agree that religion has nothing to do with the mid east problem, and nothing to do with anti-semitism. I think she'll be making this case for avery long time with no takers, except of course for Onofrio, who is to Farnaz, what the little dog is to the big bull dog in those saturday cartoons. You know the one. Where the big bull dogs struts down the street, all confident and proud, while the little dog skips beside him agreeing with everything he says, and being a unabashed suck-up?"

Appealing for back-up again, Timmy? Summoning "everyone" to anoint your cause? Who's doing "demagoguery" now? Look in the mirror.

I recall you making the claim on one of these recent threads that you don't descend to abusive name-calling. So what's with this woman = bulldog thing? Is that your idea of a friendly dig? A witty quip? Maybe you should start practicing what you so fulsomely preach, O Lennonist Love Bomber.

For the record, I haven't claimed that *religion* has nothing to do with what you call the "mid east problem". On this thread, I have challenged assertions you've made that appear to blame Jews - through their diabolical book-god - for antisemitism. You protest loudly that you blame RELIGION for this blight, but then go and attribute said demonised religion to the Jews as source, which does reflect rather badly on them, no? And according to you, not only did they foist this evil mind-virus on the world; they also self-deludedly "racialised" themselves. Now, the tacit implication of both these notions of yours, Timmy, is that the Jews are partly/originally responsible for bringing exile, harassment, and massacres on themselves. It's a bit like the argument that the girl in the short skirt is just asking to be raped.

I'm just linking up the ends of the daisy chain you made, Timmy. Your attempt to bury my actual posts with your anti-religion rallying cry look - to me at least - like a sad lunge at...demagoguery.

In the childlike dualist belief system that informs most of your posts, the god Reason saves people, and the devil Religion stirs up all the ills of the world, like holocausts and intifadas. When Reason defeats Religion, all will be well. To this cartoon revelation, you've now added a myth regarding the source of all that diabolised Religion - to wit, the vicious, venomous book of the Jews, that led half the world astray.

I think I'll coin a name for your dualist faith - Canardian Catharism, or perhaps Blog Bogomilism. It's well poised to sweep the world, what with its Lennon hymnal, Internet Eschaton, and Saturday morning cartoons. Oh, and not to forget its historic continuity with that popular misconstrued Reasonmonger Jesus.

Onofrio,

thanks for not "necessarily" accusing me of relativizing the holocaust or even tacitly blaming the victim.

I realize, that the issue is to huge to talk about it in a strictly phenomenological sense, which I tried and which I still think is necessary to understand the development and to prevent its rerpetition:

Religion (Christendom and Judaism) is involved in the holocaust in some historical context.

Religion (especially the monotheistic versions, this to Farnaz) may be necessary, which you seem to claim, for better or worse. The Nazi (or much earlier) "racialization" was a fiendish additional means to stress the religion-originated hatred ("blood").

As a strict non-believer in the supernatural (for me the natural is super enough), which is at the basis of every religion, I just tried, and obviously failed, to trace the context.

I was ready to accept your first post (7:23), but the second (7:37) seems a little skewed to me...

Frederic,

You:
"You cannot simply escape the religious context [of the Shoah] by taking refuge to a sort of general "atrocity" idea."

And one should not relativize the atrocity of the Shoah by making it a tool for anti-religion diatribes that tactily blame the victim.

(J'accuse not necessarily yourself here).

Frederic,

cont'd from previous

I think Timmy and other posters here, in their haste to score points against their all-villain *religion* have got Nazi antisemitism - the actual villain - the wrong way round. FOR THE NAZIS, it was the inherent, inescapable RACIAL inferiority of the Jews - with their slave's resentment toward the racially defined *master* - that led them to create their mind-virus of a god, i.e. the *bad* religion of the Jews was a symptom, rather than a cause, of their wickedness, which was in their very BLOOD.

And blood would have blood...

Hence the Nazis did not try forcefully to reprogram or *convert* the Jews, which would be a classic *religious* approach, akin to the Papacy's intitial attempts to re-evangelise those *infected* with Albigensian dualism (13th century). No, the problem was Jewish BLOOD, and as you well know, Jews of all religious or non-religious affiliations were marked (bodily) for destruction.

Again, I don't deny the specifically Christian ideological roots of said antisemitism. Nor am I advocating that the Shoah should be held aloof from reasoned analysis. But I would reaffirm that it's lazy, simplistic, and disrespectful to wield the Shoah as a kind of rhetorical slam dunk in the construction of *religion* as a generic mental virus.

Frederic,

You to me, regarding my post to Timmy:
"You cannot simply escape the religious context [of the Shoah] by taking refuge to a sort of general "atrocity" idea."

I did not intend to suggest that *religion has nowt to do* with the evil stir we whirl in and swirl, or with the Shoah in particular. My position is always that *religion* is an integral aspect of human behaviour, for better and for worse. What I was aiming at (and perhaps missing) in my rant contra Timmy - the Love Bomber who likens women to dogs - was to protest his use of the Shoah et alii to score cheap shots against how bad *religion* is.

If *religion* was involved in the Shoah, it was not religion in general (hence Farnaz' rhetorical challenges re culpability of Buddhism or Hinduism), but a specific religious matrix - Christendom. For many posters on these On Faith boards, *religion* is virtually synonymous with those epic villains Christendom and Islam, with the Jews thrown in as original instigators. But it's worth reiterating that the term *religion* should not be deployed in such a way as to obscure the specific culpability of Christendom with regard to antisemitism. This has the consequence of letting Christendom off the hook, and tarring other religions with a too-broad brush.

I'm well aware of the endorsement of extreme judeophobia in the works of such seminal Christian figures as Chrysostom and Luther, and of the religious/ideological aspects of antisemitism in general. In battle with Timmy, I was trying to show that by the time of the Shoah, the antisemitic momentum powered historically by Christendom (not *religion* in general) had been totally subsumed by a racialism to which distinctly religious sanction was no longer necessary.

Hmmm, just noted this on Tony S-A's Vatican and Anti-Semitism comments' page:

"Mary_Cunningham :

DITLD:

You wrote ===>Something is a little odd here

Oh, Farnaz2 and Observer12 are the same persona, that's clear. She made a mistake, logged out as Observer, logged in as Farnaz,then--without realizing her error--posted as if she were still logged in as Observer. She's probably Sparrow4 and MightySparrow as well. CCNL used to call them the "Gang of Four" but they were really four-in-one, all the same person. (Kind of like the Holy Trinity only one better!)

But you have to ask yourself why construct such an elaborate ruse? This is, after all, an American blog and there are plenty of natural sympathizers for the Israeli point of view as well as many who also possess a visceral, almost vicious anti-Catholicism (and some of these are Catholics!)

There are a few clues: 1) she is almost always around, 2) she is formidably well prepared with briefs to defend any and all positions she takes, 3) if someone criticiques the briefs, she merely piles on more and rarely answers the criticism 4) she intentionally--during times of ME crises--diverts the discussion on the Jacoby to anti-Semitism or the perfidies of the Church, 5) she periodically engages in what I call online muggings against the more independent bloggers who look like they might challenge her view, 6) she brings in her foul-mouthed 'clones' (Obs.12, Sparrow) to do her dirty work, kind of a Dr Jeckyl and Mr Hyde manoeuvre.

So I would say she is a propagandist, paid for by a pro-Israeli or some kind of anti-Defamation Jewish group. Since atheists tend to be more left wing and critical of Israel, she concentrates most of her efforts amongst the atheists. The anti-defamation work is her business, the detour into a vicious anti-Catholicism is probably pure pleasure."

To Pam from Daniel. Sorry if I offended you Pam but I have a rather dystopian view of the world. I cannot really be characterized as right or left wing. I am not particularly religious or patriotic so I am not in good stead with the right. But I believe the left is terribly misguided if it thinks overcoming religion and employing left wing methods in general will result in a world in which all become equal. I think as religion is overcome and people become more familiar with biology and especially genetics we will have the spector of racism as we have never had it. I think biology will force people to take a stand on which direction the human race should take, and I believe not least because they are so powerful that the europeans and their outliers (america, australia, etc.), the northern asians, the jews, and possibly the people of India will discriminate against the rest of the world and not want to breed with them because in comparison they so obviously lack intelligence. Ugly and appalling view no doubt, but is it worse than today when a person can observe that black people are better at sports than whites or that women are less violent than men, but one cannot say that jews, japanese, the citizens of Hong Kong, singapore, etc. are more intelligent than most other people? It seems the more intelligent people must hang their heads in shame these days--all this as the world becomes increasingly dumbed down precisely as technology develops more and more toward the extremes of both good and evil...I think the next couple centuries are make or break centuries for the human race. And I think the human race will botch it completely. We will keep trying to see all people as equal, overcome religion, ethnic disputes etc. and weapons will proliferate, the environment will collapse (species extinction, global warming, pollution in general). I would suggest the human race wise up now to the evident dilemmas facing us. We must be clear about all subjects--which is so say not have sociology off limits to intellect as it now is oscillating between right and left wing mantras. I leave the humanizing and overcoming of the problems to you. It seems the best I can do is be the bearer of bad news and be hated by all. Good luck to you Pam and good luck to the world. you will need it. And truly I hope a way can be found around these problems. Apparently I am not intelligent enough to see it. Last word: I am biased obviously. I try to stand on the side of intelligence. I quite simply side with the jews against the muslims. If the muslims demonstrate intelligence I will side with them as well.

CCNL BunBun,

AWwwwwww! Poorr Thing!!!! Jihadist won't play, Deb Chatterjee answers your Puff cuts n' pastes with reason...

Oh!! What will yoo doo? And your fellow Muffinists don't want yoo?

OH NO :-(

And Farnaz, the atheist/infidel/"blog hog" award winner continues to show her male side!!! Must be some residual Jewish DNA left over from her descendents who committed all the atrocities so vividly described in the OT.

FARNAZ!!!

As with the Rick Warren issue, we are in 100% agreement on all of this.

"hey signed on for precisely that under the Clinton accords, then began an intifada. By now, there would have been two states in the area"

"Then, too, there were all the decades preceding 1967, and the assaults on Israel during the process, decades during which a state could easily have been formed"

"It still can be. Hamas must end its presence. Fatah corruption must be stopped. A functioning civil government which can carry out negotiations, enforce them, and abide by them must be established"

"The US must end its collusion with nations such as Saudi Arabia which funnels money through Saudi bank to Al Quaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas. Ditto, other oil producing nations, e.g., the Emerates"

"The US must stop giving the dictator Mubarak ten billion dollars annually, which he (a) pockets, (b) doles out high-ranking military officials, (c) distributes to the oligarchy, (d) uses to by weapons to give to terrorists, while Egyptians literally starve to death for want of bread. Mubarak, as you know, is grooming is son to replace him"

"Saudi Arabia, of course, through Saudi Bank, has funded the Pakistani Madrassahs since the US supported reign of Zia and continues to do so. The Red Mosq is back in business in Islamabad"

Rick Warren and all of this stuff is common ground for us. Maybe we can find some more. Test me.

Rick,

Thanks for the response. It leaves me a little confused though.

"I think the Palestinians deserve a better fate than being dependent on the world to bomb them with food, water, electricity (?), etc… They need to have their stolen land back, and be left alone long enough to develop a workable economy."

I'm not sure what stolen land you refer to here? Do you mean all of it? Do you mean uncreate or relocate Israel? I can't imagine that you do. So I assume you mean back to the original UN borders. Well It has been made pretty clear that the Palestinians will never stop attacking Israel so long as it exists no mater what.

The Palestinian people live in desperate squalor and have no resources to pull themselves out of it. Compounding this, they are hopelessly lost in a delusional archaic theocracy. Just leaving them alone at the original borders will not stop attacks into Israel. It will not stop them from electing Hamas and continuing on in a theocracy with an ideology that makes peace impossible.

The Moderate was suggesting giving them back their borders, AND ON TOP OF THAT, food, water, electricity (infrastructure to answer you question) and the means to have a real shot at being independent, and a shot at a decent life, and helping them build new homes for the refugees, and build schools, and give them internet access. This doesn't have to continue on for ever. Just a leg up, and a gesture of true love and peace. It would be Hamas' worst nightmare.

I'd kick in a hundred bucks. If we all did that we could end this thing right now because they'd all be rich and to busy waterskiing to fight.

CCNL BunBun,

AWwwwwww! Poorr Thing!!!! Jihadist won't play, Deb Chatterjee answers your Puff cuts and pastes with reason...

Oh!! What will yoo doo? And your fellow Muffinists don't want yoo?

OH NO :-(

And JDL's Blog Hog Award for this thread goes to??

You guessed it, that "dainty", atheist/infidel member of Judaism named Farnaz!!!

cont'd

Saudi Arabia, of course, through Saudi Bank, has funded the Pakistani Madrassahs since the US supported reign of Zia and continues to do so. The Red Mosq is back in business in Islamabad.

cont'd

The US must end its collusion with nations such as Saudi Arabia which funnels money through Saudi bank to Al Quaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas. Ditto, other oil producing nations, e.g., the Emerates.

The US must stop giving the dictator Mubarak ten billion dollars annually, which he (a) pockets, (b) doles out high-ranking military officials, (c) distributes to the oligarchy, (d) uses to by weapons to give to terrorists, while Egyptians literally starve to death for want of bread.

Mubarak, as you know, is grooming is son to replace him.

rick22407 writes to Timmy:

"They need to have their stolen land back, and be left alone long enough to develop a workable economy."

They signed on for precisely that under the Clinton accords, then began an intifada. By now, there would have been two states in the area.

Then, too, there were all the decades preceding 1967, and the assaults on Israel during the process, decades during which a state could easily have been formed.

It still can be. Hamas must end its presence. Fatah corruption must be stopped. A functioning civil government which can carry out negotiations, enforce them, and abide by them must be established.

Timmy2

“So far I haven't head anyone else comment on the strategy that The Moderate suggested, of Israel, and the world community deciding enough is enough and bombing the hell out of Palestine with food, and water…”

I think the Palestinians deserve a better fate than being dependent on the world to bomb them with food, water, electricity (?), etc… They need to have their stolen land back, and be left alone long enough to develop a workable economy.

Hello Thomas,

I only have time some quick questions.

What is the authority that you base your understanding of God on? Is it just your personal experience that you talk so much about? Lots of people have experiences and delusions including the likes of David Koresh. Why are you so different? Just because you say you have had a personal encounter with God that is life altering, what makes you any different than millions of other people claiming the same thing that are saying something different from what you are saying?

What do I have to judge your claims on - i.e. all the comments that you have posted on this forum? Is it just your say that you have met with God? Is that all you will give me to base my evaluation of what you say on?

As the apostle Paul said,

"...I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes to you and preaches a different Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you received a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough." (2 Corinthians 11:3-4)

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!" (Galatians 1:8)

Are you sure you are preaching the right gospel my friend? If you are not will you then repent?

I want to reply to your last posts to me in more detail, but my time has run out for this evening.

Take care, be ready!

Hi Pamsm,

A quick response to one other comment you made tonight.

PAM: "So what's the solution? While I think that religion will eventually go the way of the dinosaurs - or at least be marginalized to the point of insignificance - that's a long way off."

So what is the point of trying to change things in a purposeless universe in which you are just a flash in the pan? In your worldview when you are dead nothing matters so why does all this matter so much to you? After all, you (supposedly) will not exist to see all the apparently valueless (and meaningless at the point of death) input you and others have spent so much time on come to anything.

In my worldview this all matters because this is not the end of our existence when we die and truth is worth fighting for because life has meaning and purpose, even when I'm dead.

Dear Thomas Baum:

I am looking forward to discussions with you in the future.

The multiple indirect references in our first posts to each other were a bit hard to follow. Sorry for any indirect misapprehensions I might have misread. ;-)

PAMSM:

Old boy (or girl)...

"Characterizing atheists as "ignorant", "irrational", "wildly emotional", and "ad Hominem" [sic] is your idea of logical argument?"

What you have slipped in here is the suggestion that I characterize "Atheists" as " "ignorant", "irrational", "wildly emotional", and "ad Hominem" [sic]". Nice fallacies of false imputation of generalization.

My reference to "Atheists who used to frequent this blog" is clearly specific to the particular people in the argument back then. So you falsely imputed a generalization that I did not make. Hence you (personally) are guilty of poor reasoning (being illogical). Were you cling to your error, and persist in arguing over it, I could come to say that you were "irrational". In such case I will to refer to you, personally, and not to "Atheists" in general.

My use of “ignorant of history” is also much more specific than an the unqualified assertion that the folks I was debating were universally “ignorant”. I know experts in many fields who are “ignorant of history”. But, when arguing broadly that religion is the cause of many of the ills seen in history, and that these would cease forthwith with the cessation of religious belief, you had better come equipped with the historical facts to support your assertion.

The capitalization of “ad Hominem” does appear as in “Argumentum ad Hominem”. That said, it appears much more commonly elsewhere as Ad Hominem, Ad hominem, and ad hominem. So would it be ad hominem to say: “ad Hominem [sic]” [sic]? :-) Perhaps our latin grammarian friend Arminus could help us?

Pretty good. Thee fallacies and a supercilious snide remark in one sentence. Going for a record?

Pamsm, Final segment,

PAM: "What you seem to be telling me is that might makes right and there are no actual standards. Like little children, we’re to do what Daddy says "because I say so", and "do as I say, not as I do."

It depends on whose "right". There is only One who knows all things, who is completely objective in all His ways, who judges rightly in all He does for He sees the whole picture in perfect detail. Only One who perceives and knows all things can determine what is the ultimate, absolute good and right.

PAM: "Sorry, Peter, but the standards of behavior that are built right into my brain are a much better yardstick than yours. If I see someone beating a 2-year-old bloody and senseless because the child said "no" when told to pick up his toys, I *know* that’s wrong. I don’t have to go look for guidance in a book, or pray to an imaginary invisible being to give me the wisdom to know whether it’s good or bad."

What about the person beating the 2-year-old senseless? Why isn't the "Standard" built into his/her brain right? Because you say so? Because you can get a whole bunch of empathetic people to support your position? What gives you, or any other subjective human being the "right" to determine what "ought" to be? Why do we have wars and greed and destruction and selfishness that is so prevalent around our planet? Let me tell you why. Because everybody wants to be their own god, to determine for themselves what they will believe is true and good and noble and loving, and what they will empathize on and what they will not.

DITLD
"Aren't all the peoples of the world occupying what was once someone else's land? When the occupation first happens, it would be a crisis; but at some point, it becomes the new "landscape." Didn't the Normans occupy Britain? And before that, didn't the Angles and Saxons occupy it? And before that, didn't the Romans occupy it?"

PAMSM
“Precisely, Daniel. No use crying over spilt milk.

Native Americans have every reason to think that their ancestors were treated abominably by my ancestors. Indeed they were…”

Keep this up, and we all end up back in Africa!”
________________
Yes, but the living conditions of the Native Americans on their reservations does not compare to that of the Palestinian refugees in their camps. They also do not outnumber us, surround us, and have the means to attack us with ever more powerful and accurate weaponry, gladly provided by the Chinese, Russians and Iranians who gleefully anticipate our coming demise.

PAMSM, Part 3

"You shall not commit adultery." God is pure and holy. He has no need or want of anything outside of Himself.

"You shall not steal." God owns everything, so He cannot steal. It rightly belongs to Him.

"You shall not give false testimony (or lie). God is pure truth. He has no need to lie or tell falsehood for it is not in His nature. He is the One true God.

"You shall not covet..." God cannot covet for like I said before He owns all things and has a right to do with them as He sees fit.

"You shall have no other gods before Me...You shall not bow down and worship them." There are no other gods besides God, so there are none before Him and none to worship.

Yet when God does something that you’d find repugnant and reprehensible in a human, that’s OK with you. You won’t judge him.
But you *do* judge him, Peter. When you say that he’s "good", or "perfect", or worthy of worship – or any of the other words of praise that you use, you *are* judging him."

I am not judging Him for any wrongdoing He has committed for He does not do wrong. What right do I have as His creature to judging Him? I say that He is good and just and perfect and worthy of worship because these things are true of Him. He is my Maker.

PAM: "And when you say that he is the giver of "absolute" standards of morality, how can that be true if he doesn’t follow them himself? That either means that the standards aren’t absolute, or it means that God is not good. It has to be one or the other."

God's nature is good, just, loving, true, majestic, beautiful, perfect. Please see my reply on the Ten Commandments.

PAM: "If someone told you that he had killed his brother’s children in front of their father, to test his brother’s love and loyalty, I think you’d be with me in thinking that he should be put away forever – maybe put to death himself, if you’re a capital punishment supporter."

You fail to recognize that God does not take innocent life. "(A)ll have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23)

He has the right to punish wrong doing, but over and over in the Old and New Testaments an individual is told not to take the law into his own hands. Over and over a testimony of wrongdoing has to be established by 2-3 witnesses.

Sometimes He uses other to bring judgment, like He did with disobedient Israel in the Old Testament, and sometimes He directly deals with the guilty party or parties.

In most societies up until recently many of the Ten Commandments were incorporated into their legal system. Laws like God established such as,

"You shall not murder (or kill - by killing meaning taking an innocent life). But God is the Maker of all life so He has the right to take it and He does so only because of wrongdoing. Since Jesus never did wrong, when He came to this earth and became a man He would be justified in living eternally (for only the soul or being who sins dies) but He chose to die in the stead of those who would believe in Him - that is on their behalf to reconcile them to God by fulfilling His perfect justice on their behalf. That shows His love and sacrifice for others. How many would die to save a noble or righteous person, let alone a thief or murderer? He showed His servant nature in so many ways while on this earth, but no more so than in His obedience to the Father. Here was God the Son stepping into human history and becoming a man and serving us even to excruciating death to purchase a people for Himself. "For He shall save His people from their sins." (Matthew 1:21)

Death is the penalty of sin.

"Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact sin is lawlessness. But you know that He appeared so that He might take away our sins. And in Him is no sin." (1 John 3:4-5)

God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that IN Him we might become the righteousness of God." (2 Corinthians 5:21)

"He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in His mouth." When they hurled their insults at Him He did not retaliate; when He suffered, He made no threats. Instead, He entrusted Himself to Him who judges JUSTLY. He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by His wounds you have been healed. For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls." (1 Peter 2:22-24)

Hi Pamsm,

Sorry to take so long in replying. My wife is starting to make comments that I am spending too much time on the computer and with work in between I am trying to do a balancing act so I realize something must give. I have decided that I am going to take a break from "On Faith" for a while once I have answered the questions and concerns raised by everyone here. I'm setting myself another week to wrap this all up. I've decided next Sunday (January 18th) will be my last post for a while. I also want to spend more time in fellowship and learning with God.

PAMSM (January 6, 2009 2:20 AM),

PAM: "Peter,
The start of this discussion had to do with whether it was possible to discern right and wrong without the absolute moral standards of God. For you, the answer is apparently "no." Unless, that is, you aren’t being honest, which I suspect is nearer the truth."

And for you the answer is yes, but why is it possible to discern any qualitative value without an absolute, objective standard, something to measure your ideal by?

You say yes, by empathy. The question is whose? What happens if a person does not empathize or feel the same way you do on what is "right" or "good" because their hard-wiring is different from your hard-wiring? Then who determines?

In effect, what you are saying is because more people feel a woman has the right to choose to abort and can empathize with a woman not wanting an unwanted baby that abortion is right. It all boils down to feelings and majority for you. There is no right about it.

But the question still remains, which subjective human individual, group or culture decides? Look around at this world and what people call good that 10-20 years ago was looked at as wrong. So how can it be right now and wrong then or was it always right but no one previously knew it? If nobody previously knew it, how do you know that what you know now will not be wrong in another 10-20 years? The whole question of right and wrong becomes absurd.

You are basing your value system on feeling, nothing more than feelings, or the biological impulses from your brain. In a Chance world my responses do not have to be the same as your, for Chance implies willy-nilly.

Why do some people have empathy for an old lady crossing the street and others just want to run her down? Why do some believe that Hitler's Germany was wrong and others that we should eliminate those consider weak, or useless, or terminally ill, those who are not like us; euthanize them or use them for experiments so that we can live "better"? For the evolutionist and atheist it has to do how we are hard-wired, how our biological bags of matter are made up? If my bag is made up different than yours, why is it wrong?

God is necessary.

Thomas Baum:

"Concerning your post of 1-8-2009 at 1:32 PM, the post that I sent was to Timmy2 and the "you" in the "To The Moderate you wrote" was referring to Timmy2. ..."

You know, Thomas that whole post makes my head swim when I read it.

PAMSM

“So what's the solution? While I think that religion will eventually go the way of the dinosaurs - or at least be marginalized to the point of insignificance - that's a long way off.

While we wait, will the combatants simply disappear in the manner of Eugene Fields's gingham dog and calico cat?”

That’s not as far off the mark as you think. The thing that the Israelis fear most is the demographic bomb. Before long they will have to begin neutering the Arab citizens of Israel, expel them from the country into the refugee camps, or do away with their democratic form of government.

Then what about the populations of the West Bank and Gaza? The Israelis now take 80% of the water supply from the Jordan River and West Bank aquifers leaving less than minimal per capita requirements set by the World Health Organization for the Palestinians. As these populations continue to grow, this situation will get ever more difficult to ignore.

Arnaz2

“The Limits of Reason: The Ever-Elusive Search for Middle-East Peace” … is the title and the context is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in Gaza… “Religious fanaticism is not the only barrier to a Middle East settlement, but it is the main barrier”, says Susan.

This is what this discussion is about in my opinion, whether the heart of the conflict is religious fanaticism or practical political grievances. I believe that the latter outweighs the former. Human dignity, the right to own land, and the means to earn a living for self and family are far more important to people starving and dying in the refugee camps surrounding Israel than ideology.

As to your question about what I mean by Jewish, it is any person who thinks of themselves as Jewish. I am not an expert in this matter. For example, I understand that if one parent is Jewish (whatever that means) and the other is not, then the offspring may or may not be Jewish depending on whether it is the mother or father who is Jewish. Go figure. Anyway, I don’t consider this to be of great enough importance to justify the time it took me to type out this paragraph.

I think it is about the non-Arab citizens of Israel who have enhanced civil rights compared to the Arab citizens of Israel, and who think that they are justified in occupying the homes and land of the Palestinians that they chased out of their homes and into refugee camps.

So far I haven't head anyone else comment on the strategy that The Moderate suggested, of Israel, and the world community deciding enough is enough and bombing the hell out of Palestine with food, and water, and electricity, and schools, and homes, and the internet, and a demonstration of the moral and compassionate, and forgiving nature of democracy and secularism. This would be Hamas' worst nightmare. They would lose the hearts of the Palestinian people and the secular world would win them. Of course the most important secular ideal we should show them, first and foremost, is freedom of religion. That is something they don't know right now. They all have religion. But they do not have freedom of religion.

This is the only optimistic suggestion I've heard on this thread concerning the ME crisis. Any comments?

Pamsm,

Sorry, she had one other point, earlier. That is that Susan Jacoby is "owned", the proof being that Farnaz challenged her, like 10 times with the same post over and over again, to write an article on this forum that has absolutely nothing to do with "On Faith", and Susan chickened out and or ignored it because she is "owned"

Besides that and the fact the creation if Israel in Palestine, and anti-semitism have "nothing" to do with religion, I really see no other points she has made.

Keep in mind, it has to be something that others here disagree with. She has certainly made numerous points that no one disagrees with, although the way she makes them, you'd think that everyone does. But if you see something else that I am missing, help me out.

pamsm,

"Timmy, are you *sure* that's what she's trying to get you to see?"

I don't see any other point she is making. Do you?

Daniel12,
But of course you wouldn't want to generalize...

Crawl back under your rock now.

To Pam from Daniel. What should they base their economies on if not oil? Try intelligence. All the more advanced societies know that the most important resource is human capitol. The muslims just suck up oil and blow themselves up and hide terrorists among innocents. It seems they do not really value themselves as persons. The jews on the other hand test higher on I.Q. tests than any other people except maybe certain groups of Asians...The Jews value themselves greatly and justifiably so....

"Farnaz seems quite intent on making everyone agree that religion has nothing to do with the mid east problem"

Timmy, are you *sure* that's what she's trying to get you to see?

Daniel12 says:
"What is wrong with those muslims? Why is it there economies are virtually nothing unless based on oil?"

"Those Muslims"? That's pretty broad.

Bear in mind that much of the Middle East is desert - what would you have them base their economies on? Do you know that the Saudis have to *import* sand, because theirs isn't the right type for building?

Mod,
ME: First, it is not necessary to capitalize "atheist" - it's not a religion or a movement.

YOU: "Some people asked this as a courtesy. Can't please everyone all the time I guess".

No. So do what's correct. No capital.

YOU: "themoderate character pursues logical points, and argues from history. This offends many people who do not examine their premises and use logical argumentation".

Characterizing atheists as "ignorant", "irrational", "wildly emotional", and "ad Hominem" [sic] is your idea of logical argument?

Well it seems Jacoby is in fine form on this question. And what pessimism--not that it is not warranted. It seems over the past sixty years Israel has come to be increasingly vilified by the international community--not least because she has been the most powerful party in the middle east.

But the muslims slowly but surely have been acquiring more powerful and accurate weapons and of course refining the most horrible tactic of hiding among their innocents--if we can call innocent people who never try to overcome the terrorists in their midst although they vastly outnumber the terrorists.

I can well see the day that the muslims will lob a nuclear warhead into Israel and the international community feeling Israel has received her just desserts. But then again maybe the muslims will continue terrorizing...virtually everybody as they have been, and the international community will get fed up with it.

What is wrong with those muslims? Why is it there economies are virtually nothing unless based on oil? Consistent with suicide bombing and hiding behind innocents they never seem to value themselves as human capitol much more productive than all which can be gained by oil.

When the oil runs out what will happen to the middle east? Will it just implode and Israel bear the brunt of this civilization collapse--for it does seem the muslim lands have just been declining more and more with every secular rise of other powers.

Peace in the middle east--it seems so far away.

Might as well continue listening to the concert I am now listening to--Frampton at the record plant 1975. "Lines on my face, that's one thing she said..."

Farnaz seems quite intent on making everyone agree that religion has nothing to do with the mid east problem, and nothing to do with anti-semitism. I think she'll be making this case for avery long time with no takers, except of course for Onofrio, who is to Farnaz, what the little dog is to the big bull dog in those saturday cartoons. You know the one. Where the big bull dogs struts down the street, all confident and proud, while the little dog skips beside him agreeing with everything he says, and being a unabashed suck-up?

I think everyone on this post has shown that they are quite aware that zionism was a largely secular movement. But that's not good enough for Farnaz. "NO! Everyone must admit the truth to power! religion had NOTHING to do with it, NOTHING!!!"

We all know it had something to do with it. Moreover we all know it now has almost everything to do with it.

As Pamsm says, it's time to move on. But of course, religion won't allow it.

Pamsm,

"At some point you have to let it go and resolve to get along and make the best of current circumstances going forward"

Unless of course you are religious, the very definition of not being able to let go.

Thomas, the "Hallucinator" continues with his "thumptations" i.e. John 16:13, "I will send the Holy Spirit to guide you". This is a single attestation added later to his gospel again to embellish the life of one simple, preacher man. John definitely was the "spin meister" of first-second century CE!!

Related passages and commentary:

Jesus Seminar - Mark 13:11
Matt 10:19-20
Luke 12:11-12
Luke 21:14-15
John 14:26
all rated as being non-historical

The commentary in The Five Gospels (p. 110) observes:

The sayings in Mark 13:9-13 all reflect detailed knowledge of events that took place -- or ideas that were current -- after Jesus' death: trial and persecution of Jesus' followers, the call to preach the gospel to all nations, advice to offer spontaneous testimony, and the prediction that families would turn against one another are features of later Christian existence, not of events in Galilee or Jerusalem during Jesus' lifetime.

Gerd Ludemann

Ludemann [Jesus, 89] sees this saying as coming from the community after Easter.

Retrieved from "http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/062_Spirit_under_Trial"

DITLD wrote:"Aren't all the people's of the world occupying what was once someone else's land? When the occupation first happens, it would be a crisis; but at some point, it becomes the new "landscape." Didn't the Normans occupy Britain? And before that, didn't the Angles and Saxons occupy it? And before that, didn't the Romans occupy it?"

Precisely, Daniel. No use crying over spilt milk.

Native Americans have every reason to think that their ancestors were treated abominably by my ancestors. Indeed they were.

Palestinians were robbed when the Zionist state was carved out of their land for reasons of history, guilt, religion. It wasn't *their* guilt or *their* religion, and they have their own history.

BUT... my ancestors came to America nearly 400 years ago. What they did is not *my* doing. Israel was created 60 years ago. None of the current suicide bombers had land taken from them - they would have to be octogenarians for that to be so.

At some point you have to let it go and resolve to get along and make the best of current circumstances going forward - nursing a grudge forever just makes for a terrible life for all concerned, and this life is all we know that we have.

If immigrant descendants had to give the US back to Native Americans, where would we go? I have Scottish, English, and Greek ancestors. If I went back to one of the first two, my ancestors were largely Normans - so back to France? Where locals were conquered by the Danes? My Greek ancestor was sold to an Englishman in the Constantinople slave market. So back to Turkey? Greece?

Keep this up, and we all end up back in Africa!

As all good bloggers, you have read the reiterations of the "fems"(flaws, errors, m and s) of religion. Therefore the seeds have been planted in rich soil. Go therefore and preach the truth to all nations, reiterating as you go amongst the lost, bred, born and brainwashed souls of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism as Reality makes its triumphant return all because of you!!!!

Aren't all the people's of the world occupying what was once someone else's land? When the occupation first happens, it would be a crisis; but at some point, it becomes the new "landscape." Didn't the Normans occupy Britain? And before that, didn't the Angles and Saxons occupy it? And before that, didn't the Romans occupy it?

And in America, haven't we occupied the lands where, not so long ago, other peoples flourished in complex civilizations? And where are they now? gone, gone, gone, nowhere to be found, and with barely a trace that they were ever here. When I was growing up, this is something that never occurred to me. But now, I think of it from time to time, with a slight sense of regret. Yet, all those things happened before so that I could be here now, and besides, there is no going back for a redo of history, is there?

Do you suppose any Israeli's ever think things like this? Maybe some of them do.

That is sort of how the world works, isn't?

THEMODERATE

Concerning your post of 1-8-2009 at 1:32 PM, the post that I sent was to Timmy2 and the "you" in the "To The Moderate you wrote" was referring to Timmy2.

Thomas Baum:

You erroneously wrote:

"To The Moderate you wrote, "But Farnaz is blaming everyone else for the racialization of the Jews, when they did it themselves by declaring to be God's chosen people.""

Timmy addressed that to themoderate. themoderate did not, and would not, write such a statement.

What I pointed out was that "it was God Who declared the Jews the Chosen People for the simple reason that He not only Chose them but also formed them.".

In case anyone else might have thought that, thanks for pointing it out.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

RICK22407:

The Jews that I was referring are the Jewish people who live in Israel. That is the subject of this weeks post by Susan I think and the long struggle that these Jews have had and continue to have with the Palestinians and other neighbors.

Thank you for your reply.

Actually, "[t]he Jewish people living in Israel" is not "the subject of this weeks post by Susan." Perhaps, you should reread her essay. (The title, btw., is "The Limits of Reason: The Ever-Elusive Search For A Middle East Peace.")

Also, you know that Israel is a very diverse country comprising atheists, Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Muslims, etc., among them Arabs, of course. So when you say the "Jews who live in Israel" I don't quite follow. Can you be more specific?

Btw., this is one of the reasons I asked you to define what you mean by "Jewish." Could you do so, please?

CCNL

Jesus also said, "I will send the Holy Spirit to guide you", He did not say, I will send theologians, He did not say, I will send bible scholars, and 'for you CCNL He also didn't say I will send contemporary NT and historic Jesus exegetes' but He did say, "I will send the Holy Spirit".

But if you notice, these and others are aluded to in the bible but not to follow.

See you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Farnaz2:

The Jews that I was referring are the Jewish people who live in Israel. That is the subject of this weeks post by Susan I think and the long struggle that these Jews have had and continue to have with the Palestinians and other neighbors. And yes it is gruesome. It only takes a read of this morning’s NY Times or WP to know that.

RICK22407:

Re: My previous posts

I should point out that there are few Ethopian Jews left in Ethiopia. Those who could not be air-lifted to safety walked (yes, walked) to Israel, often being held prisoner and tortured in Sudan. Currrently, there are more than 100,000 Ethopian Israeli Jews.

As for the Middle East, the story is, as you know, grisly. I was born in Iran. My family goes back at least to the twelfth century; i.e., that is as far back as we can trace it. Our history there may well go back to more ancient times.

RICK22407:

Perhaps, you could also be so kind as to tell me what you mean by "Jewish."

RICK22407:

Thank you very much for your reply. Perhaps, you could be more specific regarding this, which you posted to me twice.

"it is not surprising that Jews would develop a racial or apartheid behavior toward others."

Which Jews are you referring to? American Jews? If so, Askenazim (European), Sfardim (loosely used to identify Spanish, Portuguese, Latino Jews and Middle Eastern Jews from Muslim nations, more properly referred to as Mizrahi), Ethopian Jews, Algerian, Ugandan?

Are you referring to Progressive Orthodox, traditional Orthodox? To Chasidim (specify Lubovitcher, Satmar, Brataslava, etc.)? Conservative? Conservative Egalitarian? Reformed? Reconstructionist?

To which countries do you refer? The US, where, of course, there are Jews. Canada? Australia? New Zealand?

France? England? Italy? Germany? Poland? Hungary? Norway? European countries in short.

Africa: Uganda, Ethiopia, primarily

South America: Brazil, Colombia, Chile, etc.

Carribbean: Primarily Jamaica

Middle East: Very few remaining in these nations due to deportations, etc., but there are some. Egypt? Iran? Iraq? Syria? Yemen?

Asia: India, primarily

Farnaz2:

To elaborate on instances of Jews persecuting Jesus Christ: (1) the taunting of him as he drug his cross through the streets. (2) Here is an excerpt from the SecondExodus.com website on the Jewish-Catholic dialogue: “…It’s also worth observing that the Jewish authorities persecuted Christians from the beginning. They began by persecuting Jesus Himself. After He announced the Holy Eucharist in the synagogue at Capernaum, Jn 7:1 “Jesus went about in Galilee; he would not go about in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill him.” Jn 19:6 “When the chief priests and the officers saw him, they cried out, ‘Crucify him, crucify him!’ Pilate said to them, ‘Take him yourselves and crucify him, for I find no crime in him.’ The Jews answered him, ‘we have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he has made himself the Son of God…’”

Granted this is from the NT which you do not accept; nor do I. I meant to say by my comment that Christians believe that Jews persecuted Jesus Christ. I think that I take your point. I should be more careful with my words.

FREDERIC:

I use caps so that this post won't get lost in the proverbial shuffle.

I am at a loss with your last post. I agree with you on all points, except for that concerning my "encyclopedic knowledge." It is far from that, my friend.

My question to you is simple, and you are obviously a very well-educated, extremely knowledgeable, highly articulate blogger.

"Religion" in the abstract had nothing to do with the Shoah--obviously. Since the perpetrators knew nothing about Judaism, that religion didn't figure in. Also, many who were tortured, slaughtered, etc., were atheists, "Mischling" Lutherans, Catholics, atheists, agnostics, etc. The babies had no "religious" affiliations.

When you address the seminal role of religion in the offense, you aren't referring to Hinduism or Buddhism, are you? Probably not Animism(s).

Which religion(s), specifically, are you referring to? (If this question still needs clarifying, I can post a list of religions, and you can choose from among them.)

RICK22407:

Sorry about the caps. I don't want this post to get lost in the shuffle. I'd very much appreciate a reply.
________________

Rick22407:

Thank you for your reply. Could you elaborate on the second part of your original post to me, please, viz, the part following "in return"?

"our persecution of Jews, in return for their persecution of Jesus Christ."

January 8, 2009 2:50 PM

Farnaz,

I certainly cannot and don’t intend to "compete" with your encyclopedical knowledge of the history and literature of antisemitism.

But my very simple logic goes as follows:

1.All Religions are man-made and have tribal origins or at least tribal functions. "Racialization" can be regarded as an additional „tribal function“, its bases are moot.
2. The Jewish religion is a religion.
3. The Christian religion is a religion.
4. The "hostility" between the two, thus, logically has religious connotations.
5. These effects are pervasive through history, powered by figures like Chrysostomos, Luther et alii.
6. The Jews according to Christians „killed god“. (Funny that such a preposterous „oxymoron“ was not laughed at at the time it was brought up!).
7. "Racialization" is a tool used by Christians for their hatred aganist Jews, the „god-killers“.
8. Therefore this argument („racialization“) is a religious argument.
9. Hitler referred to Luther (indirectly also to John Chrysostomos, he may never even have heard the name) in his delirious idea that the Jews are at the root of all evil.
10. Hitlers ideas about Jews are already a product of others; he didn’t „invent“ antisemitism.
11. Hitler used the prevailing antisemitism/racialization for his political goals, but also as a religiously rooted scapegoat element .
12. The perpetrators of the Holocaust may not necessarily have had any idea of these historical connections, but still are tied to them, consciously or unconsciously..
13. A „mischling“ operative may not have had the faintest idea of what he was doing and still be bound in this historical - religious - chain. Therefore the „Mischling“ argument cannot be used as a proof against the religious roots of antisemitism.

Why don’t you simply stand by your original persuasion that ALL religions, including the one you have abandoned, are man-made tools, using superstition for political (tribal) gains. They may use superstition for power plays even if they succumb to superstition themselves!

I was watching John Stewart the other night as I always do. (Funniest man on television IMHO) He was doing a sketch where he is interviewing the New Years baby. The new years baby asks John, "what's all this hullabaloo in the middle east all about? John replies, "well, it seems that God promised a parcel of land to the Jews, and then turned around and promised that very same parcel of land to the muslims".

Wow does this dumb-ass ever need correcting. And jew to boot. Completely out to lunch. Doesn't he know that it has nothing to do with God? He must be ignorant to the long history of anti-semitism as a secular phenomenon. This must really piss you off huh Farnaz? When a fellow Jew gets it so wrong, and perpetuates an ignorant racist position on television?

Have you sent your sternly worded letter to Comedy Central yet, letting them know that John Stewart is clearly "owned" because they do not speak Farnaz's "truth to power"?

Hey, actually, you don't need to send a letter. You live in New York where the show is taped. You can just head down to the studio for the next taping with your protest placard. I'll be watching. Do you think you could squeeze in a little "Hi Timmy" on that placard for me? That would be so cool to see my name on TV.

Rick22407:

Thank you for your reply. Could you elaborate on the second part of your original post to me, please, viz, the part following "in return"?

"our persecution of Jews, in return for their persecution of Jesus Christ."

Farnaz2:

To elaborate on instances of Christians persecuting Jews: (1) beginning from early childhood there are countless instances of Christian children verbally attacking Jewish children for not loving Jesus. I am sure we can all recall instances of that. (2) Then of course we have the holocaust of WWII and many other instances of genocide that you have mentioned that I was not even aware of. Given this treatment at the hands of Christians and others, it is not surprising that Jews would develop a racial or apartheid behavior toward others.

Rick Jones of Fredericksburg, VA

Bun Bun,

AWwwww. Does your little pastry self feel excluded?

Pooorrrrr thing!!! What's wrong, Muffin? Jihadist, Deb, et al don't want to play with you anymore, or, at all, or never did?

Are all the Muffinists away? Awwww...

Poor Bun Bun :-(

farnaz,

Is Thomas Baum now on the anti-semite list?

Did you see him use the term "chosen people" several times?
Racist anti-semite is he?

Hmmm, considering that over 50% of the comments on this thread are from Farnaz, one has to assume she is working full time for the JDL which is strange since she professes to be an Jewish atheist/infidel. Maybe she forgot to put that in her resume??

RICK22407:

Sorry about the caps. I didn't want my post to you to get lost in the shuffle. I'd very much appreciate a reply.
_____________

Rick22407:

In your post to me, you remark on "our persecution of Jews, in return for their persecution of Jesus Christ."

Would you elaborate, please?

January 8, 2009 1:51 PM

farnaz,

YOU: I'm sorry that you are so desperately threatened by me that you need to try to enlist other bloggers in your attacks.

I'm not threatened I'm disgusted at your playing of the race card. It isn't going to work on me. I had a black guy once accuse me of racism because I called him out for cutting in front of me in a popcorn line at a movie theater. I just said, "hey the line up starts back there, buddy". For this he called me a racist. I put your accusations into the very same category of race card playing demagoguery. It is a cop out. A disgusting attempt at a distraction.

YOU: "Perhaps, since this is the case, you should reread Onofrio's posts to you. Maybe, the words of a man, rather than a woman"

Lol. Now I'm a sexist too. How many more cards to you have up your sleeve?

Is anti semitism special, compared to to other forms of racism?
Does it deserve a separate domain and category unto it's own?
Is it not just bigotry, just like all other bigotry before and after?
Isn't the issue racism and bigotry across the board?
Why are we singling out anti semitism?

Is everyone who criticizes the Tanakh and the religion of judaism an anti-semite? Even if the criticism that we are laying down is in regards to the racist passages in the Tanakh?

Rick22407:

In your post to me, you remark on "our persecution of Jews, in return for their persecution of Jesus Christ."

Would you elaborate, please?

The Moderate:

Re: My last post to you

Langmuir isn't Jewish either, btw.

On the issue you raised, see also the Catholic theologian, Rosemary Ruether. Faith and Fratricide.

Fr. Edward Flanner, The Anguish of the Jews.

Peter Huff says:

“The sad thing about the Jews is that as soon as they try to defend themselves from rocket attacks by going in to mop them up, there is world condemnation with very little blame put on the Palestinians or should I say Hamas for their aggression.”

I think there is a very good reason for that Peter. The occupier has no inherent right to defend the occupation. But the occupied does have the right to resist the occupier with all means available.

Of course this argument takes as a starting point that the Israeli's are occupying Palestinian land. Can there any disagreement about that?

The Moderate:

"Before there were Christians, there were virulent anti-semites."

I posted on this assertion earlier. Earlier hostilities toward Judeans were essentially the same as hostilities to all "strangers," "antagonists," etc.

Gavin Langmuir, a medievalist, is quite lucid in elaborating on the distinctions. His is only one analysis. You can glance through any of the volumes on the bibliography; you will find a consensus showing that there is no continuity between pre-Christian hostility toward Jews and others, and the anti-Jewish racism that began with Constantine.

Another text you might want to look at, although those on the bibliography, IMHO, are more compelling is

James Carroll. Constantine and the Sword

Very useful is Paul Johnson. A History of the Jews

Neither of these authors is Jewish, btw.

Farnaz:

What did you think the work of John Paul II on Catholic anti-anti-semitism?

Thomas Baum:

You erroneously wrote:

"To The Moderate you wrote, "But Farnaz is blaming everyone else for the racialization of the Jews, when they did it themselves by declaring to be God's chosen people.""

Timmy addressed that to themoderate. themoderate did not, and would not, write such a statement.

Farnaz:

"The racialization of Jews began with Constantine, Saint John Chrysostom, et al. That is where it has its material roots."

No it didn't. Before there were Christians, there were virulent anti-semites.

FREDERIC:

Part II:

As promised. See especially Leon Poliakov. More of his works to follow. Most modern works on antisemitism for the last two thousand years begin with his studies.

Almog, Shmuel, ed. Antisemitism Through The Ages. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1988.

Bergman, Werner. Error Without Trial: Psychological Research on Antisemitism. Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1988.

Cohn, Norman. Warrant for Genocide: The Myth of the Jewish World-conspiracy and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. New York: Harper & Row, 1966.

Cooper, Abraham. Portraits of Infamy: A Simon Wiesenthal Center Exhibit: Catalogue: Source Book. Los Angeles: Simon Wiesenthal Center, 1987.

Curtis, Michael, ed. Antisemitism in the Contemporary World. Boulder, CO.: Westview Press, 1986.

Fein, Helen, ed. The Persisting Question: Sociological Perspectives and Social Contexts of Modern Antisemitism. Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1987.

Gilman, Sander L. and Steven T. Katz, eds. Anti-Semitism in Times of Crisis. New York: New York University Press, 1991.

Hay, Malcolm. The Roots of Christian Anti-Semitism. New York: Freedom Library Press, 1981.

Hirsch, Jerbert and Jack D. Spiro, eds. Persistent Prejudice: Prespectives on Anti-semitism. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University Press, 1988.

Katz, Jacob. From Prejudice to Destruction: Anti-Semitism, 1700-1933. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980.

Langmuir, Gavin I. Toward a Definition of Antisemitism. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990.

Levy, Richrad S. Antisemitism in the Modern World: An Anthology of Texts. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath, 1991.

Lewis, Bernard. Semites & Anti-Semites: An Inquiry into Conflict and Prejudice. New York: W.W. Norton, 1986.

Nicholls, William. Christian Antisemitism: A History of Hate. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1993.

Poliakov, Leon. The History of Anti-semitism. 3v. New York: Vanguard Press, 1965-74.

Strauss, Herbert A., ed. Hostages of Modernization: Studies on Modern Antisemitism 1870-1933/9. 2v. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1993.

Weinberg, Meyer. Because They Were Jews: A History of Antisemitism. New York: Greenwood Press, 1986.

Wistrich, Robert S. Antisemitism: the Longest Hatred. New York: Pantheon, 1991.

FREDERIC,

PART I:
The number of commentaries on John Crysostum are endless. In Part II above, I'll start posting books in which he figures, web sites to follow.
--------------------

I believe you understand full well the question I have asked you. Since the "Mishclings" knew nothing of Judaism, since Judaism as a religion did not figure in the Holocaust very much at all as the perpetrators knew nothing about it for the most part, which religion are you talking about?
In your 12:07 post, you write,

The "Mischling" and similar "intellectual" somersaults still have their origin in those irrational religious fantasies, blaming the Jews for killing Jesus etc.,
Which religion(s), Frederic? It wasn't Religion in the abstract. I'm sure you'll agree it wasn't Hinduism, Buddhism.

Which religion(s)? Kindly reply.

Hmmm, Baum, "the Hallucinator" is back with some of his favorite, "thumptations" i.e.

"Come follow Me" and also "I will send the Holy Spirit".

Both passages have been thoroughly analyzed by many contemporary NT and historic Jesus exegetes (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen of the On Faith panel). They concluded that neither passage pass the rigors of historic proof i.e. John et al were again embellishing the life of one Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man.

Farnaz,

there are three things I do not understand in your arguments.

1. Chrysostom certainly seemed to be a "worthy" predecessor of Luther in his antisemitism. But he plainly used the "god-killer" argument. How then was his antisemitism NOT a religious argument, as you claim?

2. How is he the first to "racialize" Judaism? He preached against his own community, who obviously still attended Jewish rituals.

3. You say that the holocaust has nothing to do with Judaism and thus with religion in general. I maintain that even for those who don't realize the religious connections (I was thinking of a German "Mischling" bureaucrat figuring out the "fraction" of a Mischling e.g.) ARE connected to religious roots for their actions, even unconsciously. That is why I said the Mischling argument cannot be used as a proof against religious historical connections of those crimes.

Just to understand each other better.

This thread is difficult to follow. Too many posts refer to several previouis posts, with unclear references to the posts, and often citing a previous post, without saying so and without any kind of markers or quotes, and it all melds together into gibberish.

This is not really a good format, for what has basically become a slow-motion instant message chat. It would ge alot more understandable if the posts could be self-contained and complete ideas and thoughts relevant to the question.

Just think of a post as your "proclamation to the world about what you think about things," instead of trying to correct some poor slob's error, a few posts back.

Am I the only one who feels this way?

Hi, Thomas Baum,

You said,
Jesus did say, "Come follow Me", He did not say, come follow the bible, He did not say, come follow My Church, He did not say, come follow people that say they are following Me, but He said, "Come follow Me".

Jesus also said, "I will send the Holy Spirit to guide you", He did not say, I will send theologians, He did not say, I will send bible scholars, but He did say, "I will send the Holy Spirit".

And I say, Bravo! Well said! Once again, you get to the heart of the matter. Thank you, and God bless!

FREDERIC,

Forgive the caps. I don't want the question I paste below to get lost in the shuffle since I would much appreciate a reply. Also, I'm sorry I misspelled your name below:
_______
Frederick,

"The "Mischling" concept cannot be an argument against the religious connotation I propose."

Be specific, please. Which religion(s)? Hinduism? Buddhism?

Which religion(s)?

January 8, 2009 12:18

Timmy,

I'm sorry that you are so desperately threatened by me that you need to try to enlist other bloggers in your attacks. Perhaps, since this is the case, you should reread Onofrio's posts to you. Maybe, the words of a man, rather than a woman, a man, moreover, who has no "Jewish ancestry" will be easier for you to handle.

As for my question to Frederic, it is in response to remarks he made about me. He's an extremely articulate, highly educated blogger, who can speak for himself.

I suggest you do the same. But, again, since I threaten you, perhaps you can focus on what Onofrio posted to you.

Frederick,

Welcome.

"Strange that a highly educated scholar like Farnaz looses all control when the roots of her ABANDONED religion (she claims to be an atheist) are attacked, and rightly so, as one of those religious disasters which also later pervaded our globe in the shape of Christianity and Islam"

Bingo. farnaz tries to turn every one of these threads into a rant on anti-Semitism. All of Farnaz's posts are prejudice from a jewish perspective. That's all she cares about here. She acts as if no one is aware of the long history of it, and Susan Jacoby is "owned" because she refuses to write what farnaz thinks she should write about. Talk about hubris and self involved delusion. We're all anti-semitic. None of understand the horror the Jews have been through. She is the queen of demagoguery. You'll be next on the anti-semite list now for sure. If you're not already there of course.

Frederick,

"The "Mischling" concept cannot be an argument against the religious connotation I propose."

Be specific, please. Which religion(s)? Hinduism? Buddhism?

Which religion(s)?

Frederic,

What exactly is your point? The Shoah and most of the last two thousand years of persecution, including torture, mass murder, verbal abuse, etc., have nothing to do with Judaism as a religion.

The people in your country and mine who post that "the Jews control the world economy, elections, started WWI" are not knowledgeable about Judaism. All Christians (secular, atheist, agnostic, other) on this thread, except for Onofrio know nothing about Judaism. Rick22407 who writes Of "our persecution of Jews, in return for their persecution of Jesus Christ" knows nothing about Judaism or the history of the period in which Christ may or may not have existed.

The racialization of Jews began with Constantine, Saint John Chrysostom, et al. That is where it has its material roots.

In your post to Onofrio, you accused me of taking refuge, made references to Einstein. I believe I have addressed them. If there is anything else I can clarify, let me know.

Farnaz,

I don't understand the reason for the series of questions at 10.45.

What is their common denominator? Maybe it is not important anymore.

We may agree a lot on the basic points, as you say, Farnaz. But the holocaust certainly cannot be simply cut off arbitrarily historically from those horrible rantings by Luther, e.g. and earlier superstitious scapegoating attempts.

The "Mischling" and similar "intellectual" somersaults still have their origin in those irrational religious fantasies, blaming the Jews for killing Jesus etc., even if at a given moment an idiotic "Mischling" bureaucrat wouldn't even have realized this connection. The "Mischling" concept cannot be an argument against the religious connotation I propose. People act on unconscious grounds, but on grounds.

PETERHUFF

Jesus did say, "Come follow Me", He did not say, come follow the bible, He did not say, come follow My Church, He did not say, come follow people that say they are following Me, but He said, "Come follow Me".

Jesus also said, "I will send the Holy Spirit to guide you", He did not say, I will send theologians, He did not say, I will send bible scholars, but He did say, "I will send the Holy Spirit".

Different people have different things to do.

There seems to be quite a few people who know the bible cover to cover, chapter and verse but don't seem to know anything else about God except for His Name.

As I have said: God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof. Simple and straightforward.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Frederic,

"if not the majority of the great historical disasters are connected to religion, nothing more, and yes, Ruby, even the holocaust, that is all I am saying."

The Shoah had nothing to do with Judaism. Surely, you know what is meant by Mischling. Most "Mischlings" were observant Lutherans, Catholics. Some were atheists.

So, what religion did the Shoah have to do with?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischling

(Btw., I have no disagreement with you on the World's Great Religions. That's not the point. Nor was it the point of your original posts.)
-

TIMMY2

By the way Timmy2, being the Chosen People in no way means that the Jews are better or anything of the kind. It just means that they are the Chosen People.

And since they are the Chosen People that means the rest of us are everybody else, no matter how you or anyone else wishes to look at it.

God"s Plan is for ALL.

Also, satan is real and besides being a liar and a thief like Jesus, God-Incarnate, told us, satan is also a loser and a poor loser at that.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Frederic,

Please clarify what you don't understand.

I don't understand your last posts, Farnaz. Please elaborate.

All the points you mention can easily, or rather must forcibly be connected to religious historical connotations, corroborating my ONLY(!) point that some, if not the majority of the great historical disasters are connected to religion, nothing more, and yes, Ruby, even the holocaust, that is all I am saying. Of course, Ruby, you have to fight for your survival, like everybody else (including the Palestinians and, of course, myself in a given situation), but we could still make a difference between a personal necessity for survival and the attempt to find and try to understand the historical reasons for a political situation. As a matter of fact, those disasters probably would not have occurred without those historical religious underpinnings.

Of course I agree that you don't have to believe in God (I don't "blame God") to be a patriotic Jew, but you cannot deny that the historical development, including the foundation of the state of Israel, has religious roots.

My atheism is powered by THE ATTEMPT AT REASON, not by emotion.

TIMMY2

You wrote to Farnaz2, " Give me a break. If you are an atheist, why do you still identify as a Jew if the Jews are not a race?"

The Jews are not a race, they are a People.

To The Moderate you wrote, "But Farnaz is blaming everyone else for the racialization of the Jews, when they did it themselves by declaring to be God's chosen people."

Actually, it was God Who declared the Jews the Chosen People for the simple reason that He not only Chose them but also formed them.

You wrote to Farnaz2 concerning yourself, "I am a bigot towards deity belief. You should be too. We all have every reason to be."

What about me, I used to believe in God but since I met God, I know that God is Real and that He is not only a Trinity but is a BEING OF PURE LOVE.

Does this mean that you are bigoted toward what I used to believe?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Frederic? Hello?

These secular Jews still believe Israel is the Jewish homeland; they oppose giving up the land for any reason; and they are willing to fight for it. Considering the hostile treatment the Jewish people received (i.e. the diasporas of 607BC and 70AD, the Inquisition and the Holocaust to name a few) who can blame them. Modern Israel was created because many Jews (and non-Jews) recognized that creating a Jewish-controlled homeland was essential to the very survival of the Jewish people.

Forget about God for a moment. How do you convince a people whose experience equates homelessness with extinction to just give up their only sanctuary and submit to a third Diaspora? To a Jew whose father (or grandfather) barely survived the Nazis, it’s like asking them to commit suicide.

No, the Israelis would fight to the death for their country even if none of them believed in God. You could blame patriotism or Darwin’s survival instincts for how the Israelis behave, but you choose to blame God instead. You claim to follow reason but ignore any reason that does not fit into your beliefs. You commit the same blind sins that you accuse the Christians of. If there is one thing these blogs have taught me, atheism is not powered by reason but by emotion.

And as for the Muslims, they have to realize that the Israelis will choose war over a genocidal peace any day of the week.

Frederic,

Somehow, part of my last post got clipped. It should have been prefaced with this, which I hope goes through.

My question was: Did this, from my post to Susan offend you?

Frederic,

Do we begin with Constantine? Saint John Chrysostom? Do we cruise straight along to the first crusade? The Fourth Lateran Council? The deportations in the succeeding centuries? The ghettos? The mass murders throughout the centuries? Dreyfus? Poland's Days without Jews, straight on through to September 1, 1939?
-----------------
NOw, why would that offend, Frederic?

Frederic,

This last post is beneath you. I'm disappointed. Eisnstein was far from alone in his view. Many Zionists shared it. It was not the Israelis who made that impossible. Nor is it the present-day Palestinians.

If you read the posts I referred to, you'd see what I meant. Or have you read them? And is this what you concluded?

And Onofrio, with all the respect I have for you (and Farnaz, btw.) I completely disagree with the tendency in your last post.

Hitler ostentatiously referred to Luther's antisemitic rants (wasn't Luther religious, to say the least?), bragging that he only took Luther's "recommendations" more seriously. And Jesus, if historical, said that not one iota of the "old book" should be taken away.

You cannot simply escape the religious context by taking refuge to a sort of general "atrocity" idea. Atrocities have reasons. Inquisition, 30 years' war with the extinction of one third of Germany's population were about religion. Proof: The Westphalian peace settled RELIGIOUS topics.

And I think Timmy is right when stressing that an "evolutionary" moral would have a bigger chance without religions.

Nobody, Farnaz, can claim Einstein to be "antisemitic".

But:

Albert Einstein, on April 17, 1938, in a speech at the Commodore Hotel in New York City, said:

"I should much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish state.
"The State idea is not according to my heart. I cannot understand why it is needed. It is connected with narrow-minded and economic obstacles. I believe it is bad. I have always been against it."

I wonder if Farnaz now subsumes me into the "anti.semitic stin.king pu.trid racial gar.bage".

Strange that a highly educated scholar like Farnaz looses all control when the roots of her ABANDONED religion (she claims to be an atheist) are attacked, and rightly so, as one of those religious disasters which also later pervaded our globe in the shape of Christianity and Islam.

Timmy,

You, re the Tanakh:
"This [Israelite supremacy] is the poisonous racist idea that they wrote into the worlds first book."

The Tanakh is not one book; it's a collection;

and the books in this collection are certainly not the world's first;

and they are not entirely concerned with your "poisonous racist idea". That's a reductionist caricature;

and Judaism dosn't read Tanakh alone - there's also Mishnah and Talmud;

and the ancient *Israelites* were not exceptional among ancient peoples (and modern ones too) in their militant ethnocentricity, or their infighting, or their devotion to ancestral traditions, or their exacting law codes. Egyptians could riot over sacrilege; Greeks looked down on barbarians, and Romans came to think their city was destined to rule the world. All without any input from Tanakh.

Judaism has been amplified negatively and exceptionalised mainly due to the paradox of Christian imperium, i.e. *Christendom*.

There are toxic fonts of "poisonous" racist ideas far more virulent, far more toxic than anything in the Tanakh.

PAMSM

"First, it is not necessary to capitalize "atheist" - it's not a religion or a movement."

Some people asked this as a courtesy. Can't please everyone all the time I guess.

"But of course *you're* above all that."

themoderate character pursues logical points, and argues from history. This offends many people who do not examine their premises and use logical argumentation. From the sounds of your post, you may be next. :-)

For example, soon everyone here will be angry because themoderate will assert that there are problems, crimes, and hate on both sides of the Israeli-Arab conflict. And that both sides abuse the Palestinians. Then he will assert that this has to change for peace to be possible. (Really a "moderate" statement, no?) This will be manifestly true, and well supported in fact, but people will go nuts.

All the best.

Mod

Harveyh5:

"And who at the time was it that didn't leave them alone? Let's see, it wasn't Arabs and Palestinians."

Yes, so? The Jews had a historic problem that needed to be solved. I have already explained that twice on this thread, let me try once again, perhaps it will sink in this time. Their problem was not “how do we take revenge” or “who do we seek to penalize”. The problem was “how can we bring the persecution and discrimination and massacres to an end”. The answer offered by the Zionist movement was: “By having our own country, same as all other nations”. Next was the question of “where should this country be?” The answer was: “In the only place in the world on which we have a claim because that is where we came from”. Given that there would have been frictions with the local population no matter which place they chose, why not choose the only place on which they had a historic claim, which they never stopped regarding as theirs, and to which they always dreamed of returning?

Your point makes sense only if you regard this movement as directed against the Arabs. It is not, and it never was. The solution to the Jewish problem was not meant to be at the expense of anyone else, and it did not have to be. But I imagine that if you subscribe to Ahmadinejad’s holocaust-denial views, it would be hard for you to grasp this point.

Timmy,

"But the original one true God tale was a poison idea."

Maybe it was, but the point is immaterial when considering the evil of antisemitic violence, for which you're still tacitly blaming the Jews.

Summary of your argument, a.k.a the "Deity belief sucks" slam-dunk:

Timmy-gist - Delusional, offspring-stoning Jews confected a loathesome book that insists they are "chosen" by the one-true-god for exclusive, special blessing. Other people, particularly in Christendom, itself one-true-god-delusional, take exception and react with maximum prejudice. Very sad, though one-true-god-obsessed Jesus is still cool. But if only those "ignorant delusional bronze desert nomads" the Jews hadn't hatched their mind-virus, if only they hadn't foisted that evil fiction on themselves and the world, all of that regrettable antisemitic nastiness need not have happened. See, THEY STARTED IT!

You crow your *god sux* refrain, which then functions as a sort of disclaimer for your victim-blaming.

Timmy, with regard to antisemitism it doesn't matter what the Dreadful Old Book says. The Shoah, and its long pedigree of antecedents, are categorically atrocious. No points to be scored about *god sux*; no *but they started it* mythography; no contorted *if only*. Just plain wrong, Timmy.

So, some semi-legendary Hoshea of Ephraim may have torched Hazor three millennia ago, Amalekites may have been fought to the death too, stern Iron Age laws may have been enacted in a stern Iron Age milieu, prophets of Baal may have been slaughtered. Terrible, terrible. But excoriating the *savagery* of a people has historically often been a prelude to even worse massacre. Caesar did it with his *human sacrifice* caricatures of the druid-led Celts he slaughtered. The Spanish justified bloody brutality against Aztecs and other pre-Columbian cultures by diverting attention to their *heathenism* and human sacrifices. And Native North Americans were also verminised as inscrutable, savage, heathens in order to facilitate their mass dispossession by the goodly civilised.

Timmy, you're deploying just one more version of the *shame about that, but they had it comin'* canard.

People were sent to the gas chambers because of their RACE, not their devotion to archaic Iron Age deities. If religion was involved on the part of the racialist-nationalist perpetrators, it was a sort of crude faux-paganism, obsessed with RACIAL PURITY. If the Nazis had a god, it was their own genetic code. And they didn't care what god a Jew followed - neither atheist, indifferent, observant, communist, capitalist, nor newly Lutheran Jews were spared.

This issue is too sombre to reduce to a nyah-nyah opportunity for your *god sux* bandwagon, Timmy.

This thread is tedious and very difficult to follow. Many of the posts refer to several previouis posts, and sometimes the reference to which post is not clear, and sometimes they cite a previous post, without saying so and without any kind of markers or quotes, and it all melds together into gibberish.

When posting, you should not assume that everyone here has read all of the previous posts and remembered them all. And also, people drop in here from time to time to see what's up, but have alot of other interests. It is not reasonable to suppose that everyone who comments here would have advanced degrees and in-depth knowledge of every topic, nor that they would drop everything and make an in-depth study of the current topic. In fact, many people have never been to college, and may not have much book-learning, but that should not automatically disqualify their opinions. Being ignorant of kowledge is no more of a sin than being poor of wealth. If someone seems to have a big gap in their knowledge, then filling them in would be helpful.

And also, on these threads, I recognize that we have a number of "characters" whose traits are pretty much fixed, and who are not going to "be saved" much less change in the least. Just put up with them, or else use them to bounce arguments off of, but don't worry about changing the basic mechainsms of their thoughts, beliefs, or personalities.

To all posters and readers,

Most of the humans in the world are rationalist. Most do not believe in thousand and thousand of Gods, except for maybe one or a few.

Never has been proved that one God exist. We cannot know if God really exists until we are dead. More likely God does not exist, God is a man made illusion. Even many religionist accept this.

Bus advertissement in UK: “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”

Bus advertisement in Washigthon: “Why believe in a god?” the ad read, over a picture of a man in a Santa suit. “Just be good for goodness’ sake.”

See it in the New York Times today.

Best wishes to all,

JAC

Susan, I have been saying this for years now. It's good to see the media finally discussing these issues in regards to the ELEPHANT in the room, which is RELIGION. I agree that moderates are disillusioned if not outright completely irrational and delusional. There is a fundamental religious difference here that has been for thousands of years and will continue for thouasands more (unless they decided to nuke the world and put a quick end to it, which would mean that the apocalypse will never happen and jesus would have missed his boat) to spill blood.

Farnaz, the Jewish infidel, is really into overdrive on this thread. It makes us wonder if her "infidelness" is a bit overstated considering how she continues to praise and defend Judaism and Israel.

To reiterate and again to offer a solution:

The three worse books ever written.

1. The koran whose foundations are based on the hallucinations of one long-dead, womanizing, and warmongering Arab

2. The mostly mythical OT and related mumbo jumbo extensions.

3. The highly embellished, sometimes fictionalized NT where Jesus, an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man was turned into a son of god by P, M, M, L and J.

These three books/operating manuals are, in many respects, the source of the problems of the current Palestine/Israeli conflict. Declaring these books null and void will go a long way in removing the roadblocks to peace not only in the Mideast but also globally.

Susan Jacoby:

The putrid racist garbage stinking up your site has come, thus far, from only two or three bloggers, none of whom appears to be Muslim.

Any comments? Recommendations for Quinn and Meacham? Shall we, then, invite the Klan to join the panel? The American Nazi Party? The Canadian?

Should the questions be properly phrased? Should someone clue in the clueless on the Panel and the threads? Should they, for instance, be informed that the Balfour Declaration pre-dates the Holocaust? THE BALFOUR DECLARATION WAS SIGNED IN 1917. Are lessons in history and chronology in order, prior to the Holocaust?

How is one to explain that the Holocaust was a development of modernity, not an aberration? Shall we go country by country? In which century shall we begin? Do we begin with Constantine? Saint John Chrysostom? Do we cruise straight along to the first crusade? The Fourth Lateran Council? The deportations in the succeeding centuries? The ghettos? The mass murders throughout the centuries? Dreyfus? Poland's Days without Jews, straight on through to September 1, 1939?

Just wondering....

Regards,
Farnaz

And I take full credit for getting us back on topic and "ON FAITH"

Remember how creepy this thread started out with Farnaz calling Susan Jacoby "owned", and the proof was that Susan refused to revere Farnaz's incessant OCD commands to change the subject to something that has nothing to do with faith? WAPO is part of the conspiracy because they won't print Farnaz's "truth to power".

Thank god that awkwardness is over with and we're back "ON FAITH"

Pamsm,

"to my knowledge, there has never been an "atheist society"

Thank you, I was going to point that one out too. We haven't got our example yet. The world is still not quite ready for it. A couple of more generations in Scandinavia and Denmark might bleed off the last of the brainwashed and then we'll have a real statistic to point to. Given the way things are going in the countries that are closest to organically born atheist societies, I'd say our statistics are going to be pretty powerful when we finally have our first fully enlightened societies as examples. Then we can finally put these Pol Pot Stalin false analogies to rest.

Onofrio,

YOU: Nazis did not build gas chambers because they read about genocide in the Tanakh.

Yes I know. Didn't say that they did.

YOU: "If Christians had bothered to enquire of the custodians of the Tanakh what it all means, they might not have misused it so much themselves"

Have you ever heard me defend the Christians?
And maybe they did ask, but they asked orthodox jews instead of reconstructionists. I'm not sure how many reconstructionists there were in the 3rd century?

YOU: Judaism argues with its Tanakh, cf. Mishnah and Talmud. Christendom has seen its "OT" as charting an inevitable progress toward the absolute, non-negotiable triumph"

Judaism tries desperately to make some kind of moral sense out of a book written by ignorant delusional bronze desert nomads who stoned their disobedient children to death.

And yes Christendom is much worse. And Islam worse still. But the original one true God tale was a poison idea. Denial of that is ludicrous and archaic.

YOU: You're still blaming the victims, Timmy, except you're covering yourself by blaming their book, which amounts to blaming them for even having the book.

The victims are all who believed the book was representative of the truth.

YOU: Fear not, the Jews have been dealing with their *terrible* Tanakh for centuries. How can they be held responsible for its misappropriation?

There is no misinterpretation involved in the story that God, the creator of all the universe and all mankind, made a special covenant with the Israelites, and granted them the women and children survivors of the cities that they conquered as booty and slaves. This is not a misinterpretation. This is the poisonous racist idea that they wrote into the worlds first book. Many of them today still believe it is literally true. That is why Rabin is dead. You ask, "who are the Christians to misinterpret the Jewish books?" No. Who are the moderate secular Jews to misinterpret the books of the orthodox Jews. Who says the moderates have the right interpretation? How come Farnaz is right and the orthodox are wrong?

Farnaz,

"I think he is both in love with his epic bombast and a bigot"

I am a bigot towards deity belief. You should be too. We all have every reason to be.

Farnaz,

YOU: I'm ready to believe that like many others you know nothing about what has been done to us since the early Middle Ages. The Holocaust was a development of modernity, not an aberration, not at all. I posted bibliographies on this site. I'll dig them up in the archives and post again."

You are really really sick. When have I ever indicated that I am unaware of the history of antisemitism? I'm well aware. It wasn't me. I don't endorse it. I denounce it. What is your point???????

YOU: Meanwhile how about trying Wikipedia or simply googling antisemitism?

You get all you information from wikipedia? ;)

YOU: Think, too, about where some of the words and phrases you used came from, those to which Onofrio and I took exception. Where did they come from?

Chosen people?
It's 2 +2.
Don't blame me because your ancestors wrote a book about how Almighty God the creator of the universe promised them a parcel land in the middle east. If people go around claiming that kind of delusion, they have much case to complain about being sarcastically referred to as "the chosen people". Do you deserve pogroms for this? No. The pogroms happened because your ancestors delusional deity belief spawned another groups delusional deity belief which then clashed with your ancestors delusional deity belief and so they did horrible things to your ancestors. It's all a great great shame. Deity belief sucks, pass it on.

farnaz,

YOU: Germany was only one problem. If you read my other posts you will see the names of other countries that participated in the Holocaust genocide

Moot. I never said Germany was the only problem nor is it relevant to the discussion of what would be the case today if The jewish homeland had been established in Germany. I don't make the case that it should have been, I was just using Harvey's example to illustrate that there most likely would have been a peaceful settlement there, given that neither the Jews nor the Germans were religious zealots.

YOU: "Indeed, in Poland, Russia, etc., where Jews were tortured to death every now and then. Moreover, some of them started it before the Germans came, were so barbaric, e.g., the Ukrainians that the nazis had to stop them. The Us were inefficient, you see"

I am well aware. This has nothing to do with what I said, nor does what I said insinuate in any way denial of this information or show lack of knowledge of this information.

YOU: The Jews were the minority of Europe. In Russia, for example, they were placed in a horror called the Pale of Settlement long before Hitler"

And so were ethnic Germans, living in both Poland and Russia placed in concentration camps and were worked and malnourished to death by the tens of thousands. Lot's of bad people doing lots of repulsive things back then. I'm well aware of all of it. Your point???

YOU: Do you know what pogrom means? Onofrio used that "word."

Yes. Your point?

YOU: "The racism against us is as old as Constantine.

Racism period is as old as races. Your point?

YOU: "Would you speak of ending slavery in America as settling the "rift" between blacks and whites?"

RIFT: Noun. Figurative: A serious break in friendly.

I think rift certainly applies. It doesn't say "an even sided break in friendly" just "a serious break in friendly". It could be a one sided break. But this is semantics instead of you really countering the point that there would likely be a peaceful two state solution long ago had Israel been created in Germany, instead of in a place where the sentence for selling land to Jews was death.

Farnaz,

"With your knowledge of ancient Egyptian religion, you must know quite a bit about the syncretism in the Tanakh, NT. Can you read Biblical Hebrew? Ancient Greek?"

Knowledge of syncretism in the Tanakh? Maybe a little, but I don't have Hebrew, so my gnosis there is likely to be...persiflage. I do like what I've read of Asherah, from a purely emotional perspective - I feel at home with the notion of Ms God. Sometimes I like to imagine she's in the menorah's branches - wisdom and light. And that's no scholarship!
I would like to study Hebrew and/or Greek, but daily rounds tyrannize the energy and space away. Not sure which to choose; I hang between, and remain a hieroglyphic one-trick pony.

"Terrific! Which one?"
It's called, simply, 'The Levinas Reader', edited by Sean Hand.

"I'm not being modest when I say I'm far from learned."
I imagine you're probably setting the bar pretty high there, Farnaz.

Thanx for being so agreeable to this Austral Fundamental.

Onofrio,

"PS Got a book of Levinas readings from the library this morning."

Terrific! Which one?

Onofrio,

You write: I'm a mental flaneur. Some stuff just sticks unbidden.

I know enough, though, to have tremendous respect for your learning.
-------------------------
"Mental flaneur" more accurately describes me than you, I suspect. Believe me, I'm not being modest when I say I'm far from learned. With your knowledge of ancient Egyptian religion, you must know quite a bit about the syncretism in the Tanakh, NT. Can you read Biblical Hebrew? Ancient Greek?

Your Catholic "pinings" are so very interesting and understandable! As you know, Yeats had them, Heine, too. They differed in the source of their yearnings, but for both they were connected with the muse.

Farnaz,

PS Got a book of Levinas readings from the library this morning.

Farnaz,

"Setting aside your poeticality, to pick up on your scholarliness, you did I think say you'd studied religions, no? Have you studied Buddhism, like Persiflage?"

This praises me too much; you're too kind, by half, Persis. Have been IN one religion - bog-standard Protestantism (with Catholic aesthetic pinings) - which led me to read about others, out of earnest curiosity. No expertise, just general, junior johnson familiarity - a little about a lot, or nothing about everything. I know a bit about ancient religions in general, and quite a bit about ancient Egyptian religion, which I've studied formally in the original language. That's about the only subject on which I can speak with any authority, albeit slight.
Though I know a dharmapala from a bodhisattva, I haven't studied Buddhism in the depth that Persiflage clearly has. If I had, my posts would be more irenic, less captious.
I'm not even very well-read - a "great" poet here, a philosopher there. As I said, I'm a mental flaneur. Some stuff just sticks unbidden.

I know enough, though, to have tremendous respect for your learning.

CCNL: LAST TRY. ONOFRIO POSTED THIS TO TIMMY. HE COMPREHENDS WHAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO TELL YOU ABOUT THE TANAKH. PERHAPS, YOU WILL UNDERSTAND WHAT HE WRITES, OR CONSIDER IT, AT LEAST, SINCE YOU'VE REFUSED TO HEAR ME. (Can the subaltern speak?) Denying us our identity, our self-understanding does nothing to improve your cause, does nothing to elevate your understanding.
_____________
Timmy,

You:
"Their book on the other hand, is the loaded gun that caused all of this mess. And though they been rather allegorical and harmless with it themselves, they still pray on a book filled with genocide and insanity that has lead to so much horror."

Nazis did not build gas chambers because they read about genocide in the Tanakh. If Christians had bothered to enquire of the custodians of the Tanakh what it all means, they might not have misused it so much themselves.

Judaism argues with its Tanakh, cf. Mishnah and Talmud. Christendom has seen its "OT" as charting an inevitable progress toward the absolute, non-negotiable triumph.

Debate versus Destiny.

Process-of-Law versus Proof-texting.

You're still blaming the victims, Timmy, except you're covering yourself by blaming their book, which amounts to blaming them for even having the book. But it's not "their" book that Christendom read. Farnaz has tried to get this across many times. There's not just Tanakh, there's Mishnah and Talmud as well. Interpretation. Fear not, the Jews have been dealing with their *terrible* Tanakh for centuries. How can they be held responsible for its misappropriation?

You may just as well blame the sun for the H-Bomb.

Hi Pam,

"Re your reply to Farnaz about inerrancy, you really owe it to yourself to read "Misquoting Jesus." You'll find that there's much less certainty about the original texts than you apparently believe. Ehrman is an eminent textual critic, who has read them in the Greek."

Yes, I was surprised to learn from Peter that he was unaware of the infamous "horned" Moses mistranslation and its contribution to historic antisemitism. But also much was actually added later, as you know. "Let he who is without sin..." for example. Hopefully, I'll get the chance to ask Peter to clarify his conception of inerrancy.

I found something on the origins of English along the lines I mentioned, but it's out of print. I'm still looking--haven't forgotten.

Farnaz :)

Timmy,

You:
"Their book on the other hand, is the loaded gun that caused all of this mess. And though they been rather allegorical and harmless with it themselves, they still pray on a book filled with genocide and insanity that has lead to so much horror."

Nazis did not build gas chambers because they read about genocide in the Tanakh. If Christians had bothered to enquire of the custodians of the Tanakh what it all means, they might not have misused it so much themselves.

Judaism argues with its Tanakh, cf. Mishnah and Talmud. Christendom has seen its "OT" as charting an inevitable progress toward the absolute, non-negotiable triumph.

Debate versus Destiny.

Process-of-Law versus Proof-texting.

You're still blaming the victims, Timmy, except you're covering yourself by blaming their book, which amounts to blaming them for even having the book. But it's not "their" book that Christendom read. Farnaz has tried to get this across many times. There's not just Tanakh, there's Mishnah and Talmud as well. Interpretation. Fear not, the Jews have been dealing with their *terrible* Tanakh for centuries. How can they be held responsible for its misappropriation?

You may just as well blame the sun for the H-Bomb.

"Hi Pam, Thomas,

I have not forgotten your posts. Just looking for time to reply. The early part of tomorrow is busy, but hopefully tomorrow night".

Glad to hear it, Peter, I was beginning to think I'd scared you off. :D

Re your reply to Farnaz about inerrancy, you really owe it to yourself to read "Misquoting Jesus." You'll find that there's much less certainty about the original texts than you apparently believe. Ehrman is an eminent textual critic, who has read them in the Greek.

Onofrio,

In all seriousness, you are an amazing prose stylist, an equally accomplished poet. I'm not prying, just taking note. Mean no harm.

Farnaz (Persis)
Heathen Atheist Jew Uni-horn (Infidel)

Onofrio,

I've just read Timmy's last post and I surrender. I shall never try to save another living soul, at least not virtually. I shall even give up on CCNL, who, I think, believes I wish him ill. Farnaz went web-hunting medieval Christian mystic writing for to post, found the magnificent Anonymous "Cloud" writer, the great Richard Rolle, and would soon have set out for Marjorie Kempe. She found a poem on Jesus, quoted Talmud, but all to no avail.

Enough virtual Tikkun Olam for today
_____________________

Setting aside your poeticality, to pick up on your scholarliness, you did I think say you'd studied religions, no? Have you studied Buddhism, like Persiflage?

Timmy,

FYI: From an earlier post of mine
________________

All peoples have the right to its homeland. That includes the Palestinians.

That includes people like me, one of three million Jews living in exile, originally from the Middle East. That includes the American Indians, whom Wikipedia (!) describes as "among the poorest of developing nations."

January 7, 2009 11:39 PM

Hello Onofrio,

YOU ASK: What was the historic Jewish tyranny that saw itself racially supreme, tried to wield the world, and slaughtered the goyim?

You tell me. I never mentioned any tyranny, and the idea that one's race is supreme is reflected in things like it being a negative thing to marry a non (pick your race or religion). And I of course never mentioned any slaughtering of any Goyim.

YOU: And what was the historic tyranny in Christendom that saw itself racially supreme, tried to wield the world, and slaughtered the Jews?

I did not talk about this either. Nor have I ever denied Christian roll in piling on to the racialization of the Jewish people. But I have pointed out that the Tanakh is a pretty good manual for racialization. Ad it is. I would be farnaz that has trouble with the facts on this one. That is if she weren't so adept at the science of reinterpreting all of that racism and misogyny and homophobia, and genocide that occurs in the Tanakh.

YOU: Christendom has always had to rely on the dark rumour, the epic slur, the grand conspiracy theory to justify its Judeophobia, because, for all their supposed inveterate chosenness, those Jews have never actually been shown to sacrifice babies, blight the harvest, pull off a coup, or bring down the Christian imperiums. For all their reputed diabolic power, they always seem to end up pogromed, massacred, or exiled.

None of this is news to me. I have always known the Jews to be harmless victims. Their book on the other hand, is the loaded gun that caused all of this mess. And though they been rather allegorical and harmless with it themselves, they still pray on a book filled with genocide and insanity that has lead to so much horror. This racialization that Farnaz is running on about and blaming on everyone else in the world came from the Tanukh.

YOU: I wouldn't want to pin the egregious term egregious on you, Timmy, but I detect at least a trace of "blame the victim" here.

No, it's blame the victim's book. The victim would to well to have tossed all of the bad parts in the trash long ago. All religions should. But they won't that is why religion is bad, but spirituality is good. Spirituality has no reason to hold on to garbage.

YOU: Maybe one of your Revolutionary Love Bombs might change things...

I think one from Israel and the world, towards the palestinians would. I'll kick in a hundred bucks. If we all did that, problem solved. They'd all be rich and too busy water skiing to fight.

The Moderate says:

"Left after the fire storm I started by reminding the 'logical', 'rational' Atheists who used to frequent this blog that:

The premise: 'Religion is the cause of all the world's violence, wars, persecutions, and prejudice' Would imply the consequent: 'Atheist societies were free of violence, war, and prejudice.'

That was fun, but they were too ignorant of history and irrational to handle a logical argument and went wildly emotional and ad hominem".

But of course *you're* above all that.

First, it is not necessary to capitalize "atheist" - it's not a religion or a movement.

Second, to my knowledge, there has never been an "atheist society." Perhaps you can enlighten me...? And please refrain from trotting out Stalin and Pol Pot and Mao - they were totalitarian dictators who decreed that there would be no religion in their countries - that is not the same as the people deciding freely and fairly to give it up on their own. Do you really think that there was no religion in Russia during those years? Of course there was - it was just driven underground.

It's also doubtful that those dictators tried to get rid of religion out of a sincere conviction that there was no god - more likely just a power grab.

There are some places now (principally in Scandinavia) that are approaching the status of atheist societies. Not much violence, war, and prejudice there.

Onofrio:

"As with much of Timmy's diatribing, this latest flare shows he is blind to the implications of his own epic bombast. I think we're not dealing here with an antisemite per se, but an opinionated dualist/duellist who reduces all subjects to the limits of his own knowledge."

I think he is both in love with his epic bombast and a bigot, I'm afraid. The former serves the latter with respect to Jews and many other issues. I did post to him suggesting he do some research, attempting to correct some of what may be misapprehensions, may be just ill-considered verbiage. But, then I read what follows and wondered if he wants to consider. Unlike you or the Moderate or Peter Huff or so many others, he seems to cherry pick in order to argue, ignoring what doesn't fit his scheme or his projection cum stereotype concerning his correspondant.

Timmy,
"And there were native Americans in your New York pad long before whitey came along. Are you prepared to be displaced pronto to make room for a new state of Manhatoes?"

I mentioned the indigenous peoples of your country and the US in an earlier post, which you read. You read the post, that is.
-----------------
You said some unfortunate things. I posted to you about that, where you might find some information that might be helpful to you. At least, so Farnaz thinks.

Timmy,

"And I added: And the rift between the Germans and the Jews"

There was no "rift." There were centuries of oppression. The Jews of Germany were not given (nearly) full rights of citizenship until after WWI.

Germany was only one problem. If you read my other posts you will see the names of other countries that participated in the Holocaust genocide. Indeed, in Poland, Russia, etc., where Jews were tortured to death every now and then. Moreover, some of them started it before the Germans came, were so barbaric, e.g., the Ukrainians that the nazis had to stop them. The Us were inefficient, you see.

The Jews were the minority of Europe. In Russia, for example, they were placed in a horror called the Pale of Settlement long before Hitler. Do you know what pogrom means? Onofrio used that "word."

The racism against us is as old as Constantine. Would you speak of ending slavery in America as settling the "rift" between blacks and whites?

I'm ready to believe that like many others you know nothing about what has been done to us since the early Middle Ages. The Holocaust was a development of modernity, not an aberration, not at all. I posted bibliographies on this site. I'll dig them up in the archives and post again.

Meanwhile how about trying Wikipedia or simply googling antisemitism? Think, too, about where some of the words and phrases you used came from, those to which Onofrio and I took exception. Where did they come from?

You didn't inherit them from birth. You heard them....I'd be interested in hearing about what you discover regarding the history of antisemitsm, current canards, etc.

Farnaz,

You to me, re Timmy's judeocertainty:

"As the eminent Catholic theologian Rosemary Reuther has said: You will never convince antisemites by using facts.

IMHO: Sometimes facts help. Clearly Timmy know nothing about the history of antisemitism. Or does he? Ruether would ask, "What difference could it make?" "

I agree with your IMHO here, Farnaz. While they won't convince the convinced kind of devil, the facts can divert the more neutral onlookers from like devilry. Such facts have worked on me, for one (I hope).

As with much of Timmy's diatribing, this latest flare shows he is blind to the implications of his own epic bombast. I think we're not dealing here with an antisemite per se, but an opinionated dualist/duellist who reduces all subjects to the limits of his own knowledge. Two principles are operating: bloodymindedness - "Damn that ignorance, full steam ahead!" wedded to drippy idealism - "All you need is love."

(Hmm, then again, that does seem pretty, well, Christian of him.)

He did on another thread actually admit to me that he made a mistake with his imprecise verbage, but it was on an issue that's trivial compared to the current topic.

He deserves to have his overbearing certainties prodded, and maybe that will switch on a light for someone else out there in the great audience.

But then, I would say that, condescending, to-the-corner pedantic dunce that I am.

Farnaz,

"There were Jews in different parts of the areas I mentioned before there were Christians and before there were Muslims, of course."

And there were native Americans in your New York pad long before whitey came along. Are you prepared to be displaced pronto to make room for a new state of Manhatoes?

Woah! Correction before I get nailed.

In my last post, I meant to say "The creation of Israel in Palestine was asinine. I left out the words (in Palestine)

And before I get nailed again, I know that it was not called Palestine back then.

Harvey said:

"Granted, millions died during the Holocaust, but, back to my original post of today, it would have been much more logical and appropriate to create a Jewish homeland on territory in Germany rather than in the Middle East"

And I added: And the rift between the Germans and the Jews would have been long ago settled, because neither factions were religious zealots. The decision to create Israel was asinine, and naive, and we are all paying for it today, particularly the Jews and the Palestinians. It's hard to think that anyone could think otherwise. But it is also asinine to think that Israel can be uncreated, or relocated.

As The Moderate says, the very best strategy, would be for the people of Israel, in concert with factions from all over the world, to bomb them with food, and electricity, and water, and love, and the internet, and show them that secularism is not evil, but compassionate, and loving, and the one that is more willing to take the high road on this issue. This would be Hamas' worst nightmare.

harveyh5,

Re: Your last post

I don't know if you saw my last post, but Germany was far from alone in guilt. They set the thing in motion. Ironically, they intended to kill all Polish Catholics, all Ukranians, all Russians, etc., after they'd exterminated "Jews," not all of whom were Jews (scroll down), and used the Slavs for slave labor.

IN the meantime, those people had bloodfests of their own. Then the nazis decimated the Roma, as well, went after gay people, Jehova's witnesses. There's much more to say, other victim populations.

The point is it was the Diaspora which set it in motion. All peoples have the right to its homeland. That includes the Palestinians.

That includes people like me, one of three million Jews living in exile, originally from the Middle East. That includes the American Indians, whom Wikipedia (!) describes as "among the poorest of developing nations."

Peace is more elusive now than it has ever been in the ME. The reasons are very complex and have as much to do with Israelis and Palestinians as with the US Europe, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iran etc.

It's a horror. Had the early Zionists found some way to pacify the Mufti, things could have been very different for Palestinians and Israelis. Now I see no hope although I yearn for peace for these afflicted peoples.

FARNAZ2,

Why pick on poor Germany? Hmmm. Could it be because they were the supreme military power defeated during WWII that set the Holocaust into motion?

Hi Pam, Thomas,

I have not forgotten your posts. Just looking for time to reply. The early part of tomorrow is busy, but hopefully tomorrow night.

Greeting Rick! I don't know what happened to Jihadist or Victoria. I liked chatting with Jihadist, even though we have very different viewpoints, she was interesting. You might try the pagan forums (Starhawk)?

Farnaz2,

The problems we have today would not have occurred had the Jewish homeland been established in Germany. But, as I've said, there is no going back and you are right that Israel must have secure borders. Perhaps Israel's current use of force will demonstrate to Hamas the error of their ways and lead to a desire for all to live in peace. Then again, not all that likely.

Timmy,

You to Farnaz and me:
"I use the word Jew just like my very best friends Noam Rosen, Simon Rakoff, Noah Segal, and Ira Levy use that word."

Mood-fascism is a sign of rhetorical desperation, Timmy. And that "some of my best friends are Jews" defence - cliche gambit. Note carefully, Timmy, my worry-bone trembled not at "Jew", but at "Jew SUPREMACY". It's probably just me; go laugh about it with your mates. I guess they know their place, eh?

I could laff along about the Italian retail supremacy in a nearby suburb, with my Italian surnamed neighbour. But then, no one ever herded the grandparents of those trattoria-owners anywhere terminally terrible, on the basis of said "supremacy". Unless of course they were Italian JEWS.

Words ain't just words...

Hi Farnaz2,

Sorry, I am running on empty with little sleep so this will be fast(for me). We can go into it more if you like.

What I said was,

"So even though we do not have the original inerrant autographa (the manuscripts written by the apostles and prophets as led by the verbal inspiration of the Holy Spirit) and even though God did not grant the scribes and copyists the same inerrancy (they made mistakes), these copies are sufficiently accurate not to led us astray, or else Gods provision in preserving His Word would not have come about and we could not trust the Bible. No, great care was taken in copying Scripture and the variants in the over 5000 copied manuscripts and over 24000 partial manuscripts are mainly grammatical and spelling errors and change none of the essential doctrines of the Bible. Along with this, the time span of the copies is useful in comparisons from one generation to the next in determining how accurate the transmission has been."

So when in doubt on a word or the wording of a particular translation we have a vast array of manuscript evidence for consulting the original language texts the Bible was written in to find the best meaning for the translated word.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance is just one particular resource available in our day to check the various meanings of the Hebrew and Greek words against the English counterpart.

Our Lord Jesus paraphrased from the original Hebrew writings or used the Greek equivalent (the Septuagint) in quoting the Old Testament and still called it the Word of God for God's thoughts were still being conveyed.

FARNAZ2: "I'm still waiting for a reply on inerrancy regarding the scriptures. If this is the case, if God oversaw (oversees) translation, how is it that Jerome translated the Tanakh to read that Moses had "horns"? This refers to Moses' appearance on the second descent."

FARNAZ: "Explain the inerrancy factor, please."

I'll take your word for it, that the Vulgate incorrectly translated this word, just like the New World Translation that the JW's use is a bad translation for the original Greek languages.

That does not mean that a correct translation cannot be made by consulting the original language manuscripts. Because of this vast array we can be confident that God has preserved His Word. There are lots of checks and balances.

Harvy,

A Jewish homeland in Germany:

Here is a short list of genociding nations, among them nations that without nazi help, took it upon themselves to kill Jews, began the process prior to occupation. The killers were simple god-fearing Christians, some fascists, some not.
Again, I'll try to find a bibliography, web sites with pictures. Among the slaughterers were clergy.

Then of course you have Algiers, etc., the ME. Why pick on Germany for us poor J people? Realize as well that the EuroChristians took as Jewish people who may have had one Jewish grandparent, and were, in fact, raised Christian.
Or people like Ann Frank, completely secular. No religious observance at all.

France
Poland
Russia
Latvia
Estonia
Lithuania
Hungary
Ukraine
Luxembourg
Slovakia
Romania
Austria
Croatia
Greece
Holland
Bohemia
Moravia
Finland
Belgium
Italy

More to come...

I am pretty sure that The Passion of John was once used to teach kids in Catholic grade schools that "The Jews" crucified Jesus Christ, and the The Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate tried to "let him off the hook" with "mere" scourging with the flagrum. The narrative then goes on to say the "The Jews" demanded the crucifixion of this now piteously abused victim who had been crowned with thorns in addition to hundreds of bleeding wounds. To top it off, even Harod refused to condemn Jesus. That was left to the mob in Jerusalem.

Might have happened that way, and it would not have been out of place in the Ancient World. Remembering that the Romans lined the Via Appia between Rome and Capua with six thousand crucified rebels from the Spartacus Revolt for a show.

But it is a pretty nasty narrative if handled the wrong way, and it was an effective story to inculcate anger against of Jews in the young. I remember telling my kids during The Passion of the Christ controversy that, for centuries, innocent people not even alive at the time were blamed for “Killing Christ”. I told them it was like blaming their favorite comedian Jon Stewart for what happened in the first century. They told me that was crazy. Yes, I smiled, it was.

John Paul The Great began the long road back from this insanity, at least for the Catholics. Interesting guy that one. One of the moral giants of the twentieth century.

harveyh5:

If you read my post on the Balfour declaration, etc., you know that Israel declared independence from Great Britain abiding by the boundaries set in place with that document.

The sources of the current crises are great, but if we start with this century, the land to which the Jews had been steadily returning was under the control of the Turks until World War I, at which point the British seized it.

Balfour was a Christian fundamentalist who wanted the state thinking it would usher in the end of time. Before, earlier on in the twentieth century, the ME people were largely uninterested. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, however, wished to make the Dome of the Rock (the Second Temple, the Temple Mount), the third holiest sight in Islam, and was waging a relentless campaign for recogntion. He personally aligned himself with Hitler, and convinced many of his neighbors to go along.

WWII was a world war you know. AT all events, crisis occurred everywhere for Jews--in Africa, the Middle East, Europe, etc. What went on in the US is a story by itself, but of course did not reach the proportions it did elsewhere.

As more and more Jews began to arrive, the Brits fearing for their OIL (scroll down), fearing the Saudis, the Emerates, and then the Egyptians (no oil, but influential), tried to stop the Jews. They fired on boats, sank boats with Jewish refugees, confined Jews to refugee horror camps in Cypress, killed Jews in the streets.

The Palestinians were greatly agitated on all sides by their Middle East confreres. Some had been selling land to Jews, but after the Mufti gained control, those poor souls were summarily executed. Palestinian Muslims and Christians to this day are executed, returned to their families in body bags if suspected of selling land to Israelis.
-------------------
The problems we have today resulted from a series of wars begun AFTER THE 1948. They need to be resolved. However, Israel must have secure borders. Israelis now know of the ugly drawings of Jews, the antisemitic canards that permeate the ME media, that are taught in Palestinian schools.

Under the Clinton accords they were ready to return 96% of what Arafat said he wanted, but as you know, Arafat then began an intifada.

Israel pulled out of Gaza entirely, nonetheless, and look what happened.

Farnaz:

"If you've read my posts and those of others, then you should be able to gather that the founding of Israel has and had nothing to do with religion, that is, with the Jewish religion."

Haven't, really. I am not around here much these days.

Left after the fire storm I started by reminding the "logical", "rational" Atheists who used to frequent this blog that:

The premise: "Religion is the cause of all the world's violence, wars, persecutions, and prejudice" Would imply the consequent: "Atheist societies were free of violence, war, and prejudice."

That was fun, but they were too ignorant of history and irrational to handle a logical argument and went wildly emotional and ad hominem.

I have noticed lately that it is now safe for people to say what I said, and that and no firestorm results. Progress, I guess.

Perhaps we can discuss your viewpoints a bit.

Timmy,

You:
"But Farnaz is blaming everyone else for the racialization of the Jews, when they did it themselves by declaring to be God's chosen people."

Let me remind you, Farnaz has posted on this point quite clearly: the notion of "chosen people" is far more a projection from Christendom - i.e. part of that racialising process - than it is a self-identifying slogan of Jews.

Timmy, consider the following:
What was the historic Jewish tyranny that saw itself racially supreme, tried to wield the world, and slaughtered the goyim?
And what was the historic tyranny in Christendom that saw itself racially supreme, tried to wield the world, and slaughtered the Jews?

Christendom has always had to rely on the dark rumour, the epic slur, the grand conspiracy theory to justify its Judeophobia, because, for all their supposed inveterate chosenness, those Jews have never actually been shown to sacrifice babies, blight the harvest, pull off a coup, or bring down the Christian imperiums. For all their reputed diabolic power, they always seem to end up pogromed, massacred, or exiled.

I wouldn't want to pin the egregious term egregious on you, Timmy, but I detect at least a trace of "blame the victim" here.

Maybe one of your Revolutionary Love Bombs might change things...

harveyh5,

Another reply to your question on Jewish demographics:

There were Jews in different parts of the areas I mentioned before there were Christians and before there were Muslims, of course.

Farnaz

Farnaz2,

You miss my point. Prior to the establishment of Israel, the number of Jewish people living in Europe greatly exceeded the number living in the Middle East. Granted, millions died during the Holocaust, but, back to my original post of today, it would have been much more logical and appropriate to create a Jewish homeland on territory in Germany rather than in the Middle East. I can understand Arab peoples' anger at having to give up land to create Israel when having no role in the Holocaust, with a justification instead based on ancient history and the Bible.

At least we're back "ON FAITH" and off that non "ON FAITH" subject Farnaz tried to change this forum to.

Onofrio and Farnaz,

I use the word Jew just like my very best friends Noam Rosen, Simon Rakoff, Noah Segal, and Ira Levy use that word. I use it in conversation with them all the time as they use it. It's not a pejorative term. It's just quicker to type and easier to say.

And now for a humor break.
One of my best friends is a jewnostic comic from Toronto name Simon Rakoff. He has some of the funniest Jewish material I've ever heard. One of his lines is about how the word is really "Jew" but they thew in the "ish" to indicate their lack of actual religion. "Are you a Jew?" "Jew-ish"

He has many more funnier than that but this one I thought was on topic.

Hello Onofrio,

I wonder if it would make sense to explain what is so wrong with his last post, that which he posted.

Where would one begin? Would one ask which Jews have called themselves the "Chosen people"?

Would one ask if he were referring to Italian Catholics or Italian Jews or Italian Muslims when he mentions Italians?

Would one tell him that Jews always intermarried?
That marriages between Christians and Jews, Muslims and Jews with neither party converting are not unusual?

But you see this is information. And people like Timmy have information. As the eminent Catholic theologian Rosemary Reuther has said: You will never convince antisemites by using facts.

IMHO: Sometimes facts help. Clearly Timmy know nothing about the history of antisemitism. Or does he? Ruether would ask, "What difference could it make?"

I dunno. Maybe I'm deluded, suffering from "Jew Supremacy" (Timmy).

I keep wondering if I'm giving Timmy rope, or if he brought his own, intending, as it were, to hang himself.

"I am well aware that the Jews are not the only ethnocentric people by far. But Farnaz is blaming everyone else for the racialization of the Jews, when they did it themselves by declaring to be God's chosen people. And creating the pejorative "Goy" to refer to the "non Jew". And to this day, for a Jew to marry a non Jew, is still a much greater offense than for an Italian to marry a non italian. (Although not to some Italian mothers. But to far more Jewish mothers, and fathers and rabbis)"

Timmy,

You to Farnaz:

"Yeah, the Jews have done nothing to racialize themselves right? Like making it a egregious offense for a Jew to marry a non Jew. Of course one can convert if one wants to marry a jew, but it's still not as preferable to the real deal. Sounds like Jew supremacy to me. And I'm pretty sure the claim is that God gave a parcel of land to the Jews before judaism was a religion. It seems he gave it to a race, not a religious denomination."

Time to say it again: Careful, Timmy.

You know me, pedantic semantic picker at your verbage...I do take it seriously, so sometimes I notice things. Like how a trace of putsch, broken shop windows, and SA cliche whispers through.

"Souns like a Jew supremacy to me."

Ah, that old canard. Just won't lay down, will it? Et tu, Timme? As you've probably gathered by now, I think such casual cant speaks volumes about what a heart treasures.

How much hangs on just the choice of an adjective. I see you favour, for your qualifier, the stark monosyllabic "Jew" over "Jewish" or even "Zionist". Why is it that "Jew supremacy" beats on my worry-nerve so? Where might I have heard this tone before?

Of course, I'm taking it all too far, yet again. It's just words, ain't it, Tim? Just O No Frio out of his dunce's corner.

The Moderate,

I am well aware that the Jews are not the only ethnocentric people by far. But Farnaz is blaming everyone else for the racialization of the Jews, when they did it themselves by declaring to be God's chosen people. And creating the pejorative "Goy" to refer to the "non Jew". And to this day, for a Jew to marry a non Jew, is still a much greater offense than for an Italian to marry a non italian. (Although not to some Italian mothers. But to far more Jewish mothers, and fathers and rabbis)

Italians do not blame other people for racializing them. They are well aware that they did it to themselves like every other ethnocentric race. But Farnaz thinks that everyone else racialized God's chosen ones. Just like every other ethnocentric people, they did it to themselves. Does this mean that they deserved to be persecuted? Of course not. It just means that they like all other ethnicities, self racialized.

harveyh5

"But where were the larger populations of Jewish people prior to the establishment of Israel, in what is now Israel, or in Europe?"
__________________________
The Middle East, Africa, Europe, Asia, South America, North America. I, for instance, am from Iran.

Where have the Christians been these past centuries?

The Moderate writes to Timmy

"This is nothing particular to "The Jews".

Antisemitism is sui generis. I obtains to this day throughout the US and Europe. Beginning with Constantine, wherever Christians went, i.e., the New World, the Middle East, Africa, Asia, they took it with them. With Christianity in South Korea, it is rife with anti-Jewish racism.

I have posted bibliographies on this before. I'll look for them in the OnFaith archives. For now, I'm just going to past part of a comment I posted earlier.

If you've read my posts and those of others, then you should be able to gather that the founding of Israel has and had nothing to do with religion, that is, with the Jewish religion. It has a great deal to do with the Christians (generically speaking) who from Constantine on, racialized Jewish identity and began a campaign of slaughter that continues to this day.

I'm assuming you read my post on the Vulgate and Jewish "horns." From the start, from the NT on Jewish identity has been both occulted and imbued with a material force, i.e., racialized. The persecution, wholesale slaughter, mass murder, genocide of Jews originated with NT distortions and the "conversion" of Constantine. As countless historians and theologians have explained, Christianity was necessary but not sufficient.

What was needed was the wedding of Christianity with nation states, begun with Constantine, in whose interest it was to seek scapegoats. At this, Christendom has been remarkably successful as the particularizing and demonizing of Jews continues to the present. One reads everywhere, notably from WaPo bloggers that "the Jews control the economy, are responsible for the Iraq war, caused the recession, control Wall Street," etc.

These are simply the most recent distortions of highly developed racializing propaganda originating among the German and French Christians and spread throughout the world, beginning in the nineteenth century.
----------------
Moderate: From there it went to groups with long established histories of other forms of antisemitism. The Polish Catholics, the Russian Orthodox, the Croatian Catholics, etc.
--------------
We no longer write the Poles, the Russians, the Croats, et al. We identify them by religion, as well as nationality, just as they identified themselves, assuming that because they held their particular religions (by blood), they held national atatus while Polish Jews, Russian Jews, etc. did not.

The Multicultural critique does not wish to extend this extend, to perpetuate this racializing.

I haven't heard anyone argue that the zionist move was not a mostly secular movement. Nor have I heard anyone argue that the Jews did not always have a presence in the middle east, and ties to the middle east. I think Farnaz is just arguing with herself at this point.

Farnaz2,

Ok, I'll accept that there has been a continuous Jewish presence in Israel from the beginnings to the present. But where were the larger populations of Jewish people prior to the establishment of Israel, in what is now Israel, or in Europe?

Timmy,

"Yeah, the Jews have done nothing to racialize themselves right? Like making it a egregious offense for a Jew to marry a non Jew. Of course one can convert if one wants to marry a jew, but it's still not as preferable to the real deal. Sounds like Jew supremacy to me."

Lighten up dude. Back in the day your family was probably no different. All human groups have a long history of ethnocentrism. This is nothing particular to "The Jews". Clearly the nice blond German people had just a little touch of it too. As did the Italians, French, Egyptians, Greeks, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Scotch, Africans, Anglo Saxons, Rus ... You name it. They all liked to marry within their own groups. Modern continental scale cultures are just now really breaking these barriers down.

And really, consider the difficulty of the situation Israel faces surrounded by hostile groups on all sides. Some of them, like Ahmadinejad and his pals in Iran, have said they want to resume where Adolf left off. Er... Oops... thats ... Where Uncle Adolf DIDN'T leave off...

This situation is very serious.

And to Farnaz and you, I merely cite Wikipedia as a readily available reference. While, granted, it is not the be all and end all, that nonetheless doesn't invalidate its contents."
------------------------
Zionism(s) wereare secular in orientation. As I posted earlier there has been a continuous presence in Israel from the beginnings to the present. Like the Vietnamese and other displaced peoples, many Diasporic Jews returned to their own land.

We have the Mishnah of Judah HaNasi completed in the second century, the Talmud Yershalmi (Jerusalem Talmud), completed in the fourth and fifth centuries, correspondence between Jerusalem and Babylon, diaries, letters, etc. up to and including the present.

When, in 1948, Israel declared its independence from Great Britian, which had murdered people fleeing Hitler, sank a boat, killed Jews in the street, IT DID NOT ASK THE US, OR ANYONE ELSE,FOR PERMISSION. It fully abided by the Balfour Declaration, which the British refused to honor. They, the Brits, were concerned about the most infuluential oil producers in the ME, pace, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates. Easy for the English to martial antisemitism (which they did with abandon at home) devotion to ME Muslims in the great AngloChristian loving oil cause. However, the history of the Brits among the Muslim populous was not loving. It was horrific.

The Israeli Declaration of Independence is on the web.

farnaz,

RE: Later

Can't wait. Here's some more amo for you nail me with.

On who racialized who?

I don't know what the word is for a non white, or a non Christian, or a non Indian, or a non Hindu, or a non Chinese, or a non African, or a non Arab. But I know a few words for the non Jew. There's "gentile" and then the even more pejorative, "goy" which snickers at us poor non Jews. Of course the tanakh only uses the word "goy" to mean "non Jew" a few times, where the term refers more often to "Nation" or "People" which includes the Jews. But the Jews decided that they liked the "non Jew" definition better, so that's the one that sticks with us today. You see it doesn't matter what religion or race you are, to the Jews, the most important distinction is that you are not a Jew. Not much more needs to be said to describe you. Goy is all we really need to know.

The Koran racialized the Jews? Where do you think they got that notion from ????

God grief.

MICHAELNJ,

You state, "The Jewish state was established because the Jews needed a state, not because of the 2,000 years old history. If they were left alone and allowed to live like regular citizens in the diaspora, there would have been no need for a state of their own and the state would never have been founded."

I must say, you are getting to the crux of the matter. Why did the Jews need a state? And who at the time was it that didn't leave them alone? Let's see, it wasn't Arabs and Palestinians. The harassers of the Jewish people in recent centuries were the Christian populations of Europe concluding with Hitler's Germany. (Which gets to the meaning of Iranian President Ahmadinejad statement that the Holocaust didn't occur - it didn't happen on Arab land.)

And to Farnaz and you, I merely cite Wikipedia as a readily available reference. While, granted, it is not the be all and end all, that nonetheless doesn't invalidate its contents.

And to RICK22407, appreciate the further details on the establishment of the Jewish state.

Rick,

Well written post.

Those of us who see religion as a major factor in this dispute, at least in my case, are well aware of the secular nature of the original Zionist movement. And we are all painfully aware of what a disaster it has become. But the argument that religion was not taken into consideration in the final decision to make the Jewish homeland in Palestine, only speaks to the foolishness of that omission. Could they not predict that this insane move would turn into a religious conflict? And I contend that it has indeed become just that. The fact that it started as a secular movement is now moot, except to note how naive it was to not factor religion into the decision.

Still don't know why they didn't go for Brazil. It's awesome down there, and not a muslim in sight.

Timmy writes:

"Sounds like Jew supremacy to me."
________________

Later.

Susan J.,

After this, I'm off for awhile. It will be interesting for me to see what accumulates. I'll be back with Fantastick and a rag, just in case you haven't mopped up.

Scroll down for my 8:37, 8:41, and 8:42 posts. And, imagine being Jewish, atheist, agnostic, etc., perhaps never having even read Tanakh, but of course you're still J--imagine what you would see, read, hear, overhear on a daily basis.

Think of the Jews you know and the ways in which this language may have contributed to their identities. Obviously, I'm not the fading type. Neither are other Jews blogging right now on WaPo and on this site. That is very good for me to see, good for me to ponder when I think of my daughter.

Farnaz

farnaz,

Look up. To the top of the page. You'll see in big block letters "ON FAITH".

This forum is for subjects "ON FAITH". What the hell does corporate and US government influence in the mainstream media have to do with "ON FAITH"????

You keep saying over and over again that this question was not framed properly. You have accused Susan Jacoby of being "Owned" because she will not write about something in this forum that has nothing to do with "ON FAITH". She did not even frame the question, WAPO did. It's her job to answer the question "ON FAITH" that WAPO puts forth. We are all here to discuss our ideas and thoughts on the "ON FAITH" question that WAPO puts forth. And the WAPO question is on topic. Corporate and US Government influence on the media is not. You need to go and find a blog that is called "ON GOVERNMENT AND CORPORATE INFLUENCE IN THE MEDIA" or start one of your own.

I love how you offered as proof that Susan Jacoby is owned, the fact that she ignored your incessant commands to write about something that is not "ON FAITH", but of an agenda completely your own. Get over yourself girl.

Truth to power? Whose? Yours?
Obviously, because I sure don't agree with it.
You should apply to be president of WAPO. Then you can make sure that they speak your "truth to power". Or maybe you should stage a bloody coup and take over the US government. And them you can give the media back to the people.

Good grief.
Or as I always like to say: God grief.

Susan,

Sorry! Last post should have read, "RE: My 8:37 post."

Phew! Still have a few more hours, and a lot of work!

Susan Jacoby,

Re: My 9:37 post

Imagine if you or your child were subject to this sort of thing on a daily basis. Imagine as well that it was by complete strangers who didn't know you or your politics. Some might not even know you are Jewish.

Imagine....

MichaelNJ:

You write:

And secondly, I don't get my knowledge of Zionism and the ME conflict from Wikipedia. Thanks for pointing that out, Farnaz2.
_________________
You're welcome!

Susan Jacoby:

I DO HOPE YOU'RE READING THIS THREAD. IN THE PAST, THERE WERE MORE OF THEM, GENERALLY PROVOKED BY THE QUESTIONS OF QUINN AND MEACHAM.

I GUESS NOW THAT MORE JEWS ARE BLOGGING AND BLOGGING MORE DIRECTLY, FEWER ARE CRAWLING OUT FROM DOWN UNDER, SO TO SPEAK (NO OFFENSE, ONOFRIO).

I WOULD LOVE TO SEE A RESPONSE FROM YOU. AFTER ALL, THEY ARE BLOGGING ON YOUR THREAD.

Regards,
Farnaz

To Farnaz2

I have greatly enjoyed reading your provocative posts. My own view until now has been that the Israelis are a racist, apartheid people who have brutalized the Palestinian people with the assistance of the British and US governments. Your posts have made me think about the possibility that we Christians have driven the Jews to adopt this racist attitude, because of our persecution of Jews, in return for their persecution of Jesus Christ. It’s enough to make one’s head hurt, as DanielInTheLionsDen says.

I still think that the Israelis are unjustly occupying the land which belongs to the millions of refugees in the camps of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Gaza. Although this conflict has a religious component, as Susan and some others maintain, religion is not the primary component. Common sense tells us that the primary component is survival. Revenge for past grievances is also a strong component, probably stronger than that of religious dogma.

U.S. and European reluctance to accept the Jewish refugees of WW II was the driving force that drove them to Palestine. Harry Truman knew that this was a mistake. He wanted to bring half of them to the America and find a home for the remainder in Europe. But alas, it was an election year, Dewey was killing him in the polls, and 60% of the American public was opposed to allowing the Jews to immigrate to the U.S. In my opinion, this conflict will continue until the Palestinian refugees are restored to the land that the Israelis now occupy, and it is not about religion. It is about human dignity and the right to own land.

Now what are these formidable forces that you speak of that are denying media access and preventing the media from speaking the truth? What are these perilous conditions that demand action? What do you know that we don’t know?

— Rick Jones, Fredericksburg, VA

Farnaz,

" However the modern racializing of Jews is the result of Christian propaganda that has been filtering in through the centuries, that greatly accelerated in the twentieth century with colonialism, improved communications, etc"

Yeah, the Jews have done nothing to racialize themselves right? Like making it a egregious offense for a Jew to marry a non Jew. Of course one can convert if one wants to marry a jew, but it's still not as preferable to the real deal. Sounds like Jew supremacy to me. And I'm pretty sure the claim is that God gave a parcel of land to the Jews before judaism was a religion. It seems he gave it to a race, not a religious denomination. Give me a break. If you are an atheist, why do you still identify as a Jew if the Jews are not a race?

Farnaz,

YOU: I'm glad you concede that you saw no footage of Iraq, Afghanistan, and child prostitutes in Syria on Charlie Rose. What is available on CNN and MSNBC is nothing.

I did not concede that. Only that I did not see pictures of the child prostitutes. I did however see, footage of refugee camps, collateral victims of the war, entire villages with no drinking water or electricity, amputees waiting for medical treatment, The Abu Garib torture photos, and on and on. All of this on CNN. And if you want to dig deeper than CNN, you can go to any one of thousands of websites and blogs that report all of this stuff you talk about 24/7.

YOU: "To repeat, friends of mine tried to take pictures of the child prostitutes in Damascus....... My friends' cameras were ripped from their hands and confiscated. One of them is a well-known journalist"

To repeat: By Americans??? Are you saying this was part of an American cover up by the government and corporate forces???

YOU: "I was in Afghanistan three months ago. I parked my car, and when I got out found I was stepping on what was left of a hand"

A hand blown off by American soldiers??? Or by militant extremists guided by God?? Do you know? Do you care?

YOU: "Huge interests are at stake here. Oil interests, media interests, marketing interests"

And the American people are aware of all of this. If they are not, it is their own lazy-ass apathetic fault, because the information is out there, and it's not buried deep. All of the things you mention in that last sentence above are talked about on CNN and MSNBC. Have you never watched Keith Oberman? He covers all of this stuff and calls Bush a war criminal every day.

YOU: "You really are doing nothing other than blustering. Bluster on. This is a pointless dialogue"

Oh man, you made almost to the end just debating the issues with no personal attacks. And then you blew it with that last line. You just couldn't help yourself, could you? I'm still waiting for an apology on the "bigot" accusation, or some back-up for this baseless demagoguery.

Farnaz,

YOU: "I did not say the media should be in the hands of the government. I said it should be in the Public Domain. These are two very different concepts.

And by what mechanism should the media be taken away from the free market and handed over to the public? By what force? By the current laws of the United States, anyone can start a media outlet. Anyone can become media. Anyone can contribute to the free press. The big corporations have the most influence in this sphere because they have the most money. What mechanism are you suggesting that should take this advantage away from private enterprise and put it into the hands of the people? And what people? Who's going to run the people's media, if not the government?

An important factor to note is that the giant media conglomerates are currently losing massive amounts of power thanks to the internet and the blogesphere. Most print newspapers are struggling to stay in business as the Huffington Post soars like an eagle. The people, thanks to the great equalizer (the internet) are organically reclaiming their power over the free press. Eventually television and the internet will meld (It's not that far off) and print newspapers will fail, and you will get your wish. We're almost there now. Like I said, the information that you get, is available to every American if they want to go and get it. But it doesn't seem that they do. They'd rather watch the latest buzz on Britney Spears, and that is why the media gives it to them. Not because someone in the government has control over the media and is telling them to keep America stupid. You didn't answer my question about Charlie Rose. Do you think that there is a corporation or government agency that dictates who he has on and what stories he covers? Do you think he cow tows?

YOU: "Moreover, with the media monopolies, whatever specious claim to competition may have existed no longer do"

Not true. The internet blogesphere is crushing the print media and putting them out of business as we speak.

YOU: "Further, government officials are highly involved at all three levels, a huge factor in determining what gets publicized and what does not"

Capital B, Capital S. Conspiracy theory with no evidence.
I know many journalists personally. They all tell me that they are free to cover any legitimate news story they come across. No restrictions by government or corporate interests. Are my friends part of the giant conspiracy? Are they lying to me?

And secondly, I don't get my knowledge of Zionism and the ME conflict from Wikipedia. Thanks for pointing that out, Farnaz2.

harveyh5:

Authoritative basis is an empty concept. The Jewish state was established because the Jews needed a state, not because of the 2,000 years old history. If they were left alone and allowed to live like regular citizens in the diaspora, there would have been no need for a state of their own and the state would never have been founded. The 2,000 year old history (actually more than 3,000, including the time the Jews had lived in Israel as a free nation before the exile) dictated only the choice of land. That was the only place in the world on which they had a historic claim. There's nothing false about this argument.

harveyh5, you write:

To MICHAELNJ, and others implying Zionism is a secular movement largely devoid of religious content:

The Wikipedia article on Zionism acknowledges the modern movement of Zionism as being mainly secular (by the way, what progressive movement hasn't been mainly secular?). However, the article also states the movement is partly based upon strong historical ties and religious traditions linking the Jewish people to the Land of Israel.

So while the Zionist ideology may not be fully religious in its core, it does have a biblical foundation. Hardly a false argument foisted on the non-religious or anti-religious. The false argument was made after World War II to use ancient, nearly 2,000 year old history, along with the Bible as a reference, as the authoritative basis to establish Israel.
______________

Huh? Wikipedia? What?

Wikipedia is not the font of all knowledge. The Zionist movement was and is secular. That said there is no single Zionism, but only Zionism(s). Better to state whose thinking you're referring to when you use the word. This could entail visiting web sites, reading articles, books, etc.

No need to reply. I offer only points of information and suggestions.
_____

Susan Jacoby:

You write:

Owned by whom?

I spend 95 percent of my time working on books about American intellectual history that have nothing to do with the questions raised in the "On Faith" forum. The books I have written--which take me years to write--reflect my primary interests and passions. They are what I hope to leave for scholars of future generations.

"On Faith" is the only blog to which I contribute on a regular basis, and it is not a good idea for someone who takes three to four years to write each book to be diverted, and devote too much energy, to writing about everything I could write about, if I had world enough and time.
_________________
You do write essays for other venues, including WaPo. If you tried to speak truth to power regarding the "War on Terror," I believe you know what would happen. WaPo and confederates would want nothing to do with your essay. Those who wish the best for you would try to steer you away.

Reason is meaningless if used merely to ponder over whether we or God or the universe exists. It means something when it is put into action, wedded to the truth, to morality. Blogs are no substitute for a Republic of Letters.

We have only the media to depend on. You certainly could write an essay for WaPo on media ownership. You could contact Mark Crispin Miller at New York University, who would be more than happy to assist, co-author, etc. What are the chances that it would find a place on the front page of the WaPo?
---------------------------
Do you recall the Gulf War? Precision bombing? American media speak? "The United States has developed such precise powerful weaponry..."

Americans, atheists, scientists, rationalists, empiricists of every stripe dutifully repeated these phrases throughout the country. Meanwhile throughout much of the world, Baghdad looked like the center of hell. I could go on with many, many more examples, among them Israel and what this country did to it during that war.

The point is clear. If you wish to see the country give reason a chance, then perhaps you could consider an essay on the forces preventing the media from speaking the truth. They are formidable. Power could and would attempt to deny media access to information.

But world conditions are perilous. Reason demands action.

To MICHAELNJ, and others implying Zionism is a secular movement largely devoid of religious content:

The Wikipedia article on Zionism acknowledges the modern movement of Zionism as being mainly secular (by the way, what progressive movement hasn't been mainly secular?). However, the article also states the movement is partly based upon strong historical ties and religious traditions linking the Jewish people to the Land of Israel.

So while the Zionist ideology may not be fully religious in its core, it does have a biblical foundation. Hardly a false argument foisted on the non-religious or anti-religious. The false argument was made after World War II to use ancient, nearly 2,000 year old history, along with the Bible as a reference, as the authoritative basis to establish Israel.

Onofrio:

Farnaz (Persis) thanks you for your gracious post. She thinks you are a scholar and a poet, with or without portfolio.

Susan Jacoby

Farnazz:

Owned by whom?

I spend 95 percent of my time working on books about American intellectual history that have nothing to do with the questions raised in the "On Faith" forum. The books I have written--which take me years to write--reflect my primary interests and passions. They are what I hope to leave for scholars of future generations.

"On Faith" is the only blog to which I contribute on a regular basis, and it is not a good idea for someone who takes three to four years to write each book to be diverted, and devote too much energy, to writing about everything I could write about, if I had world enough and time.

Susan Jacoby:

You write:

“And the hatred of militant Islamists for Jews is based on religion as well as politics, and incorporates many elements of traditional anti-Semitism.”

That which holds true for many Christians (of whatever branch, secular or observant) also holds true for Muslims. Antisemitism has nothing to do with Judaism, has a considerable amount to do with Quran. However the modern racializing of Jews is the result of Christian propaganda that has been filtering in through the centuries, that greatly accelerated in the twentieth century with colonialism, improved communications, etc. The nazi era was a high point, but the exporting of Christian antisemitism continued through the nineties.

At this point, while Islamic and Christian antisemitism overlap, are identical on some issues (e.g., the Jews control Wall Street, control elections, etc.), Muslim antisemitism has been Islamicized.

This is not to say, of course, that all Christians or all Muslims are bigots or anti-Jewish racists.

Susan:

"Would Zionists have been equally happy had they been offered a piece of land in Scandanavia?" Perhaps they would have. The reason they chose Israel was precisely that. They knew that no nation would offer them a piece of its own land, and that they would have to fight for a country of their own. In the words of Theodore Herzl: “A state is not handed on a silver tray”. The choice to return to their ancestral homeland provided the moral justification for their struggle and the realization of the dreams of many earlier generations of Jews in the diaspora.

“It is certainly true that the founders of the state of Israel never envisaged a situation in which secular Jews would be subject to the religious dictates of the ultra-Orthodox, but that is what has happened as a result of demography.” “Subject to the religious dictates” is a huge exaggeration. The ultra orthodox fiercely protect their little fiefdoms within Israeli law, namely the laws of marriage and divorce and the Sabbath. Other than that they pretty much leave the secular majority alone. In any event, this is an internal Israeli matter which has no bearing on the conflict with the Palestinians.

“And the hatred of militant Islamists for Jews is based on religion as well as politics, and incorporates many elements of traditional anti-Semitism.” I would agree with that for the most part, but the fact is, much of that antisemitism is expressed in trying to portray the Zionist ideology as religious in its core, based on some biblical promise. Arab propaganda is using this false argument with great success to push the buttons of uninformed Westerners who are non-religious or anti-religious. It’s one thing when some gullible poster recycles the lies propagated by this or the other Muslim cleric. It’s quite another when it comes from the Washington Post.

Susan Jacoby, Timmy, and All:

On the media irresponsibility, here is a case in point. Below is a post requesting that Susan Jacoby address questions about our "War on Terror" (war on innocents, war of slaughter, war for oil). She has access to information just as I do, and could start publishing essays and articles that focus on media delinquency in reporting on the carnage. But she won't. With all due respect, she is owned. She'd risk being shut out, marginalized. She have to identify high powered, like minded people and take an activist stance. (Much as I respect Garafolo, Jacoby would need stronger voices.) Will she do it? Will she speak truth to power? (Will she even begin by doing the leg work she hasn't done for her current piece?)
______________________________
Farnaz2 Author Profile Page:

Susan Jacoby:

Any thoughts on this? That is, on the media blackouts, particularly, in Iraq and Afghanistan (four million dollars a day).
----------------

I wonder why we are being asked this question, which is not framed properly, instead of one much closer to home, and more relevant to us.

This would be a question for Atheists, Agnostics, Believers, for all Champions of Reason.

Is it reasonable that in a democracy, the people are deprived of knowing the ongoing effects of

A. A catastrophic hurricane in their own country.

B. The situation on the ground, with film and pictures, in Iraq, to include, of course, the remaining difficulty getting water, health care, food. The refugees, the homeless.

The Iraqi child prostitutes in Damascus, boys and girls whom Arabs from all over the Middle East come to have sex with.

C. The situation in Afghanistan. The continual screaming, crying, the limbs, feet, hands you step on when you park your car. The Reign of Terror, shock and awe bombing for seven years.

Is it reasonable that a democracy that spends billions of dollars on this horror is prevented from seeing the results? From knowing?

Is it consistent with Religion that this should continue?

With Reason?

Is it consistent with Reason, Religion that this is done in our name, with our money and the media shows us nothing?

Just wondering....

Timmy,

Try to read the article written by Avi Shlaim, an Oxford professor who served in the Israeli army:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-palestine

"As so often in the tragic history of Palestine, the victims were blamed for their own misfortunes. Israel's propaganda machine persistently purveyed the notion that the Palestinians are terrorists, that they reject coexistence with the Jewish state, that their nationalism is little more than antisemitism, that Hamas is just a bunch of religious fanatics and that Islam is incompatible with democracy. But the simple truth is that the Palestinian people are a normal people with normal aspirations. They are no better but they are no worse than any other national group. What they aspire to, above all, is a piece of land to call their own on which to live in freedom and dignity."...

Susan Jacoby:

If you've read my posts and those of others, then you should be able to gather that the founding of Israel has and had nothing to do with religion, that is, with the Jewish religion. It has a great deal to do with the Christians (generically speaking) who from Constantine on, racialized Jewish identity and began a campaign of slaughter that continues to this day.

I'm assuming you read my post on the Vulgate and Jewish "horns." From the start, from the NT on Jewish identity has been both occulted and imbued with a material force, i.e., racialized. The persecution, wholesale slaughter, mass murder, genocide of Jews originated with NT distortions and the "conversion" of Constantine. As countless historians and theologians have explained, Christianity was necessary but not sufficient.

What was needed was the wedding of Christianity with nation states, begun with Constantine, in whose interest it was to seek scapegoats. At this, Christendom has been remarkably successful as the particularizing and demonizing of Jews continues to the present. One reads everywhere, notably from WaPo bloggers that "the Jews control the economy, are responsible for the Iraq war, caused the recession, control Wall Street," etc.

These are simply the most recent distortions of highly developed racializing propaganda originating among the German and French Christians and spread throughout the world, beginning in the nineteenth century.

From the beginnings until now, there has been a Jewish presence in Eretz Israel. We have the Mishnah of Judah HaNasi completed in the second century, the Talmud Yershalmi (Jerusalem Talmud), completed in the fourth and fifth centuries, correspondence between Jerusalem and Babylon, diaries, letters, etc. up to and including the present.

Zionism began as a secular movement with different strands. For a long time, the socialist strand prevailed. Movement to Israel began in force in the late nineteenth century, primarily by the kinds of people who would become the Zionist Bundt, a socialist, godless bunch.

When Israel declared its independence from Great Britian, which had murdered people fleeing Hitler, sank a boat, killed Jews in the street, IT DID NOT ASK THE US FOR PERMISSION. The Israeli Declaration of Independence is on the web.

This is a subject that gives me a migraine headache, and I do not llike to spend much time trying to figure it out. However, in the past, I did come to a few conclusions, which mostly I have never communicated to anyone.

The states of the modern-day Middle East are the shattered remains of the Ottoman Empire. The Arab states seem arbitratily drawn, and the governments that rule over them seem artificial and with no real legitimacy, except by force of arms. There are kings and princes, and potentates, and strong-men. The Arab people over whom they rule seem apathetic and excluded from the fundamental operations of their own societies. There is no nationalism among these artificial states; they are, in fact, not nations states at all, but a disconnected, conflicted, patchwork of artificial fiefdoms.

Of all the Arabs, the only ones that seem to have a real sense of nationallity are the Palestineans, who, of course, do not have a state.

Timmy:

Timmy: That's called the government. What you just said is "I strongly believe the Government should run the media". News flash, the media IS in the hands of the public. It is run by corporations but it is a democracy. The people vote with their eyes. The media gives the people what they want to see. That's how they make money. If you want somebody dictating what gets on the news, that's called government.

Me: I did not say the media should be in the hands of the government. I said it should be in the Public Domain. These are two very different concepts.

At the moment, the media is in the hands of large corporations, with multinational shareholders.
They own or are owned by other highly interested Corporations which market their products through the media via advertising agencies which are hugely invested with both the "producers" and the networks. Moreover, with the media monopolies, whatever specious claim to competition may have existed no longer do.

Further, government officials are highly involved at all three levels, a huge factor in determining what gets publicized and what does not.

YOU: I've seen footage of the horrors in this war on CNN and MSNBC. I've seen reporters and pundits in the mainstream media saying the most nasty things about the Bush Administration and taking them to task for everything they have done wrong. I see John Stewart on TV every night ripping Bush a new poop shoot. I've seen Al Franken and Jenine Garafalo and Greg Proops, and countless more calling Bush a war criminal and calling attention to the hundreds of thousands of civilian victims and refugees from these wars. On CNN! I've seen the movie Zeitgeist with it's incredibly researched 911 conspiracy theory, and damning expose on the financial system.

All of the information is available to the American people. The only people keeping information from the American people are the American people.

ME: I'm glad you concede that you saw no footage of Iraq, Afghanistan, and child prostitutes in Syria on Charlie Rose. What is available on CNN and MSNBC is nothing.

To repeat, friends of mine tried to take pictures of the child prostitutes in Damascus, Iraqi children who are selling themselves to Arabs who come to have sex with them from all over the Middle East. My friends' cameras were ripped from their hands and confiscated. One of them is a well-known journalist.

I was in Afghanistan three months ago. I parked my car, and when I got out found I was stepping on what was left of a hand.

Huge interests are at stake here. Oil interests, media interests, marketing interests. You really are doing nothing other than blustering. Bluster on. This is a pointless dialogue.

Susan: You are correct that this is a theological conflict--a fact overlooked/ignored by politicians of all stripes. One side will emerge victorious. I am staking my bets on the God of the Bible who promised the land to Abraham and his descendants. In fact they will one day (soon) possess all the land between the Euphrates and Nile rivers.

Susan Jacoby

To MichaelNJ:

You are absolutely right about the secular intellectual origins of Zionism, but the location of the Jewish homeland was determined by religious tradition. Would Zionists have been equally happy had they been offered a piece of land in Scandanavia? It is certainly true that the founders of the state of Israel never envisaged a situation in which secular Jews would be subject to the religious dictates of the ultra-Orthodox, but that is what has happened as a result of demography. And the hatred of militant Islamists for Jews is based on religion as well as politics, and incorporates many elements of traditional anti-Semitism. By now, the anti-rational factors in this violent equation completely outweigh rational political grievances.

The land issue:

The formation of Israel was approved by the UN in 1948. Israel should honor the original UN agreement and live within the described borders. Considering the hate generated by passages in the koran and OT, erecting dividing walls between Muslims and Jews was/is a great idea. UN forces should now control these walls.

And Jerusalem should be made into an international city under the control and protection of the UN.

The nuclear weapons' issue:

Large scale aggression by the Arabs ceased when Israel got some nukes.

Iran's terror campaign extends way beyond the Israeli issue as it wishes to make Islam the world's religion and its suicide mentality makes this Axis of Evil a significant danger to global peace and even more so if they are allowed to have nuclear weapons.

Unfortunately, nukes play the role of "peace" keepers replacing religions/social systems which should play the "pax" role but do not because of the "my god/prophet/social system is better than your god/prophet/social system" syndrome.

Iran's commitment to Islamic domination of the globe to include suicide bombing and support of terror as weapons to that end is something to be very concerned about and is one of the major reasons the USA is still in Iraq.

The irony is that Islam's commitment to world domination is founded on mythical communications from a mythical "pretty, wingie, talking thingie".
And one billion global citizens continue to be brainwashed in this significant stupidity.

And the Jews somehow still cling to the significant stupid idea that they are god's chosen people.

Ms. Jacoby,
I respect your response to the many posts critiquing your original essay on religion and the I/P conflict. In my response to your essay, I was trying to show that the conflict is a tribal conflict. Religion is only one component of tribal identity along with language, shared history, and a shared sense of ethnicity. The canker at the heart of the conflict is tribalism, of which religion is one strong component. Sometimes the I/P conflict has been seen in terms of pan Arabism (tribalism), revolt against the European opppressor (assertion of tribal identity), and finally as Islamism against Judaism (really the most primal of tribal struggles). As we have seen in Rwanda, with Hutu against Tutsi, similar amounts of violence are inherent in tribal conflicts even when religion is not a strong component. Rwanda is perhaps the best example of tribalism run amok. The Israeli Palestinian conflict is based in ethnicity and tribalism, in which the role of religion sometimes flags and sometimes strongly emerges. Clearly religion is a very strong motivator to violence, but even in its absence, the strong tribal ties of human culture can be used to inflame violence. Religion is merely one indicator of tribal identity. In the West and Middle East it is a strong indicator, because it has bound us together so strongly. It is almost impossible to purge humans of their tribal identities, but maybe that is what secularism is all about. Maybe secularists are really about purging us of our tribal identities, which in the West are so strongly tied to religion.

Susan

I re-read your essay, as you suggested. For the most part, it does make alot of sense. When people deny that the problem is about religion, that is not true.

I myself, do personally believe, that for the most part, this is a religious conflict, and that whatever religion is, a socially motivating cultural feature that seeks to control political power, whatever, that this is a clash of contrasting and conflicing fanaticims.

Otherwise, it should not be so hard to figure out a solution.

Just look at the ugliness on these threads in general over matters of religion, and on this question, in particular, to see the awful, awful face of religious Fundamentalism.

To Susan

I agree with you, as I said, that many will never agree to a two state solution based on religious dogma. I did not say it is a purely political conflict. However, in my opinion, the majority of both Israelis and Arabs are more concerned with the practical matter of land ownership. It may not be much to look at, but to the 5 million refugees in the squalid camps of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Gaza, who were expelled from their homes by force during the wars of 1948 and 1967, it is home sweet home.

And to the hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees in Europe following WW II it also appeared to be home sweet home. Of course they were assisted in coming to this conclusion by the British Balfour Declaration: “His Majesty would view with favor the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine”. Why did the British issue this declaration? I suspect that the palms were greased by the AIPAC lobbyist of the time; i.e. the wealthy Barron von Rothschild and others of his ilk. I admit that the Zionist movement founded by Theodore Herzl was also a motivator. But this movement resulted in a very small Jewish population in Palestine at the time of the 1917 Balfour Declaration. That is when the immigration movement really gathered steam.

So while you see religion as being the canker at the heart of the violence, I see vengeance resulting from a brutalized people forced from their homes into squalid refugee camps and by 60 years of squabbling over stolen land as being the canker. How can we settle this difference of opinion? I guess we can’t because it is simply a matter of opinion.

To Timmy2, my argument is much the same. The fact that the majority of Arabs want to see the expulsion of Israel from Palestine does not prove that it is about religion. You and I would feel the same if any occupier, regardless of religion, forced us from our homes.

— Rick Jones, Fredericksburg, VA

Ms. Jacoby:

"this piece of earth was chosen as a Jewish homeland" not for religious reasons but for historic reasons. The Zionist movement was founded by secular people and the Zionist ideology had nothing to do with any divine promise. It was based entirely on the premise that the Jewish nation had been afflicted throughout history by the lack of a country of its own, and that having a country like all other nations was the only solution to the "Jewish Problem". The First Zionist Congress considered other alternatives, but concluded that Israel, the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people, was the only place on which it had a historic claim. The first waves of Jewish immigration to Israel, in the 19th and early 20th century, were made up almost entirely of non-religious people who immigrated for non-religious reasons.

There is enough acrimony and divisiveness around this issue without the need to add imaginary components to mix. Portraying the Israeli motives as religious, which they are not, serves only to muddy up the debate and further inflame the emotions.

Susan Jacoby

For all of you who did not read my essay carefully, I did not say that religion is the only factor in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but that it is the canker at the heart of the violence. Those who wish to see this as a purely political conflict about land and justice--a group that includes secularists as well as religious believers--would deny the very reason why this piece of earth was chosen as a Jewish homeland and why Muslims are determined to reclaim the same land. If it weren't for the Bible and the Koran, we wouldn't even be discussing the competing claims of two groups to a fairly inhospitable area with few natural resources (no oil, remember) and a lot of desert that must be held back continuously to facilitate agriculture.

Hey Rick,

"However, it does not follow that the majority of Jews or Arabs or Democrats or Republicans agree with everything that is in these documents"

IMHO, it does indeed follow that the majority of Arabs in Palestine agree with the ultimate expulsion of Israel. That's why they elected Hamas. If they preferred peace, they could have had it. They could have elected a group pushing for peace and a two state solution.

But I don't blame the Arabs. It's not their fault that they have been brainwashed since birth by an archaic backward religion. I blame the religion. I blame Mohammed. I also blame the Jewish orthodox, and their backward religious beliefs. Although I agree with you, that they do not represent a majority of the Israelites.

CCNL, And Terra 2008,

I second your most recent posts. Well said.
Pretending that this conflict is not religious based is as delusional as the religions themselves.

Hey Terra2008

Thanks for the reply. I was aware of the general gist of the Hamas Charter that you have kindly provided excerpts from. Just as I can provide similar words from the Jewish leader Ben Gurion relative to the entire land of the original British Mandate of Palestine stating that all this land was bequeathed by God to Jews, including Jordan. Just as I can provide words from the Democratic and Republican Planks that are inserted to please the left and right wing nut jobs. However, it does not follow that the majority of Jews or Arabs or Democrats or Republicans agree with everything that is in these documents. The Palestinians (Gazans for now and soon to be West Bankers as well) follow Hamas because Hamas is the resistance to the Israeli grab of Palestinian lands, while the PNA of Abbas is the collaborator with Israel and the US.

— Rick Jones, Fredericksburg, VA

To Rick Jones:

Sorry Rick, but the Hamas fight has very little to do with the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank.

I advise you take a look at the Hamas Charter. It starts with: "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (preamble)." and continues with : "It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine" (article six), " followed by ""The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (article seven) and "The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up", "This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Moslems have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Moslems consecrated these lands to Moslem generations till the Day of Judgement" (article eleven).

Is there any reason not to believe them?

Wow, what a great post. It's sad how far this opinion sticks from the rest of the accepted dialogue regarding conflict in the Middle East. I don't get sentimental thinking about world politics that often nor do I try to imagine my perspective winning out, but Jacoby makes me pine for a world free of religion.

It's frustrating knowing how far we have yet to go, but reading Jacoby always invigorates me.

Harvey H5

Great post.
After how the Jews were treated by Hitler's Germany, It is important to note that had Israel been set up near, or in part of Germany, a conflict between the Germans and the Israelites, would not be continuing to this day, as is the case in Palestine, because the Germans are not religious zealots. Even if they had some land struggles in the beginning, the issue would be resolved long ago, because religion would not be blocking the path to peace.

I still don't know why the Jews didn't go for Brazil.
Oh yeah. God promised them the holy land.
But it has nothing to do with religion. It's about land and justice. lol

Nana Brown,

"Sorry Susan but I don't think you know much about the region, nor enough about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is not a question of religion for the Palestinians, but a question of land"

Then why did Hamas declare it was all about God, and why did the people elect Hamas?

The three worse books ever written.

1. The koran whose foundations are based on the hallucinations of one long-dead, womanizing, and warmongering Arab

2. The mostly mythical OT and related mumbo jumbo extensions.

3. The highly embellished, sometimes fictionalized NT where Jesus, an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man was turned into a son of god by P, M, M, L and J.

These three books/operating manuals are, in many respects, the source of the problems of the current Palestine/Israeli conflict. Declaring these books null and void will go a long way in removing the roadblocks to peace not only in the Mideast but also globally.

Capn Ahab,

"In a sense, secularism is a religion to Susan Jacoby, and it allows her to blame everything that happens in the I/P conflict on religion. Either she has not read the history of the conflict very thoroughly, or she is so driven to blaming the worlds ills on religion that she has forgotten history"

Or maybe she is taking Hamas at their word, that God is the only issue.

The Moderate,

Couldn't agree more with your last post. Right down the line. Thank you for the wise words.

Ironically, orthodox religion seems to be the continuing blockade to either side taking the high ground. Oh the hypocrisy.

Susan has a valid argument. Accordingly, a large part of the solution is for the United States to acknowledge that the original establishment of Israel was a mistake, a decision based on religion, not logic and common sense. If a logical decision had been made on a Jewish homeland after World War II, Israel would be on former German land and a current neighbor of Germany. As a start to his administration, President Obama could acknowledge and apologize to the Arab world for that faulty decision, but then emphasize we can't go back, but can only move forward and work with and support, emotionally and financially, only those on either side of the conflict who have a peaceful intent.

"In the end justice is the only road to peace. The Palestinians are a noble and highly intelligent people living in grinding poverty with no hope but revenge. So they are fertile ground for Hamas teachers of hate.
Posted by the Moderate

So true, so sad. I have often said "No justice, no peace," is not a motto, it's math. In order to break this cycle, we have to understand two things. One, oppression alway leads to violence, and two, our weapons tech means we can no longer afford that violence.

In the past, when a people were beaten down, they generally couldn't lash back effectivly. High-tech weapons have changed all this. Now, a couple of guys with a BS in biochemistry and an internet connection can launch a plague. Six guys can hijack and crash jet liners. This new reality makes oppression a non-starter.

Historical empires, the behavior of which is always cited as justification, never had to deal with all this. Rome never could have enslaved a large portion of the classical world if the Celts had access to suitcase nukes. We'll either figure this out, or go down in flames.

Sorry Susan but I don't think you know much about the region, nor enough about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is not a question of religion for the Palestinians, but a question of land. Their land and homes were grabbed from them by the zionists. Since 1947, the Palestinians- either atheists, moderate Muslims or fudamentalists- - have been suffering oppression, exile, imprisonment and massacres. Israelis think they are the chosen people of God , and their state is built on the religious myth of the Promised Land.

They have to wake up and use an intelligent approach to reach real peace with the Palestinians who will not be subjugated whatever the means used for that purpose.

The world is getting tired of the story of the persecuted elected people of God!! If you look at the history of humanity, there are no people who have not suffered the oppression of others at a certain point (native Americans, African Americans, South- Africans...etc.), yet life goes on and peace has been reached!! It's true that we have to learn lessons from our history in order to prevent the same mistakes. Unfortunately,the Israelishaven't learnt much from their own history and are committing crimes against their neighbours.They are no longer victims and their folly will bring more destruction and more death -not only to the Palestinians!!

It is NOT a religious conflict, it is purely political and serves the interests of many outside the region. Let us stop some "intellectual" games which only add more confusion to an extremely complex and dangerous situation.

Hello Susan, CCNL and Peter,

Good to see you. I have been away far too long. For what it is worth, I disagree with your (Susan’s) take on this subject, which is a very rare occasion indeed. True, there are many who, as you say, will never agree to a two state settlement based on religious dogma. But I think for most it is just an old fashioned fight over an attempted (and so far successful) land grab.

But it is doomed to failure. As long as Israel occupies Palestinian land, with 5 million Palestinian Refugees stuck in the horrid conditions of camps in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Gaza; Iran is the regional power in the driver’s seat and Israel is on the receiving end of ever more advanced and stealthy, more powerful, longer range, more accurate (GPS guided) missile attack from all points of the compass and from anywhere in the Middle East as time and technology advance.

Has anyone heard from Victoria and the Jihadist lately?

— Rick Jones, Fredericksburg, VA

In a sense, secularism is a religion to Susan Jacoby, and it allows her to blame everything that happens in the I/P conflict on religion. Either she has not read the history of the conflict very thoroughly, or she is so driven to blaming the worlds ills on religion that she has forgotten history. The original war to destroy Israel in 1948 was driven by fanatic Arab nationalism and a desire to divide up the remaining land of Mandate Palestine between Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. Then came the banner of pan Arabism under Gamel Abdul Nasser, and the 1968 war to destroy Israel in the name of pan Arabism. Only after the failure of pan Arabism to destroy Israel did Islamism arise with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the fall of the Shah of Iran in Tehran Iran (a non Arab but Islamic country). It was the inability of secular and nationalistic pan Arabism to destroy Israel that led to the rise of the Islamic struggle to destroy Israel. The fall back on fundamentalist Islamic religion is due to the failure of secular ideologies to solve the problems in the Arab/Islamic world. I am surprised that someone who gets to write for the Wash. Post does not understand the history of the struggle. Really surprising...

Don't turn around, the Golem is about!!!!!

The issue with Israel and Jews is not so much religion as it is safety and existence. There is no doubt the the Palestinians have a claim but for Jews that's not the point. You, and a lot of the rest of the world, have chosen to forget the Holocaust. That very fact, that you chose to forget, just emphasizes the ultimate danger in Jewish minds.

Israel is the only place in the world where Jews are protected by Jewish guns. Muslims face no such danger. They have a good part of the world. There is no existential threat. Israel would like nothing more than to live in peace. But if the Muslim world will not permit it, so be it. Better to fight and exist than again walk into the gas chambers because of the likes of you.

The only opinion I've read on this subject that makes an honest assessment of why this bitter and age old struggle endures.

Susan - I pray everyday that you are wrong....I, too, see much truth in what you say and agree that fundamentalist Christians, Jews and Muslims have a dangerous bent when it comes to seeing only their point of view from their religions as they see them. Being a non-denominational Christian, I try to take the words of Jesus and hope for peace in the world. He said "Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you---bless them that curse you and pray for them which despitefully use you...unto him that smites thee on the one cheek, offer also the other..." I pray that all of the peoples in these religions are able to come together and love one another. I do hope (though I admit that I may be wrong) that the Israelis (many of them belong to groups such as Jewish Voices for Peace and J Street) and the Palestinians (many despite their travails are working for peace) and many Christians also pray for peace in that area of the world are able to convince the Israeli's and the Palestinians that respecting one another and allowing each to practice their religions and have a viable country for their people takes nothing from them (indeed gives them everything). I really miss Rabin who would have helped in these times. May peace be with all who read this message.

I remember reading an essay sometime ago, I forget by whom, titled "Why I Am a Pagan," in which the author, raised as a believer, found all his religious beliefs slipping away until he was left with only the conviction that if people didn't fear God, they would all go wild. He expressed this to a Buddhist priest, I think it was, who asked him why he thought so, and pointed out that if people are basically good, they wouldn't quit being so without a god. To which I would add the question, "Would you?" And if you answer that in the affirmative, which is what so many religions teach their people, that they are intrinsically evil, and really believe that without god YOU would suddenly be free to pull a Raskalnikov, acting out your axe-murdering fantasies with delight and impunity, then I would say that, yeah, maybe such religions are a good thing. But excuse me if I don't want to get myself into a big room with a couple hundred of you every Sunday.

Christians, Jews, and Muslims have killed and anathemized one another for centuries over obscure theological doctrines; Christians and Muslims are even killed perhaps more of their own people deemed in error than those of another reliigon. And both have made Jewish life miserable for at least 1500 years. It is clear not only that religion is intellectually nonsensical but that morally it is evil.

Timmy,

"death to anyone who calls Islam a violent religion"

LOL. I have to laugh, even though this really does summarize part of the Middle East peace problem.

The other is that Israel absolutely has to find a course to the moral high ground while guarding its safety.

Many say that the oil wealth of the Middle East could have made Palestinian lands a paradise by now and the the situation is being manipulated to Israel's disadvantage. That is true, but it is also true the Palestinians were displaced by the creation of the state of Israel. Something has to be done for them to make them whole. As long as they are oppressed (and they are by all parties to the Arab-Israeli conflict for various reasons) there will be no peace.

The US should lead the creation of an International Palestinian Redevelopment Fund. Some of the money will have to come from the House of Saud, some from the States, some from the EU, and some from Japan and Korea, and others as well. This endless war costs the world far more than fixing the problems would.

The Palestinian territories must be respected and no further colonization by Israel must be allowed. I remember when Gaza was given a degree of independence, some good housing stock was bulldozed into rubble before Israel turned the territory over. What a tragedy that was. That kind of thing just has to stop.

A man who knew a thing or two about war once said:

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense."

--- Dwight D. Eisenhower, April 16, 1953

Farnaz,

Good no-longer-night, but day. Such is the faraway delay, that makes me but the noisy sub-floor kobold of the witching hour.

I see you tussle with Tim, and he galumphs triumphal. Ah, too soon. He's eaten by his own penumbra even as he crows his dawn.

No poet, nor a scholar me, although I trespass crazily on turf of each - a doggerel-mongrelising stick insectoid voice, is all.

Rest ye, sweet-fierce Persis.

Farnaz,

PS: I guarantee you I've seen more of your country than you have. I've toured all across America zig zagging it several times, visiting over a hundred cities. I've met the people. Most of them are nothing like New York Jews. You are not representative. You do not need to get offended when I call them apathetic. I don't mean you.

Farnaz,

Continued,

YOU: "When you can't argue on your own mysterious terms you simply negate what others say"

Here we go with the "terms" argument again. I'm just giving my opinion. How on earth could I possibly set any terms? You can rebut any way you like. What terms????? They are "mysterious" because they don't exist.

YOU: "You were fun for a period, but you have become a tiresome bore"

Awww. I'm not fun anymore? lol. You can stop reading my posts any time you like. But if you post BS, I'm going to call you on it. You don't know what the word deprived means if you think the American people are deprived of the truth. That's like saying people who live in an orchard are deprived of food because they're too lazy to reach up and pick a piece of fruit.

YOU: "What the hell are you talking about? Charlie Rose never showed pictures of any of this"

He's too classy for that. But he has guests on who talk about all of the horrors of these wars. Are you calling Charlie Rose for being in the pocket? On the take. Part of the conspiracy?

YOU: The private ownership of the media is relatively recent. Even PBS is still partly owned by the public, but that's another point. I strongly believe that the media should be in the public domain"

LOL. That's called the government. What you just said is "I strongly believe the Government should run the media". News flash, the media IS in the hands of the public. It is run by corporations but it is a democracy. The people vote with their eyes. The media gives the people what they want to see. That's how they make money. If you want somebody dictating what gets on the news, that's called government.

I've seen footage of the horrors in this war on CNN and MSNBC. I've seen reporters and pundits in the mainstream media saying the most nasty things about the Bush Administration and taking them to task for everything they have done wrong. I see John Stewart on TV every night ripping Bush a new poop shoot. I've seen Al Franken and Jenine Garafalo and Greg Proops, and countless more calling Bush a war criminal and calling attention to the hundreds of thousands of civilian victims and refugees from these wars. On CNN! I've seen the movie Zeitgeist with it's incredibly researched 911 conspiracy theory, and damning expose on the financial system.

All of the information is available to the American people. The only people keeping information from the American people are the American people.

Farnaz,

YOU: "You know what? Your posting is pathetic"

Atta girl. Your secular faith serves you well I see. I never act like this. I never name call. I just give my opinions, and do so politely. Not politely to bad ideas and delusional beliefs, but politely to people. Until they call be a bigot that is. Then they can get stuffed.

YOU: You don't live here and you have no idea what you're talking about.

Actually I just moved back to Canada after 4 years living in California. And I most certainly do know what I am talking about.

YOU: You haven't seen these pictures, unless someone smuggled them to you on the web.

How did you see them? Did someone smuggle them to you on the web? You searched them out because you are not apathetic. But most of your country is.

YOU: "If you have, then you tell me where to find pictures of the boy and girl prostitutes on the streets of Damascus"

I haven't seen the pics, but I read about it on the Huffington post. I don't think I need to see the pics.

YOU: " I have friends whose cameras were pulled out of their hands and confiscated when they attempted to take pictures"

By Americans??????

YOU: "The same is true of Iraque and Afghanistan. I was in Afghanistan three months ago. And the hell on earth is something one must see to be believed"

I was in Afghanistan 6 months ago. It is awful. I saw a backward country with people deluded by an archaic religion. I saw horror caused by a country held back in the stone age by religion. All I could think about was how unnecessary this all was. These people are all brainwashed since birth. I saw Canadian troops putting their hearts and souls into helping these people, and dying along with them in a fight for liberation from 7th century tyranny.

YOU: "You write like a two-year-old"

do not do not do not do not do not do not.

The Moderate,

I agree. I'm still all for the "bomb them with food" strategy. You are right, people will die, but people are dying now. And by "bomb them with food" I mean a broad based plan that includes a lot more than food, of course. As we all know, if any of these religious factions actually started acting like the peaceful religion they claim to be, this of course would have been over before it started. It can all be summed up in a placard I saw at a muslim demonstration in London. The placard said (with no sense of irony) "death to anyone who calls Islam a violent religion". He wasn't joking.

But I would love to see Israel, and the entire world try a revolutionary love strategy. Bomb them with food and water, and electricity, and education, and some Dan Dennet and Richard Dawkins books maybe. But let's just start with the food and water and electricity, and then let's just hook them all up with the uncensored internet and put the real fear of God into Hamas. Of course Hamas has the internet now, but the last thing it wants, is for it's people to get a peek at the outside world, uncensored.

My latest God is the internet. It truly is the new bible. The sum total of all human wisdom and knowledge mixed with porn and violence.

Observer,

For you. Good night, my friend.

Of Three Or Four in the Room

Out of three or four in the room
One is always standing at the window.
Forced to see the injustice amongst the thorns,
The fires on the hills.

And people who left whole
Are brought home in the evening, like small change.

Out of three or four in the room
One is always standing at the window.
Hair dark above his thoughts.
Behind him, the words, wandering, without luggage,
Hearts without provision, prophecies without water
Big stones put there
Standing, closed like letters
With no addresses; and no one to receive them.

-Yehuda Amichai

Onofrio,

So, I was correct. You said you were a scholar of religion, if I am not mistaken? But clearly, you are also a poet, a very accomplished one, at that.

Good night, my friend of the Austral Fundament.

Farnaz

Dear Observer,

Thank you so much for the beautiful Amichai poem. I guess you know he wrote others on Jerusalem. I am so grateful that he has been decently translated. My modern Hebrew is very weak. (That is not good.) Here is another Amichai poem that I love.

Wildpeace

Not the peace of a cease-fire
not even the vision of the wolf and the lamb,
but rather
as in the heart when the excitement is over
and you can talk only about a great weariness.
I know that I know how to kill, that makes me an adult.
And my son plays with a toy gun that knows
how to open and close its eyes and say Mama.
A peace
without the big noise of beating swords into ploughshares,
without words, without
the thud of the heavy rubber stamp: let it be
light, floating, like lazy white foam.
A little rest for the wounds - who speaks of healing?
(And the howl of the orphans is passed from one generation
to the next, as in a relay race:
the baton never falls.)

Let it come
like wildflowers,
suddenly, because the field
must have it: wildpeace.

Translated by Chana Bloch

Cherie Farnaz,

This is for you.

If I forget thee, Jerusalem,
Then let my right be forgotten.
Let my right be forgotten, and my left remember.
Let my left remember, and your right close
And your mouth open near the gate.

I shall remember Jerusalem
And forget the forest -- my love will remember,
Will open her hair, will close my window,
will forget my right,
Will forget my left.

If the west wind does not come
I'll never forgive the walls,
Or the sea, or myself.
Should my right forget
My left shall forgive,
I shall forget all water,
I shall forget my mother.

If I forget thee, Jerusalem,
Let my blood be forgotten.
I shall touch your forehead,
Forget my own,
My voice change
For the second and last time
To the most terrible of voices --
Or silence.

Yehuda Amichai

Nearly nipped was the bloody bud
of Alexander, Gaza-side.
There, son of Zeus was chewed as cud,
took a wound, and could've died.

As for this thread,

And so is flung a further blog
that shrugs toward the bitter slog.
What can it say that hasn't been
already screamed, in flags of green
or bombs exact that ever kiss
the neighbours dead with every miss?

PSEUDO,

Continued from the previous thread...

Thanks for your doggerel, sir. Here be mine, in appreciation:

As to the issue of your rimes:
the modes that God has donned betimes,
I merely vent my silly spleen
on icy huffs from a wind-machine
that proffer threat of ever-toasting
for all of my unbiblic boasting.
I've woven words, conveyed my bit
of bootless ire and shabby wit,
and all's adrift now, drowned in flows
of merciless cant and versy shows,
and blinkered bilious pasted cuts
from supercilious bilious nuts,
though here and there an easeful eddy
of insight ripe or wisdom ready
redeems the river's noise, and blesses
all to whom the truth confesses.

CCNL:

This is so that you can have a rough idea of who Akiva was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akiba_ben_Joseph

CCNL:

THIS IS SO THAT YOU CAN LAUGH IN THE FACE OF ADVERSITY:

The Laughter of Akiva

Once, several years after the destruction of the Holy Temple, Rabban Gamliel, Rabbi Eliezer ben Azarya, Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva were going up to Jerusalem. When they reached Mt. Scopus, the site of the Temple came into view, and they tore their garments in mourning. When they reached the Temple Mount, they saw a fox dart out from the spot where the Holy of Holies had stood in the Holy Temple. The other rabbis began to weep, but Rabbi Akiva laughed. They said to him: "Akiva, you never cease to amaze us. We are crying, and you laugh!" But Rabbi Akiva said, "And you, why are you crying?"

The rabbis responded: "What? Shall we not weep? The place about which Scripture states (Numbers 1:51), 'And the stranger who draws close shall die,' has become a den of foxes? Indeed, this is a fulfillment of the verse, 'For Mt. Zion which lies desolate, foxes prowl over it' (Lamentations 5:18).

Rabbi Akiva answered them: 'This is exactly why I laugh. For just as we have seen the prophecies of Jerusalem's destruction have come to pass, so too, know that the prophecies of her future consolation shall also be fulfilled. I laughed because I remembered the verses (Zachariah 8:4-5), 'Old men and old women will once again sit in the streeets of Jerusalem, each with his staff in his hand because of advanced age; and the streets of the city will be filled with boys and girls playing in its streets.' The Holy One, blessed be He, has declared that just as the first prophecies have been fulfilled, so shall the latter. I am joyous that the first have already come to pass, for the latter shall be fulfilled in the future.'

Said the rabbis, 'You have comforted us, Akiva, you have comforted us. May you be comforted by the footsteps of the messenger'."

(Midrash Rabba Eicha, 5)

BTW, the "theology" part of this question is bogus, as many of the other panelists noted.

Timmy:

"But I guarantee you some of those humanitarian aide workers will get beheaded. Allah doesn't want food, he wants dead jews."

You are right on that point.

I think the IDF would have to do some of the heavy lifting on the aid. Some will die, but some die today. The Palestinians simply must see a path to a better life for there to be any chance for peace.

No, this will not be easy. Right now you have Hamas and Hisballah being the main source of humanitarian aid in their areas. They bring food in one hand and suicide vests in the other. And yes, they will kill people for working with Israelis.

Still, the Sunnis may not want to see Shia domination of the Levant so there may be something to work on there. There must be a third way for Israel between getting run over and getting drawn into using overwhelming firepower in ways that erode their standing in world.

Susan Jacoby:

Any thoughts on this? That is, on the media blackouts, particularly, in Iraq and Afghanistan (four million dollars a day).
----------------

I wonder why we are being asked this question, which is not framed properly, instead of one much closer to home, and more relevant to us.

This would be a question for Atheists, Agnostics, Believers, for all Champions of Reason.

Is it reasonable that in a democracy, the people are deprived of knowing the ongoing effects of

A. A catastrophic hurricane in their own country.

B. The situation on the ground, with film and pictures, in Iraq, to include, of course, the remaining difficulty getting water, health care, food. The refugees, the homeless.

The Iraqi child prostitutes in Damascus, boys and girls whom Arabs from all over the Middle East come to have sex with.

C. The situation in Afghanistan. The continual screaming, crying, the limbs, feet, hands you step on when you park your car. The Reign of Terror, shock and awe bombing for seven years.

Is it reasonable that a democracy that spends billions of dollars on this horror is prevented from seeing the results? From knowing?

Is it consistent with Religion that this should continue?

With Reason?

Is it consistent with Reason, Religion that this is done in our name, with our money and the media shows us nothing?

Just wondering....

The Moderate,

Good post.
I am all for the "bomb them with food" strategy.
I'm not so confident that this will win out over religious insanity, but it's worth a try. I don't think it's been tried yet. But I guarantee you some of those humanitarian aide workers will get beheaded. Allah doesn't want food, he wants dead jews.

Timmy,

"You can put Charlie Rose on TV."

What the hell are you talking about? Charlie Rose never showed pictures of any of this.

The private ownership of the media is relatively recent. Even PBS is still partly owned by the public, but that's another point. I strongly believe that the media should be in the public domain.

In the meantime persons, like journalist Jacoby, who present themselves as forthright are peculiarly silent.

Timmy,

You know what? Your posting is pathetic. You don't live here and you have no idea what you're talking about. You haven't seen these pictures, unless someone smuggled them to you on the web.

If you have, then you tell me where to find pictures of the boy and girl prostitutes on the streets of Damascus. I have friends whose cameras were pulled out of their hands and confiscated when they attempted to take pictures.

The same is true of Iraque and Afghanistan. I was in Afghanistan three months ago. And the hell on earth is something one must see to be believed.

You write like a two-year-old. When you can't argue on your own mysterious terms you simply negate what others say. You were fun for a period, but you have become a tiresome bore.

Peter Huff, et al,

I'm still waiting for a reply on inerrancy regarding the scriptures. If this is the case, if God oversaw (oversees) translation, how is it that Jerome translated the Tanakh to read that Moses had "horns"? This refers to Moses' appearance on the second descent.

"The Septuagint properly translates the Hebrew phrase as δεδόξασται ἡ ὄψις, "his face was glorified". Jerome translated the phrase into Latin as cornuta esset facies sua "his face was horned."

Further, Jerome knew he was in error. His translation became the "OT" of the Catholic Bible through the Western "Enlightenment." As a result, Michelangelo's statue of Moses had horns.

Partly as a result of this and the NT, the Church, etc., the genociding of Jews began in the Middle Ages. Pictures of Jews with horns, as devils began then and continue unto the present day. They were exported by western christians to the middle east, through this century.

Explain the inerrancy factor, please.

Farnaz,

YOU: "Is it reasonable that in a democracy, the people are deprived of knowing the ongoing effects of A) A catastrophic hurricane in their own country."

The people are not deprived. There is no government control over the media in the US. If you think there is, you should move to Canada. I have seen all of the devastating effects of Katrina. It's no secret. The people are not deprived, they are apathetic.

YOU: "B. The situation on the ground, with film and pictures, in Iraq, to include, of course, the remaining difficulty getting water, health care, food. The refugees, the homeless"

Again, I have seen all of these things. You must have too if you know about them. The people are not deprived, they are apathetic.

YOU: C. The situation in Afghanistan. The continual screaming, crying, the limbs, feet, hands you step on when you park your car. The Reign of Terror, shock and awe bombing for seven years.

There has been no shock and awe bombing in Afghanistan. It is however a bloody struggle. The alternative is the Taliban, no education for women, genital mutilation, and a safe haven for terrorists.

YOU: "Is it reasonable that a democracy that spends billions of dollars on this horror is prevented from seeing the results? From knowing?"

Reason is over rated. ;)
But again, if you know about it, the people are not prevented, they are apathetic.

YOU: Is it consistent with Religion that this should continue?

Lies are very consistent with religion. It is the very basis of them.

YOU: Is it consistent with Reason, Religion that this is done in our name, with our money and the media shows us nothing?

The media is a private enterprise. If there was money in showing you these things, meaning if people would tune in to watch it, they would report it. You can put Charlie Rose on TV. But you can't make people watch and inform themselves. If you have this information, Farnaz, it is easily available to the people. They are not deprived. They are apathetic.

In the end justice is the only road to peace. The Palestinians are a noble and highly intelligent people living in grinding poverty with no hope but revenge. So they are fertile ground for Hamas teachers of hate.

So Israel should respond with humanitarian aid to the Palestinians. Israel should work with the United States and The House of Saud to help the Palestinians develop a viable homeland with decent housing, educational opportunities, medicine, job sustaining industries, and gainful world trade. In time, this will make the Palestinians whole, Hamas irrelevant, and Israel safe.

Susan Jacoby:

Any thoughts on this? That is, on the media blackouts, particularly, in Iraq and Afghanistan (four million dollars a day).
----------------

I wonder why we are being asked this question, which is not framed properly, instead of one much closer to home, and more relevant to us.

This would be a question for Atheists, Agnostics, Believers, for all Champions of Reason.

Is it reasonable that in a democracy, the people are deprived of knowing the ongoing effects of

A. A catastrophic hurricane in their own country.

B. The situation on the ground, with film and pictures, in Iraq, to include, of course, the remaining difficulty getting water, health care, food. The refugees, the homeless.

The Iraqi child prostitutes in Damascus, boys and girls whom Arabs from all over the Middle East come to have sex with.

C. The situation in Afghanistan. The continual screaming, crying, the limbs, feet, hands you step on when you park your car. The Reign of Terror, shock and awe bombing for seven years.

Is it reasonable that a democracy that spends billions of dollars on this horror is prevented from seeing the results? From knowing?

Is it consistent with Religion that this should continue?

With Reason?

Is it consistent with Reason, Religion that this is done in our name, with our money and the media shows us nothing?

Just wondering....

Susan said: something to the effect of : "Religion has always been exploited for political purposes"

This is not true. Religion was created for political purposes. You can not exploit something for political purposes that was created for political purposes. It all began with tribal elders, making use of the crude science of the time, to trick the people into believing that they had special knowledge of the creator(s) of the universe and his wishes. This, they knew, would give them absolute political power. Of course they tapped into the peoples natural sense of altruism and diabolically used it to solidify their devotion to the God that the elders/priests could exploit. It is human goodness that has been exploited by religion, not religion that has been exploited by nasty people.

It is a joke for religious apologists to pretend that religion is a warm and fuzzy thing that is being exploited by the wicked. It was created by the wicked. (just read the books) The extremists are the ones who have religion right. They believe that God is the all powerful creator of the universe who smites and punishes if we do not follow his absolute moral code. They are not wrong according to the books. The books are wrong. The books are useless. The books are exploitation. People do not abuse those books. Those books abuse people.

As for the proverbs and the altruistic verses that do hold some true value? They exist in plain old human wisdom, and not only do they not require deity belief, but deity belief poisons them to the core. They should be forever removed from deity belief and placed into secular books of knowledge and wisdom. Not thrown out with the bath water.

What can we do about the violence in the middle east? Nothing in our lifetime. It's going to take generations and generations of the world waking up to the horrors and uselessness of deity belief. And the quickest way to do that is for everyone who is rational, to criticize these delusional beliefs as much as possible, Not caudal them. Not praise them as virtuous or useful. We need to make it an extremely embarrassing position to believe in a deity.

People should be allowed to smoke cigarettes until they get cancer and die if they want to. But they should not. It's foolish.

People should be allowed to believe in whatever deity they want. But they should not believe in deities. It is foolish.

Don't outlaw smoking. Criticize it.
Don't outlaw religion. Criticize it.

As for the middle east? It's fait was sealed by the Zionists. A very bad idea that can not be reversed. Well past the point of no return. The only thing that will end the violence is the end of faith. The end of sacred. The end of divine commands.

Let's get busy. Religion sucks, across the board. Pass it on.

Susan Jacoby:

Any thoughts on this? That is, on the media blackouts, particularly, in Iraq and Afghanistan (four million dollars a day).
----------------

I wonder why we are being asked this question, which is not framed properly, instead of one much closer to home, and more relevant to us.

This would be a question for Atheists, Agnostics, Believers, for all Champions of Reason.

Is it reasonable that in a democracy, the people are deprived of knowing the ongoing effects of

A. A catastrophic hurricane in their own country.

B. The situation on the ground, with film and pictures, in Iraq, to include, of course, the remaining difficulty getting water, health care, food. The refugees, the homeless.

The Iraqi child prostitutes in Damascus, boys and girls whom Arabs from all over the Middle East come to have sex with.

C. The situation in Afghanistan. The continual screaming, crying, the limbs, feet, hands you step on when you park your car. The Reign of Terror, shock and awe bombing for seven years.

Is it reasonable that a democracy that spends billions of dollars on this horror is prevented from seeing the results? From knowing?

Is it consistent with Religion that this should continue?

With Reason?

Is it consistent with Reason, Religion that this is done in our name, with our money and the media shows us nothing?

Just wondering....

Thomas,

YOU: "Love is not a tool"

Yes it is.

YOU: "Some people try to rise above their base instincts"

Yes well make you you rise above your base instinct if you are ever attacked by a rabid dog. What ever you do, do not harm the dog. It would be against the lord's wishes according to you.

YOU: Why should God be in a rush?

People are suffering horribly while his plan plays out. What would he be waiting for after 200,000 years?

YOU: God put it all on the line and the Victory is for humanity.

That's not what you said. You specifically described it as God's victory. Nice cop out.

ME: "I think it is the end of life. (physical death) I have no reason to believe otherwise. Live for today. We have no evidence of an afterlife. This I think is very important."

YOU: It doesn't matter what anyone believes, what is true is true whether anyone believes it or not.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

The title of Susan's pervious essay applies most aptly here: "The Most Predictable Story Ever Told."

No matter how badly you may feel for the innocent civillians being killed in Gaza, Hamas's reply is a blood-thirsty cry for revenge suicide bombers in Israel, which you can bet will be coming soon.

So, there is no hope; this is the most hopeless place on Earth. This is not a crisis; it is a rigidly stable pattern; the cycle repeats with deadening regularity.

So what else is new in the world?

Peter Huff, et al,

I'm still waiting for a reply on inerrancy regarding the scriptures. If this is the case, if God oversaw (oversees) translation, how is it that Jerome translated the Tanakh to read that Moses had "horns"? This refers to Moses' appearance on the second descent.

"The Septuagint properly translates the Hebrew phrase as δεδόξασται ἡ ὄψις, "his face was glorified". Jerome translated the phrase into Latin as cornuta esset facies sua "his face was horned."

Further, Jerome knew he was in error. His translation became the "OT" of the Catholic Bible through the Western "Enlightenment." As a result, Michelangelo's statue of Moses had horns.

Partly as a result of this and the NT, the Church, etc., the genociding of Jews began in the Middle Ages. Pictures of Jews with horns, as devils began then and continue unto the present day. They were exported by western christians to the middle east, through this century.

Explain the inerrancy factor, please.

TIMMY2

You wrote, "You seem to be judgmental, and entirely wrong about this. I most certainly do not look at love as a manipulation tool. Your words, not mine. Slander. Does Jesus endorse slander?

I have said that love is a tool of transformation however. For both parties."

Love is not a tool.

You wrote, "BTW, we did not kill Hitler out of revenge or to try and serve God's justice. It was simple self defense. A base instinct that God gave us for survival."

Some people try to rise above their base instincts.

You wrote, "200,000 years and counting. As I have always noted: Great plan.'

Why should God be in a rush?

You wrote, "God's victory? Over who? Over what? I'm confused. Why does God need a victory?"

God put it all on the line and the Victory is for humanity.

You wrote, "Won? From who? Or from What? Won???? Does this have something to do with God's victory that you mentioned earlier?"

Don't worry, you will see.

You wrote, "I think it is the end of life. I have no reason to believe otherwise. Live for today. We have no evidence of an afterlife. This I think is very important."

It doesn't matter what anyone believes, what is true is true whether anyone believes it or not.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

I do wonder why we are being asked this question, which is not framed properly, instead of one much closer to home, and more relevant to us.

This would be a question for Atheists, Agnostics, Believers, for all Champions of Reason.

Is it reasonable that in a democracy, the people are deprived of knowing the ongoing effects of

A. A catastrophic hurricane in their own country.

B. The situation on the ground, with film and pictures, in Iraq, to include, of course, the remaining difficulty getting water, health care, food. The refugees, the homeless.

The Iraqi child prostitutes in Damascus, boys and girls whom Arabs from all over the Middle East come to have sex with.

C. The situation in Afghanistan. The continual screaming, crying, the limbs, feet, hands you step on when you park your car. The Reign of Terror, shock and awe bombing for seven years.

Is it reasonable that a democracy that spends billions of dollars on this horror is prevented from seeing the results? From knowing?

Is it consistent with Religion that this should continue?

With Reason?

Is it consistent with Reason, Religion that this is done in our name, with our money and the media shows us nothing?

Just wondering....

CCNL:

This is for you so that you can contribute to the welfare of the world:

R. Tarfon: "You are not required to finish the work, but neither are you to neglect it.

Susan Jacoby wrote, "...I do not believe...."

She went on, "I wish...."

Then, another, "I do not believe...."

She told us, "The major mistake of people...."

Then, she wrote, "I'm tired...." Twice.

And wrote, "I despise...."

Susan Jacoby wrote all this, while blamming others.

Susan, welcome to the human race, dear.

CCNL:

This is for you so that you can become wise:

This is so that you can become wise:

Rabbi Ashi said, "He who hardens his heart with pride, softens his brains with the same."

PETERHUFF

You wrote, "You make a lot of statements with the innuendo that I and others are false teachers of Scripture. From what I have seen I feel your understanding of Scripture is very limited."

Question: Is God, God or is the bible, God?

As far as my "understanding of Scripture", if you remember when Jesus walked this earth, it was the ones with "understanding of Scripture" that Jesus had the hardest time getting thru too, was it not?

Do you realize when it speaks of death entering the world, do you realize that this speaks of spiritual death, not physical death? Have you ever though of that?

When Jesus said, "Unless a man be born again", did He say that rebirth had to happen before the person stopped breathing?

When Jesus said, "I Am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except thru Me", did He say anything about the multitudinous ways to Him?

Have you ever thought that since we have free will, that Mary had to of her own free will give permission to God for Him to become One of us?

Have you ever thought that the same saying in the bible can mean different things to different people and even different things to the same person at different times in their life and all still be true because God can say more than one thing with one saying?

Whenever someone tries to put God in a box, you can rest assured that God will not fit in that box.

Then you wrote, "Thomas, why don't your back up your statements by Scripture. Why would God need to send another "Moses" when Hebrews makes it very plain that Jesus is all that is needed,".

God picks who He picks, do you think that the original Apostles are the only ones that Jesus "sent". If Hebrews "makes it very plain", then why did Jesus say, "There is work to be done", "The harvest is great and the laborers are few".

Also, Hebrews is not the only chapter in the book, I consider the bible a book with quite a few chapters. There is plenty in the bible that I do not understand but what I need to know to do the "job" that God has given to me, God will somehow let me know.

If you want to know why God picked me, then ask God because I don't know but I have said, "YES".

God cares for ALL of us, as I have said: God is a BEING OF PURE LOVE, Love is not an attribute of God but is His Very Being.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Hi Pam,

YOU From the previous thread: "Also, to Timmy and Thorschild, for the third time on this thread, "atheist" and "agnostic" are not variants of the same idea. They are two separate spheres - one to do with what you believe, one to do with what you *know*.

I'm well aware.
I am both agnostic and an atheist.
If you had been paying attention to my post, you would have noticed that my concern was with people's misperception of the term "agnostic". The general populous seem to think that means that I have no strong conviction one way or another whether or not God exists. But I most certainly do. Unless I have time to explain it fully, I generally avoid the term agnostic.

Jews follow the second worst book ever written, i.e. the mostly mythical OT and related mumbo jumbo extensions. Muslims follow the worst book ever written, i.e. the koran whose foundations are based on the hallucinations of one long-dead, womanizing, and warmongering Arab.

Declare both the OT and the koran as null and void and Hamas and the Israelis will have no theological and moral ground to stand on. Actually, they have none now and the leaders of the rest of the world should point this out and at least these hollow excuses for bloodshed in the name of god will finally end.

PETERHUFF

On the last posting you asked me some questions and since that site doesn't work too well now here is my reply.

You wrote, "It was in His plan all along, but He first made Himself know to the peoples of the earth by the Israelites; He made them His people, and when they continually disobeyed and broke the covenant He made with them He then focused His attention of the Gentiles directly."

You don't seem to understand, God's Plan is unfolding as He planned it, the Jews were and are the Chosen People for the simple reason that God chose them.

You wrote, "First of all, what do you mean by ALL BE SAVED? Do you mean every man, woman and child on the face of the earth?"

Of course, ALL means ALL, and this includes those that have been, are and those to come.

Then you wrote, "Second, if it is God's will that all will be saved then why are there so many that are lost?"

First off, you shouldn't worry so much, God knows what He is doing and second, just what do you think being a Christian is?

Then you wrote, "Since sin entered the world through one man, it was by man, the Second Adam, that sin would have to be atoned for."

THOMAS: "I think you might have a typo or something near the end of this..."

Please be specific."

It just seems garbled, the Second Adam, Jesus, did atone, it has happened, it is not a "would have to", it is done "PAID IN FULL" which is the translation of "IT IS FINISHED".

You wrote, "Yes, He is, but what does the world mean in this context? Does it mean every single man woman and child without distinction, or does it mean every kind of human, such as people from every tribe and tongue and race and gender, rich and poor, etc., like in Revelation 5:9?"

Not just every single man, woman and child but all of creation as in "new heavens and a new earth", God knows what He is doing, like I said, it is His Plan and He has had His Plan since before creation.

You wrote, "No, the Scriptures are clear,

"He will save His people from their sin." "

And who are His people, page one, "Let Us make man in Our Image", God has not ripped out page one, ALL people are His people.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Peter,
Don't forget to reply from previous thread.

For those not familiar:

The Duel
The Gingham Dog and the Calico Cat
by Eugene Field
The gingham dog and the calico cat
Side by side on the table sat;
'Twas half-past twelve, and (what do you think!)
Nor one nor t'other had slept a wink!
The old Dutch clock and the Chinese plate
Appeared to know as sure as fate
There was going to be a terrible spat.
(I wasn't there; I simply state
What was told to me by the Chinese plate!)

The gingham dog went " Bow-wow-wow!"
And the calico cat replied "Me-ow!"
The air was littered,an hour or so,
With bits of gingham and calico,
While the old Dutch clock in the chimney place
Up with it hands before its face,
For it always dreaded a family row!
(Now mind: I'm only telling you
What the old Dutch clock declares is true!)

The Chinese plate looked very blue,
And wailed,"Oh dear! What shall we do!"
But the gingham dog and the calico cat
Wallowed this way and tumbled that,
Employing every tooth and claw
In the awfullest way you ever saw-
And oh! how the gingham and calico flew!
(Don't fancy I exaggerate!
I got my news from the Chinese plate!)

Next morning where the two had sat
They found no trace of dog or cat;
And some folks think unto this day
That burglars stole the pair away!
But the truth about the cat and pup
Is this: they ate each other up!
Now what do you really think of that!
(The old Dutch clock, it told me so,
And that is how I came to know.)

Susan said:

"Men and women of reason must continue to seek a solution, if only in the interest of containing violence and saving some lives."

This makes me think of someone with a malignant brain tumor; you have to help them; you have to offer whatever treatment there is, no matter how futile, to try and comfort their suffering, even though you know there will be no cure.

The other thing that this reminds me of is the Lilliputions in Gulliver's travels. It would be as though little county governments in the United States maintained air forces, and missiles, and standing armies, and guerilla fighters, and periodically unleashed them all on each other. I can barely imagine it.

And this place is called the holy land. That sure is an oxymoron.

So what's the solution? While I think that religion will eventually go the way of the dinosaurs - or at least be marginalized to the point of insignificance - that's a long way off.

While we wait, will the combatants simply disappear in the manner of Eugene Fields's gingham dog and calico cat?

Great essay, Susan! I'm tired of all that crap as well!

Hi Susan,

When you say, "Muslims and Jews in the region believe, in the words of the saccharine theme song from the movie Exodus, "This land is mine, God gave this land to me....," have you heard what Robert Mugabe said about Zimbabwe?

"Zimbabwe is mine." How does this man get away with the atrocities he has committed while the world community turns a blind eye?

The sad thing about the Jews is that as soon as they try to defend themselves from rocket attacks by going in to mop them up, there is world condemnation with very little blame put on the Palestinians or should I say Hamas for their aggression.