For Christians, something had to replace the Temple, so the temple of the Holy Ghost did (the body).We call it a church.
When do you plan on fucking off back to whatever website you came from?Stop being butthurt that we picked up a Jew. They are everywhere. Whilst he is here, he isn't thinking up ways to hoard gold.
Stop being butthurt that we picked up a Jew. They are everywhere. Whilst he is here, he isn't thinking up ways to hoard gold.
In the Heaven thread, someone actually suggested this. If anyone has any questions about Jews & Judaism, I'll try to answer. I'm neither the most brilliant nor the most foolish Jew in the world. I like to think I'm reasonably well informed. If I can't answer your question, I'll tell you that too. So, fire ahead. If nobody does, that won't offend me either. This is just an offer.Yeah I have a question: why the flip do jewish people act like jewish is a race when it is a religion?
So they can accuse you of being racist when you question their despicable actions. See Israel.In the Heaven thread, someone actually suggested this. If anyone has any questions about Jews & Judaism, I'll try to answer. I'm neither the most brilliant nor the most foolish Jew in the world. I like to think I'm reasonably well informed. If I can't answer your question, I'll tell you that too. So, fire ahead. If nobody does, that won't offend me either. This is just an offer.Yeah I have a question: why the flip do jewish people act like jewish is a race when it is a religion?
Exacley I have much disdan for israel they STOL the lands from the palastinens!!!So they can accuse you of being racist when you question their despicable actions. See Israel.In the Heaven thread, someone actually suggested this. If anyone has any questions about Jews & Judaism, I'll try to answer. I'm neither the most brilliant nor the most foolish Jew in the world. I like to think I'm reasonably well informed. If I can't answer your question, I'll tell you that too. So, fire ahead. If nobody does, that won't offend me either. This is just an offer.Yeah I have a question: why the flip do jewish people act like jewish is a race when it is a religion?
1/32 is ignored. Everybody else, please continue.Yakoov (hear ill call you "Jewish is a race ::)" for now on ;D) if your going to make a thred were we can ask jewish dude a question you gota be able to anser everey question. Looks pretey bad on your part and I think/know evereyone here can agre with me
Seeing what Thork said, I'll respond to that. Jews are not, and never have been, a race, nor do we pretend to be. We are an ethnic group, which is quite different. A Jew shares DNA with another Jew that he does not share with you. A Levite shares DNA with another Levite that he does not even share with other Jews. A Cohen shares even closer DNA with another Cohen that he does not share with Levites or other Jews, although Cohens are Levites and both of them are Jews. I shan't go on at length because I've discussed this matter to the point of wanting to vomit in other threads, on both Flat Earth websites. As far as doing things with which a person might disagree, anyone can disagree with a given action of the State of Israel without being anti-Semitic. But when one expects Israel to act differently than other nations might act when faced with similar circumstances, that IS anti-Semitic, and needs to be called out.Thats onley becuz jewish has a supa crazey rule were you can onley marey felow jewish people. (rascism much?) and thats why there so geneticeley in comon. Its stil a religon. Its like how cathlics can onley marey cathliks. Idiot
So, that having been said, I think I've responded to Thork reasonably well. Responding to 1/32 isn't necessary. He is ignored. The rest of you, please continue. I won't respond to 1/32 unless one of you does, like Thork did. Otherwise, he will be ignored.
It's not anti-Semitic since, by definition Arabs are a Semitic people as well. But please keep on trying to appropriate it. It would be difficult for other nations to be in the position that Israel believes itself to be since there can be only one land of milk and honey right?Jewish is a Semitic religon not a Semitic people
If you prefer, I shall use the term "anti-Jewish". We did not not invent the term "anti-Semite". That was a German in the late 19th Century who hated Jews. He called himself an anti-Semite. It wasn't Hitler, who was Austrian. I forget the dude's name, actually. I could probably find it, but I don't care to. You're right. Arabs are Semites, and there are a few more people that are as well, or at least that use Semitic languages (some various folk in Ethiopia).What?!! Etheopeins are AFRICAN AMERICANS not semitic!!!
It's so nice to just read a long string of "You are ignoring this user. Show me the post." messages.Yeah, you are all ignoring him, and posting it ad nausium every time he posts is a real treat for everyone else. ::)
If Israel were bordering on genocide, they'd have succeeded. How many Arabs of the Occupied Territories have been killed? I want numbers, real figures. Not just fuzzy 'Oh, people die.' No shit. Every yr, Israel prevents app. 800 terrorist attacks on its soil. The latest was intended for the US Embassy. Funny, the Chinese have been far more brutal to Tibet in their occupation there, I don't hear anyone saying genocide there. When I see the Jordan River run red w/ blood like the rivers of Rwanda in '94, which I won't, then I'll take a claim like that seriously.
IRUSH, no comment.
I actually lol'd.IRUSH, no comment.
I'll find out your Jew secrets eventually. You might as well give them up now.
Please elaborate. I haven't been on a plane in yrs.
Getting circumcised differentiated us then & now from those not of the Covenant.Don't basically all American males get circumcised? A fair few people from Islamic countries that I know have also been circumcised. It doesn't seem to differentiate you at all, unless all you care about is being different from Europeans.
From what I understand, Americans did that for about 30 yrs as a cleanliness measure, but no longer do so much any more.I can't claim to be certain of this, but as far as I know it's still a thing. Perhaps the Americans in this thread could weigh in?
From what I understand, Americans did that for about 30 yrs as a cleanliness measure, but no longer do so much any more. The Arabs are the children of Ishmael, Abraham's oldest by Hagar, & like him, do it @ age 13. Other Muslims do the same. I've read Qur'an & some of the Sunnah of the Prophet & have seen the command to circumcise, but never the reason. In the Bible, the reason is clear: to make him part of the Covenant. Why by that method I don't know. But why Muslims do it is irrelevant, ultimately. They not of the Covenant. We are. What Scripture tells us to do, we do.
Yep, still pretty normal. The one person I was aware of being uncircumcised had British parents. Americans are starting to catch on that it's a totally useless practice but still mostly happens for the social norm of it.From what I understand, Americans did that for about 30 yrs as a cleanliness measure, but no longer do so much any more.I can't claim to be certain of this, but as far as I know it's still a thing. Perhaps the Americans in this thread could weigh in?
Why do Jews have a big nose?
I believe that no Jew has the right to tell another Jew how to be a Jew.What about Moses?
A bacon lobster cheeseburger
A bacon lobster cheeseburger sounds delicious.Yes, it does.
Why do Jews have a big nose?
Because air is free.
@Yaakov: Just out of curiosity do you keep kosher? Why do the kosher laws exist (or is it even a case of rationality vs "God says this so this"? I'm just curious; my mother has a theory about kosher law that it was originally about cleanliness in many cases (like, pigs and shellfish, being such utterly filthy animals), although she maintains that the meat and milk combo is purely a matter of ethics. What do you think?
For the record I'd die before permanently giving up bacon, lobster, and cheeseburgers, but as I'm sure I've made clear I'm not a religious Jew.
Rama, that is true. ANYTHING you feed them.
Do you have any idea what pigs will eat? They are scavenging animals. Hardly a clean beast.
Hm, I was told differently. But even a small part is still a part.
I assume that's true. All animals, by virtue of being witless beasts, do things that people would not do.
Yes. I agree. But a cow, when left to its own devices, feeds on grass (even peed-upon, I'll grant). A pig, when left to its own devices, feeds on God knows what.Acorns, roots, tubers, and yes the occasional carrion (otherwise known as meat... potentially meat from a dead cow that's eaten peed upon grass, ewww).
Yes. I agree. But a cow, when left to its own devices, feeds on grass (even peed-upon, I'll grant). A pig, when left to its own devices, feeds on God knows what.
I am a Jew because God has called me to serve Him in that unique way.Did God tell you to be mean to EJ?
Do you have a pouch of jew gold hanging from your neck?Yes.
Pizza, full Torah Observance is only possible in the days of Messiah.Why?
Why would you doubt that you should wage war with any Amalekite you encounter? Do you think God was ambiguous in what he felt the lot of the Amalekites should be?Genetics perhaps?
How does the Jewish faith view interfaith marriages?
hasidic jews who do the same thing get exiled.
How does one become a Jew? Considering it's a religion, it'd have to be possible.
Let us mark the passing of 3 innocent people for the Sanctification of the Holy Name of God.
Although 2 were not Jews, the coward who shot them outside a Jewish community center didn't know that.
As for the shooting @ the assisted living facility, her identity is unknown @ present. But she too died as a Jew, whether she was one or not.
No one's trying to auto-convert anyone. It turns out the 3rd person was Catholic. But all 3 were perceived to be Jews. That is why they were killed. They should be honoured accordingly in their final rest.
I hope @ their funerals, someone from the Jewish community makes it a point of being present. Their sacrifice should not go unnoticed.
Why did you study undercover at a Mosque for 2 years?
Since Jews and Muslims both worship the God of Abraham, I doubt it. If he's going to Hell, it's probably for being a jerk.Why did you study undercover at a Mosque for 2 years?
Adding on, if you went to Mosque, did the prayers, and followed the rituals doesn't that mean you're going to Hell for having another god before your Jewish god?
Most of us don't believe in hell, so the question is moot. & knowing my enemy was the point.So they were your enemy BEFORE you learned about them.
So they were your enemy BEFORE you learned about them.Just like America and Iraq (◕‿◕✿)
Most of us don't believe in hell, so the question is moot.
Is it true that Jews are greedy money-grubbers?
The fact is, persons related to modern Jews by ethnic and religious ties (commonly called Hebrews and Israelites) have resided in that territory of the Levant for 4500 years, at various times ruling over it as an independent state.
Well, very simply, because permanent residence in a place, particularly with the control of a nation in that territory through history, is widely deemed by international legal theorists to give one claims on said land. And the Jewish claim on that land is definitely superior to the Arab claim to it.Because God said so?
Is it true that Jews are greedy money-grubbers?
Most of us don't believe in hell, so the question is moot.Wasn't Sheol basically hell during the Second Temple period? What happened to that?
Did the Hall of cost really happen?
Still waiting for an answer, Yaakov.Is it true that Jews are greedy money-grubbers?
Its a stupid question.Irrelevant. You are the one who invited everyone to "Ask a Jew anything." So, I guess that you're obligated to either answer the question yourself or pass it off to another Jew to answer.
Is it true that Jews are greedy money-grubbers?
Neither I nor any other Jew is obligated to answer a retarded question. Grow up, put on your fucking big girl panties or big boy shorts, and act like an adult.Moving the goal posts, are we? Maybe you should have said "Ask a Jew anything but a retarded question", but you didn't, so you're the one who needs to suck it up and remember where you are.
Well, some of us do believe in Sheol, but that is not Hell as Muslims and Christians understand the term. I personally believe in a Sheol, if you will.My (very limited) understanding is that the original understanding of Sheol was the abode of the dead to which all people eventually go, regardless of how good or evil they were; but it seems like later on (the Second Temple period) this interpretation was altered to suggest that Sheol is divided into compartments for the good and evil. Is this inaccurate?
Its a stupid question.Why are you afraid of answering the question though? A simple yes or no would do.
Now, the last question about making golems is truly stupid.
Now, the last question about making golems is truly stupid.So you're saying that Judah Loew ben Bezalel didn't create a golem to defend the Prague ghetto? ???
Read further for clarification. I'm not suggesting we DELIBERATELY bomb civilians. I am suggesting we take away ISIL's ability to make war. If that means knowing that some civilians are going to turn into dogmeat, so be it.
IRUSH, I would be forced to conclude that you are an idiot, not that I haven't already,
Most of them were not Arabs, but Turkish. They were USUALLY part of the Turkish administration or upper crust of society who could have given a shite about who owned what where in "Palestine", whether they were Jews or Felahin. The Turkish may be Muslim, but they are first, Turkish. That has ALWAYS made them a little strange. As non-Arabs, they have some different motives than the Arabs do.And what about the Muslims nearby? Why did they not slaughter the Jews?
Was this in the X Files?
LORD DAVE, Ever heard of the Hebron Massacre of I think 1929? And Turks are confusing. I don't know what they are, but given Erdogan's antics, I don't know how much I trust their so-called "moderation".You mean the massacre spread by misinformation about Jews taking control of Muslim areas?
Well, very simply, because permanent residence in a place, particularly with the control of a nation in that territory through history, is widely deemed by international legal theorists to give one claims on said land. And the Jewish claim on that land is definitely superior to the Arab claim to it.
My level of observance is my own. ... A Jew's observance is always his own.
Well, very simply, because permanent residence in a place, particularly with the control of a nation in that territory through history, is widely deemed by international legal theorists to give one claims on said land. And the Jewish claim on that land is definitely superior to the Arab claim to it.
Even making the statement that a Jew can get away with murder but claim to be a good Jew is just stupid.
Well, very simply, because permanent residence in a place, particularly with the control of a nation in that territory through history, is widely deemed by international legal theorists to give one claims on said land. And the Jewish claim on that land is definitely superior to the Arab claim to it.
If the "Palestinians" do not want their people to end up in body bags, then they need to stop throwing rockets at Israel. Simple solution to the problem."When it is quiet in Israel, it will be quiet in Gaza." And no, idiotic sayings with no basis in legal fact won't get you very far in real life.
If the "Palestinians" do not want their people to end up in body bags, then they need to stop throwing rockets at Israel. Simple solution to the problem."When it is quiet in Israel, it will be quiet in Gaza." And no, idiotic sayings with no basis in legal fact won't get you very far in real life.
Jewish law recognizes that property may become ownerless by one of two means: (1) abandonment, which is an express renunciation by the former owner of his ownership; or (2) express or implied "forsaking hope" of reclaiming an object which one has legal title, but not possession by the owner of that item. Abandonment is effective only for property in one's own possession at the time of abandonment. By contrast, forsaking hope is applicable to both lost and stolen property; it is a relinquishment of the right to have the property returned. It results from external, involuntary circumstances which have placed the property beyond the possession of the owner, and the owner's realization that he is unlikely to ever recover his property. These juridical concepts in Jewish law find nearly perfect analogy in the common law doctrines of relinquishment and abandonment. For example, after abandonment in Jewish law and abandonment in common law, the finder of lost property can properly exercise dominion over the object, thereby vesting title and absolute ownership in himself.
The difference is, Israel doesn't attack civilians with intent. They attack military targets that Hamas sets around civilians. Then those civilians die. Then Hamas complains. Waah fucking waah. Whatever.
Last I checked, Israel did not attack Gaza until Gaza started throwing rockets. So, like I said, waah fucking waah.
It doesn't, RAMA SET, but I knew that someone would bring up the topic, so I thought that cutting them off at the pass might be a good idea.
QUOTE: "Based on this and the history of the area being taken and conquored by various empires over the years Jews can easily be seen as having implied "forsaking hope" and the only right they have to the land is what was granted to them by the UN. And that's basically a gift that the people who lived there (the rightful owners) rejected."Couple of things.
Except that no Jew at any time ever relinquished hope of a return to Jerusalem and the Holy Land. In fact, it has been said in Passover Seders across the world EXCEPT in Eretz Israel, "Next year in Jerusalem." All Jews knew that it would be ours again eventually. So the principle of abandoning hope does not apply.
Israel has no settlers in Gaza, and has not had any since 2005. There is not a single Jew in the territory.
Israel has no settlers in Gaza, and has not had any since 2005. There is not a single Jew in the territory.
And that is relevant how? The UN has long ago failed in its purpose, let them bleat about "international law" all they wishLet's hope most of your kin do not subscribe to these views. UN member states outnumber Israel quite significantly.
What's that?
Indeed, but the US, which has veto power, tends to feel the way I do. I mean, seriously, The US and Israel play the game in the UN, but that's about the extent of it. You know it and I know it. The fact is, the UN buildings in the US and in Switzerland should be bombed to holy hell, as should the international court at the Hague. The people in them should be given thirty minutes to exit first. And then if the rest of the world wants to be assholes to Israel, fine, let them. Then the USA and Israel can turn the Middle East into a parking lot and build a kosher Wal-Mart there. This should have been done along time ago. All of the Middle East except Israel should have been made a parking lot after the 241 Marines were killed in Lebanon. Very simple. Both Israel and the US have nukes. We wouldn't have to use them , though. Fire-bombing, and carpet bombing, should be enough.
And that is relevant how? The UN has long ago failed in its purpose, let them bleat about "international law" all they wish. The fact is, The Arabs lost both East Jerusalem AND the West Bank fair and square in a war that the Arabs started (the Six Day War, in which, yes, Israel attacked first, but then, what would you do if hostile armies were surrounding your borders with every clear intention of attacking you). This was confirmed by their loss in a war that they DEFINITELY started, namely, the Yom Kippur War. You don't get land back when you start wars and lose them.
Your reliance on laws that don't apply to circumstances won't get you very far in the modern age. I strongly recommend instead that you grow up, put on your big boy pants, act your age, and look at the world as it really is, rather than as you think it should be in your whiny, anti-Semitic (or if you prefer, I'll use the term "Judeo-phobic") little pea-brain.
A disturbing notion.What's that?
A rabbi has to kiss a baby's penis before the food can be cooked.
A disturbing notion.What's that?
A rabbi has to kiss a baby's penis before the food can be cooked.
And no, we don't raise the cry of anti-Semitism unless that's what it is. Criticism of Israel is one thing. But when you start demanding that Israel behave in a way that NO other nation would behave, THAT is anti-Semitism. Any nation on earth, when directly attacked with rockets, would respond by sending troops to stop those rockets. Any government that failed to do this would be very quickly removed from power by its own people, either democratically or by force, for failure to lead.
And, yes, yes, I know, I am going to hear about Occupation. Well, Israel left Gaza in 2005. Completely left it. And had to partially re-enter in terms of taking control of the borders, the skies, and the water in 2007 when a terrorist organisation was given control by the people who live there.
A good rule of thumb is the following: If you don't want your neighbours to become alarmed and take control of your shit, don't elect terrorists as your leaders. This applies whether you live in Gaza or in Mexico.
I mean, come on, people, think. How hard is it to come up with common sense rules regarding people that want to fuck up your day?
I'm back on my feet again, at least temporarily.
To my knowledge, Jews in Jerusalem do NOT include those words in Passover Seders. Furthermore, in Orthodox & Conservative prayer books, daily prayers are rendered for the return of our People to Israel, as well as a prayer for the State of Israel. It seems pretty clear that Jews always claimed ownership of the Land.
Furthermore, in Orthodox & Conservative prayer books, daily prayers are rendered for the return of our People to Israel, as well as a prayer for the State of Israel.Can you give me the name of the prayer because I can't seem to find any that pray for the return of people to Israel.
JFK was prob. the single worst thing that ever happened to the US. Much as I don't recommend assassinating people in general, in his case (& his brother) it was a blessing.Citation needed.
Look up the Artscroll Siddur & Siddur Sim Shalom for prayers re: the State of Israel & returning to our Land. I'm too sick to do it for you right now, as those books are in boxes yet to be unpacked.Both of these are modern prayer books. The Siddur Sim Shalom even touts passages celebrating Israel's existance and has works about the holocaust.
You really aren't that bright. Both books are modern, but especially in the case of the Artscroll, the prayers have gone mostly unchanged in about 500 years. Granted, the Prayer for the State of Israel is fairly new, no one disputes that. The Baum Prayer Book is actually the one I have. There isn't much difference between that and the Artscroll Siddur.It was new and in crisp modern writing. Or so the description said.
The fact is, all the "Palestinians" living there should be deported, with six months living wages, and eminent domain for any property they would lose, to the Arab country of there choice.What if their Arab country of choice is Palestine?
The fact is, all the "Palestinians" living there should be deported,
The fact is, all the "Palestinians" living there should be deported,
Why are you putting Palestinians in scare quotes?
It exists only because some liberal western mind says it does.
IRUSH, my recommendation is that you see a psychiatrist. So far as I know, the only People in history ever to be so honoured were the Jews. Granted, a case MIGHT be made for the Japanese with their native Shinto Faith. As a Jew, I know ONLY what God has taught me, and expects of me and my People. We know nothing about what he has or has not taught non-Jews, and what he does or does NOT expect from them, aside from following the Noahide Laws, which we know he expects of all humans.
And since the Revelation on Mt. Sinai was to 2 million people, and not just to Moses, I trust it a lot more than I do your purported nonsense. So, yes. Do see a psychiatrist. Soon.
And since the Revelation on Mt. Sinai was to 2 million people, and not just to Moses, I trust it a lot more than I do your purported nonsense. So, yes. Do see a psychiatrist. Soon.
LORD DAVE, as soon as I am feeling better, I shall access my books. The prayers of the Siddur assumed FINAL FORM around 500 years ago. Since then, the book hasn't altered. However, most of the prayers in it go back much further, 1000, 1500, even 2000 or more years.Wait. How do you not know the prayer name? Or even a quote? Aren't you Jewish? Do you not recite it?
Yes, I do see your problem. Knowing how expensive those books are, I wouldn't want to purchase them either unless I had some use for them beyond a discussion with someone online. I have the Baum Siddur that I got hold of here and there, the content of which is basically the same as the Artscroll. Only the Introduction and whatnot would be different. The footnoting might also be different.
I'll see what I can find in the next few days when I feel better. Not today though. For the moment, I shall withdraw my accusation of your not being that bright. (:
The word "Palestine" was invented by the Romans after they defeated the Jews and exiled most of them (not all) from the Land.
As for the manner in which the Hebrews ENTERED the Land, 4500 years ago, wars were fought pretty fucking brutally. Such is life. Get over it.
Frankly, a legitimate military target renders anything in it a part of that target. Collateral damage is unfortunate, but such is life. See the bombing of Berlin or Dresden as an example.
No, I am just acknowledging reality.
If someone is using a rocket launcher to kill your people, and you have to stop that from happening, and you know there are people there, and you want them to leave, but they do not leave, then it is your right to remove the rocket launcher, even if you know that the people attached to it will die as a result. This is what happens in wars.No. This is why we have special forces (Mossad).
At least, this is what happens in wars that are fought in any sane way.You seem to have a rather unusual definition of "sane".
The USA and Britain did not apologise for bombing Berlin or Dresden. The USA did not apologise for bombing Hiroshima or Nagasaki.Different war, different times and different weapons. Precision munitions did not exist during WWII.
Shit happens, dude. That's why its not a good idea to fight a war when you know you can't win it.Apparently you don't realize that wars are not fought just on the battlefield any more. These days wars are also fought in the media. Dirty little secrets from both sides have a much easier time finding the light of day.
No, I am just acknowledging reality.
In the US, when someone with rockets is firing on a position, the US government sends in elite soldiers to neutralize the threat.
In Israel, they just blow up the area around the rocket and hope it works.
Imagine if the US simply bombed abbottabad instead of just sending in Seal Team 6?
I guess.In the US, when someone with rockets is firing on a position, the US government sends in elite soldiers to neutralize the threat.
In Israel, they just blow up the area around the rocket and hope it works.
Imagine if the US simply bombed abbottabad instead of just sending in Seal Team 6?
Well, but the American military has talent. The Israeli military just has anger issues. It's not a fair comparison.
I guess.In the US, when someone with rockets is firing on a position, the US government sends in elite soldiers to neutralize the threat.
In Israel, they just blow up the area around the rocket and hope it works.
Imagine if the US simply bombed abbottabad instead of just sending in Seal Team 6?
Well, but the American military has talent. The Israeli military just has anger issues. It's not a fair comparison.
I mean, Israel has some of the most advanced weapons, not the most advanced soldiers.
And they get the weapons from us. They have nothing of their own to add to the equation.
As far as the Mossad goes, again, you can't send even them (and yes, they are acknowledged as about the best special forces/CIA/FBI like group in the world) to take out 50 to a hundred targets at once.No, but they can take out a few in such a way as to "teach the others a lesson".
If killing 2100 people isn't enough to teach so-called "Palestinians" a lesson, what the Hell makes you think that taking out 5-10 rocket launchers will do it? Are you that abysmally stupid?No, but you apparently are. If you can take out rocket launchers without killing 2100 innocent civilians teaches the lesson that you can destroy your targets and still be a member of the civilized world. After all, only barbarians intentionally cause unnecessary pain and suffering to their enemies.
Why, in the name of all sane things, would you send special forces to take out rocket launchers, to risk their lives, when said launchers will only be rebuilt somewhere else within days?Well, they could also take out the militants running those rocket launchers while they're there. Besides, if you prove that rocket launchers in civilian neighborhoods aren't safe, then maybe they'll stop setting them up there.
Far better to simply fight a real war and get it over with.And even better than that would be to limit collateral damage to innocent civilians as well as your own national reputation.
How the Hell you claim victory after losing 2100 people, half of them militants, I don't begin to comprehend, but ok, fine.By making Israel look like brutal savages who have no regard for civilian casualties.
Certainly we prize it more than Muslims, who make up 23% of the world's population but have earned only 1% of the Nobel Prizes to date.
So, answer me a simple question: in the last 300 years, what, other than oil and thoroughbred horses, of value has the Muslim World managed to produce? Ok, I'll grant, Persian rugs, and Persian kitties are nice. The last are nice and cuddly.
But seriously, the Middle East especially,and Muslims generally, have not been able to produce one thing of value that the world couldn't live without in 300 years. All they have done in 300 years is basically get in the way and piss the rest of the world off.
Part of the 1% I've already accounted for, thank you.
So, answer me a simple question: in the last 300 years, what, other than oil and thoroughbred horses, of value has the Muslim World managed to produce?
And its pretty bad when you have so many Muslims who want to kill Jews and wipe out Israel that the rare one who doesn't has to be given a Nobel fucking Peace Prize.
So, answer me a simple question: in the last 300 years, what, other than oil and thoroughbred horses, of value has the Muslim World managed to produce? Ok, I'll grant, Persian rugs, and Persian kitties are nice. The last are nice and cuddly.Islam pretty much brought Europe out of the dark ages.
But seriously, the Middle East especially,and Muslims generally, have not been able to produce one thing of value that the world couldn't live without in 300 years. All they have done in 300 years is basically get in the way and piss the rest of the world off.
So, answer me a simple question: in the last 300 years, what, other than oil and thoroughbred horses, of value has the Muslim World managed to produce? Ok, I'll grant, Persian rugs, and Persian kitties are nice. The last are nice and cuddly.Islam pretty much brought Europe out of the dark ages.
But seriously, the Middle East especially,and Muslims generally, have not been able to produce one thing of value that the world couldn't live without in 300 years. All they have done in 300 years is basically get in the way and piss the rest of the world off.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_contributions_to_Medieval_Europe
You're welcome.
What is the "Muslim World"? For comparison, what has the Jewish World produced?
What is the "Muslim World"? For comparison, what has the Jewish World produced?
(http://www.jacquelinejules.com/images/hanukkah/Dreidel.jpg)
What is the "Muslim World"? For comparison, what has the Jewish World produced?
(http://www.jacquelinejules.com/images/hanukkah/Dreidel.jpg)
(http://www.hoffmans.com/v/vspfiles/photos/11216-2T.jpg)
MARK, I don't know how that is relevant. I do understand human psychology whether I have or have not been in a military force. I agree that it is not easy to find someone who is willing to shoot another person in the head. On the other hand, it isn't hard, either. It just is. I'm not going to answer the question, because I don't think it needs answering. I may have been, I may not have been. It doesn't change the fundamentals of my thinking.
BEARDO, any more of that shit, and I report it to the moderators. I can handle a lot, but outright anti-semitic shit you can keep to your own f-----g self.
BEARDO, any more of that shit, and I report it to the moderators. I can handle a lot, but outright anti-semitic shit you can keep to your own f-----g self.
VAUXHALL, of course dinosaurs existed. The story of Creation, while accurate in its own way, was NOT intended to be scientific. The first 11 chapters of Genesis (at least in my opinion, and in the opinion of many scholarly persons, both Jewish and Christian) can be taken as Pre-history, legendary material. Although some of it may be literally true, a lot of it is clearly legendary material that is similar to other stuff you find in narrative stories throughout the Middle East.
I know the Rabbis of Blessed Memory had a way to adjust for the existence of dinosaurs, but I'd have to look it up to find out what it was, and those books are still packed. However, there WAS an explanation given to explain how the dinosaurs did indeed exist before Adam and Eve existed. I'll see what I can find. I am feeling better, but now my wife is ill, and I must tend to her, and continue to care for my own self to make sure we both get totally well. But in between that, I will TRY to learn more about the matter.
And again, I don't know WHY God does or does NOT appear to non-Jews. I do have an idea why he no longer appears to us, as I explained. And who knows, maybe, just maybe, he will deem it appropriate to return the prophecy to Israel.
There is certainty that at some time in the future, things WILL happen that involve Israel and the Jews. The return of the Jews to Israel, the Coming of Messiah (no, not Jesus, or any other god), the rebuilding of the Temple, the Battle of Armageddon, the bringing about of World Peace, etc, all have been foretold in our Scriptures. It WILL happen. Its merely a question of when.
So in that sense, you can say that the prophecy WILL return to Israel. Its just a matter of when.
As I said, the world needs Jews just to have a convenient whipping boy, if nothing else. But I'll give you one thing that ALL of Western Civilisation depends upon. Hell, for that matter, so do the Muslims, even if they hate to admit it. Without it, none of you would be where you are today. So, let me grant that you could invent everything you have without our help (which I doubt, but for the sake of argument, fine). There is one thing you could not have created. The Jewish Bible (the Old Testament to you Christian influenced types). Without that, your entire worldview falls apart.
Without the Hebrew Bible, you would only have Greek philosophy, which in and of itself is not enough to keep a civilisation of any sort afloat long term. The fact is, they denigrated women and promoted homosexuality as ideal. That alone was a fatal fault that would have (eventually) destroyed their way of life. The Greeks were fine philosophers, and great artists, and so-forth, but their morality was in the toilet.
The pagan Germanics and Norse could not have welded themselves into a unified force without the fiction of "the Holy Roman Nation" and all that, which harks back to Roman Empire, which itself was Christianised, which religion came from guess what, Judaism!
Fundamentally, without Judaism as a motive force, Western Civilisation (and the Muslims as well, but that is a different conversation) breaks down. This is a fact that simply cannot be denied. Welcome to real life.
I will take this information and choose to strongly dislike Jews. I will only like those Jews who I get to know and like on a personal level, but until then, I dislike all Jews.
You have made one more enemy today. Congrats.
LORD DAVE, I would recommend growing up, and acting like an adult. So, one more enemy. Take a number, get in line, asshole.
BLANKO, I am inclined to agree that it IS literal anti-Semitism. The only reason I choose not to report it to Moderators is that I don't want the moderators to know my e-mail address at present. I know the Administrators have it. But the Moderators only get it apparently when you submit a Moderation Report request. Because I like to tread rather lightly on the "Net" I'll avoid sending him to Mods.
I would suggest to you that the Arabs do not hate the Jews because the Arabs are Muslim and we are religiously otherwise. I would suggest that that hatred goes back to Abraham's two sons, Isaac (the Son of the Promise, and father of the Jewish People), and Ishmael (the father of the Arab People). THAT is how far back you need to look, NOT to Mohammed.
Actually that would be 587-586 BCE. And the only reason that that subject hasn't been looked into more closely is because of the, yes, you guessed it, Muslims, whose Dome of the Rock currently defaces Temple Mount. It should be removed piece by piece so as not to damage the grounds beneath it and restored in Mecca or Medina. Refusal for this offer means it should be removed piece by piece and then blown up.
There is some evidence for the Exodus, albeit not in the numbers the Bible uses, which may be taken as symbolic. THAT is how far back it goes.
As far as the Temple goes, they were doing research recently, looking for the Ark of the Covenant, trying to find it, and were coming very close to finding it, when they had to stop because the so-called "Palestinians" began to riot. IF they were to find the Ark, that would prove that we had rights to the Temple Mount. Instead of simply shooting the rioters (the best option in my opinion), they found it PC to stop research. The reason I say "coming very close" is because they had reached a door beyond which the evidence in the Bible, if I am not mistaken (and I might be; I might be referring to some other source) indicated the Ark would be.
As for Abraham, you do make a good argument. However, Jews and Arabs are clearly related to each other. They are both Semitic, and share certain things in their common descent that neither of them shares with non-Jews/non-Arabs. I may not like the Arab, but he is unfortunately a half-brother. I'm guessing he got his savagery from his Egyptian slave side.
If they found the Ark, wouldn't they have to demonstrate its supernatural powers before you could make any claims about it proving the Bible? Otherwise it would just be an old fancy chest that legends were written about.the bible proves the bible, we need nothing more
Actually that would be 587-586 BCE. And the only reason that that subject hasn't been looked into more closely is because of the, yes, you guessed it, Muslims, whose Dome of the Rock currently defaces Temple Mount. It should be removed piece by piece so as not to damage the grounds beneath it and restored in Mecca or Medina. Refusal for this offer means it should be removed piece by piece and then blown up.
There is some evidence for the Exodus, albeit not in the numbers the Bible uses, which may be taken as symbolic. THAT is how far back it goes.
As far as the Temple goes, they were doing research recently, looking for the Ark of the Covenant, trying to find it, and were coming very close to finding it, when they had to stop because the so-called "Palestinians" began to riot. IF they were to find the Ark, that would prove that we had rights to the Temple Mount. Instead of simply shooting the rioters (the best option in my opinion), they found it PC to stop research. The reason I say "coming very close" is because they had reached a door beyond which the evidence in the Bible, if I am not mistaken (and I might be; I might be referring to some other source) indicated the Ark would be.
As for Abraham, you do make a good argument. However, Jews and Arabs are clearly related to each other. They are both Semitic, and share certain things in their common descent that neither of them shares with non-Jews/non-Arabs. I may not like the Arab, but he is unfortunately a half-brother. I'm guessing he got his savagery from his Egyptian slave side.
And I would suggest, FAPP, that you have a personal problem. The Bible (The Jewish Bible) has continued to be proven correct on everything it has talked about.
Again, your argument is well turned. But there IS a Covenant, and has been one for 4500 years. As long as there have been Jews, there has been a Covenant. Go back to any point in the entire history of the Jewish People. You will find a Covenant People. Until such time in the historical timeline as we don't exist (ie, before our existence), there was a People, the Jews, who embodied the Covenantal ideal. I am not going to convince you. And that is fine. I don't have to. This is what I believe. You can choose to disagree with it. But it is rational based on my understanding of history. As long as Jews have been Jews (and before that Israelites, and before that Hebrews), there has been a Covenant. That Covenant had to start somewhere. And Hebrews began to exist with Abraham. Archaeology will one day prove me right. Until then, I am not going to lose any beauty sleep about it.
This is the moment when we all realise we're not engaged in conversation with a rational person.I think this is something we were aware of for a long time now.
I NEVER suggested that the Bible was a science book!
And I would suggest, FAPP, that you have a personal problem. The Bible (The Jewish Bible) has continued to be proven correct on everything it has talked about. Archaeology has indicated so far that as far back as we can go, the Bible has been accurate.
FAPP and PIZA, anyone who can categorically deny the existence of God is completely irrational.
You have no more proof that God does NOT exist than I have that he does.
I have readily admitted that on the whole Arab-Israeli matter, I am NOT rational. So, you have won no points there.
Actually, I grant I've insulted Muslims and Arabs. I have NOT insulted others on the planet. I have NOT implied anything about what other Jews think or do not think. I have insulted you, because I do think you are an idiot, yes. Other members in some cases, yes, in other cases no. Yes, anybody who dislikes Jews is by definition an anti-Semite and yes, a barbarian. what else would you call them? If I hated Black people (I don't) I would be called racist. What other word would there be for it? And yes, I do perceive my own culture as somewhat superior to others, but that is natural. Any person who DOESN"T see their own culture as superior to others is going to commit cultural suicide. That is a case of Felony Stupid.You also said that without Jews, no one else would have made the scientific they did. (Like the polio Vacccine) That's insulting. You've also said you disregard international law and what the UN does yet then go run to it when you defend the Jewish claim to the land now known as Israel.
So, for the record. I don't like Arabs, or Muslims generally. I do think Lord Dave is a fucktard. Anyone who dislikes Jews IS an anti-Semite, just as anyone who disliked Blacks would be a racist. And any rational human should prefer his own culture to that of another. To further clarify, I am an English Jew. I prefer the English and Jewish civilisations as the most civilised as of the world.
I know, I know, that is going to sound not Politically Correct. Well, tough shit. Wake up, my friends. Political Correctness is NOT one of my strong points.
You have no more proof that God does NOT exist than I have that he does.Indeed. If we did, we would be getting some sort of award for proving that informal logic as we know it is completely moot.
And again, rejecting the notion of God's existence outright is illogical since you cannot prove the non-existence thereof. Perhaps we can both agree to a certain amount of illogic, since, as I indicated, the most logical, albeit intellectually laziest, argument would be Agnosticism. However, I still believe that the Atheist is more illogical than the Theist, because the Theist at least has circumstantial evidence backing him.
FAPP, again, I was referring to the historical aspects of the book, not the so-called scientific, which the book never claimed to be about.
It merely requires saying, "I can't prove either way definitively. Therefore I shall not worship." That is rather lazy to me.Please worship Big Papa Franklin, a guy I just made up. I didn't really establish much about him yet, but I know that he is either green or large, but definitely not both. He totally exists and will be the next big religion in a few hundred years; and if you doubt it, you're lazy.
and I hardly think that anyone should be rewarded or penalised for their religious beliefs or lack thereof.
Hating Jews is the exact definition of anti-semitism. Your argument is ridiculous, Dave.
Hating Jews is the exact definition of anti-semitism. Your argument is ridiculous, Dave.
Really?
I thought it was like Racism where you hate them but for no reason.
So what's the hatred of Muslims? Or are Jews special?
There is no Jewish culture of being an asshole. There are assholes in every ethnicity.Yes but yaakov is showing me that Jewish culture is about believing yourself superior in almost every way. If he is the standard for Jewish culture, doesn't that make it a culture of assholes?
But I submit to you that we live in the best of all possible worlds.
QUOTE: "Of course Jews are special. It takes a certain type of mental state to condemn 1.6 billion people to death."Converting to Islam might actually make people like Jews more. Overnight the Israel problem would be gone.
You are as stupid as you look. I don't condemn them to death. If they dealt the hand of peace I would deal it back in a heartbeat. It is the fact that they want to make me a Muslim, make me pay a tax, or kill me that makes me want to fight them. Don't you fucking read?
I wish I could agree but so far those who follow Jewish culture over their native country's culture seem to be very similar to Yaakov here. Kiryas Joe here in New York being a fine example as is Israel.If he is the standard for Jewish culture
I have detected the flaw in your argument.
FAPP, you are as stupid as you look.
If you misunderstood my meaning, I was referring to archaeology.
I'll bet you're a good golfer. Go practice on your putz.
You evidently missed what I said. Well, I shall leave you to get a good Yiddish-English dictionary.
Given how the Divinity handled Amalek, and reminded us NEVER to forget him, and to wipe him from the Earth at all costs, and given that "Palestinians" are descended from Amalekites, my solution of deportation is far more gentle than they actually deserve. In fact, I often worry that God might punish me for my gentleness. But I can't bring myself to annihilate all of them if they submit to being deported. I am even willing to give them 6 months wages for them and their family and eminent domain for property lost.
So, look up the word "Amalekite". And "Amalek". Then you will see what I mean. Until then, shut your cake-hole.
So I guess God ain't so ethical after all. He really is an angry God who promotes genocide.No, it's just that the killing of the wicked is ethical.
The origin of the "Palestinians" themselves is questionable.Even if that's true, it doesn't matter. No one cares how they got where they are. The problem here is that they exist, and you're not letting them live in peace in their homes.
Well, certainly of the Amalekites when they were identifiable as such. Now that they no longer ARE identifiable as such, the question is debatable. The origin of the "Palestinians" themselves is questionable. When I called them descendants of Amalek, I did so for the sake of argument. They themselves often try to say that they are indigenous to "Palestine". IF they were, that would make them Amalekites, yes.
My own personal belief, and what most scholars, Jewish and otherwise say, is that they are Arabs. That they arrived in Holy Land after the year 632 CE with the invading armies from Arabia and took up residence there. Which means that they shouldn't be "genocided" (to coin a new word) out of existence (which is rather brutal) but simply removed and put where they belong, with other Arabs. But if they insist on calling themselves "natives", then yes, treat them as Amalekites and deal with them accordingly.
Man, you are as stupid as you look. He has us do that to punish them for being so wicked. Have you ever even READ the first six books of the Old Testament?
I suspect God
But I submit to you that we live in the best of all possible worlds.The optimist thinks that we live in the best of worlds. The pessimist is afraid that it's true.
That's just a stupid thing to say, but then, we've already determined that you ARE as stupid as you look.
Population transfer, while not pleasant, has often been used to resolve diplomatic issues. The Sudeten Germans after WWII. Many Muslims in India, and Hindus in Pakistan in 1947 ring a bell right now.
QUOTE: "You understand how deranged it is to approve of the genocide of any ethnic or religious group yes?"
I'm inclined to agree, which is probably why the Amalekites are no longer identifiable, thus rendering the commandment null.
Since I am NOT advocating genocide, but population transfer, a very different thing, which would involve no deaths, Godwin's Law applies quite well here.
Male circumcision is not mutilation and never has been. It is widely done in the the USA by non-Jews simply as a health measure, to aid in the cleaning of the penis.It appears that your definition of mutilation disagrees with mine.
There has never been any practice of female cutting of any sort by Jews.
On a male, the pain, if any, is very brief.
Like I said, it depends on the dictionary. Gotta run for now.
Its one thing to allow poetic license. Its another thing entirely to allow laziness of political agenda. And freedom of expression should not trump the language being maintained in dignity and respect. Say whatever you want, but say it in a manner that wouldn't make your English teacher vomit.
The same they use in France. Fining.
France has laws in place that forbid the bastardisation of the language, particularly the use of Anglicised French on signage in public. If such signage is found, the merchant in question can be cited and fined. The use of foreign languages on signage, in music, websites, etc, is also severely limited.
See the Toubon Law.
As to the "bastardization" of English I daresay that the flexibility it employs and has always employed is what allowed it to become so prevalent.Uh, no. English is actually a relatively poor language as long as flexibility and communicative power goes. The British Empire is what allowed English to become prevalent:
FAPP, you are the fucktard here, not me. Grow up.
Well, one, we don't want a high conversion rate.Well that seems silly. What, don't want to save people or something?
Two, .2% of the population is not unusual for a small nation. Imagine being a Rohingya, which nation is small enough to NOT have its own nation, but to be ruled (rather badly) by Myanmar. Or how about a tiny tribe of naked Natives in the Venezuelan rain forest?Umm.... what small nation? That's THE WHOLE WORLD! 0.2% of the WORLD POPULATION is Jewish, in and out of Israel.
What you consider crappy is classified as pretty choice by large numbers of people. Israel, with proper irrigation, has some of the richest farmland in the world.Everything from dates and nuts to oranges and other fruits is produced exported from the Land. Granted, a weakness is the supply of water, but that IS and has ALWAYS BEEN a perennial problem that will hopefully be resolved evolved eventually. You obviously have little knowledge about that which you speak.It really isn't.
Only 20% of the land area is naturally arable.
Well, one, we don't want a high conversion rate.Well that seems silly. What, don't want to save people or something?
Is there any truth to the claim that the world is run by a bunch of evil Zionists?
QUOTE: "Well, one, we don't want a high conversion rate."Power?
"Well that seems silly. What, don't want to save people or something?"
Judaism has NEVER claimed that one needs to saved from anything. Judaism is the civilisation of the Jewish People. Aside from people born Jewish, and those few called to join us as Jews by Choice, we have little interest in making other Jews out of non-Jews. Why would we. That would be like the theoretical tribe in Venezuela wanting to make more little tribal members out of non-tribal members. What would be the point?
I never said that Israel didn't take a lot of work to make it arable. It certainly does. It is, after all, a desert. Although the environment during the Bronze Age was likely wetter and more amenable to farming. Hence the designation "The Land of Milk and Honey". But once you put the work into it, you get some pretty damn good results, and the Kibbutzim and the Moshavim have borne this out.So God gave your people a desert and said "Have fun with that?" I honestly think God hates Jewish people.
Is there any truth to the claim that the world is run by a bunch of evil Zionists?Yes.
As for giving us a desert, like I said, in the Bronze Age, it wasn't as dry. They called it the Fertile Crescent for a reason.
English to this day contains the largest vocabulary of pretty much any language in existence. Denying this is plain stupid.Well... "denying" this would be acknowledging simple facts.
VINDICTUS, remember, you ARE as stupid as you look. Weather patterns change in 4500 years, dipshit.
I am still impatiently awaiting a battle between the just forces of the Levee and the evil and greedy zionist forces of the Yaakov.
What genetic markers make a Jew, a Jew?A pointed crooked nose.
QUOTE: "I did some reading on the subject.
You are wrong. While there are genetic markers not commonly found in other groups they are all found in groups originating in the northern fertile crescent. This includes non-jew Palestinians."
I'm not sure what reading you did, but you are full of it. Jews live all over the world. If in fact you were correct, then "Palestinians" would have the same frequency of incidence of Tay-Sachs Disease as Ashkenazi Jews do, along with other interesting genetic disorders. Even other Jews don't have the same problems, so go figure.
The fact remains that Jews are an ethnic group. You can argue this all you want, and you will lose the argument, no matter how many times you argue it. Jews from Ethiopia share genetic markers with Jews from Iraq and Jews from Germany that they do not share with "Palestinians" (or anyone else for that matter).
I would encourage you to read something intelligent, and then get back to me when you actually know what you are talking about. I realise that might be difficult for you, but do try.
QUOTE: "I did some reading on the subject.
You are wrong. While there are genetic markers not commonly found in other groups they are all found in groups originating in the northern fertile crescent. This includes non-jew Palestinians."
I'm not sure what reading you did, but you are full of it. Jews live all over the world. If in fact you were correct, then "Palestinians" would have the same frequency of incidence of Tay-Sachs Disease as Ashkenazi Jews do, along with other interesting genetic disorders. Even other Jews don't have the same problems, so go figure.
The fact remains that Jews are an ethnic group. You can argue this all you want, and you will lose the argument, no matter how many times you argue it. Jews from Ethiopia share genetic markers with Jews from Iraq and Jews from Germany that they do not share with "Palestinians" (or anyone else for that matter).
I would encourage you to read something intelligent, and then get back to me when you actually know what you are talking about. I realise that might be difficult for you, but do try.
Do you know that Arabs and Jews are not literally the direct descendants of the sons of Abraham?
Well, given that Arabs are sons of Abraham by Ishmael, & Jews are sons of Abraham by Isaac (the 2 men were half-brothers), this does stand to reason. Ought to smack my head for not thinking of this. Of course Arabs & Jews are related. But they are still separate, albeit related, ethnic groups. So yes, you're partly right, I'll grant the point. But I stand by what I said re: the Levites, the Cohanim, & Jews generally, & their various DNA markers. The Samaritans are obvious. They are mixed, half Israelite & half Assyrian, mostly.Why do Jews usually like to mate only with other Jews despite a world wide distribution of Jews and such low population numbers?
VINDICUS, remember, you lack the level of intelligence that your picture would indicate that you do. And I see no reason to dispute the tradition attribution of descent for Arabs and the Jews just because an atheist suggests it.
So you have no good criteria?Does anyone?
Don't you think the criteria for what is literally true in the Bible should rely upon archaeological techniques and stringent tests of historicity rather than the teachings of an understandably biased source?
Don't you think the criteria for what is literally true in the Bible should rely upon archaeological techniques and stringent tests of historicity rather than the teachings of an understandably biased source?
Jews are God's chosen and therefore perfect in their knowledge. Why would they need anything else?
LEMON, I agree with you on that. RAMA SET, I'm inclined to agree with you, insofar as it is possible. But remember, they had a hard time finding a Jeep in the Sinai Peninsula from the Yom Kippur War recently because it had been buried in 50 feet of sand. So, of necessity, there are going to be limSo because Jews can read and write, the Torah must be true?
itations on what archaeology is able to accomplish at any one time.
And remember that the historicity of things when you're dealing with Judaism and the Jews is a little different than when you're dealing with younger civilisations. The Jewish civilisation is 4500 years old. We have maintained our culture and way of life far longer than most civilisations have on this planet, except the Chinese and possibly the Hindu (the Hindu being about the same age, and the Chinese being about 1500 years older).
Our civilisation has passed down our history through oral AND written traditions for 4500 years. When you see that the Written Torah is backed by the Oral Torah (the Oral Traditions of our Fathers), the history therein becomes a bit harder to dismiss out of hand. I am not suggesting that further research shouldn't be done. Of course it should. But what I am suggesting is that Torah gets the benefit of the doubt until such time as it is proven definitively true (most likely) or definitively false (highly unlikely).
The Oral Torah is collected in 20 volumes of Talmud, which take up a shit-ton of space on a library shelf. I would recommend reading an encyclopedia entry on the age of the Jews.
As for the comment about the Muslims, do note that Jews are capable of change. We no longer execute for adultery, and the like. Muslims still LIVE in the Seventh Century. We refer to the Torah as the basis of legislation, but amend it as necessary to reflect life in the modern world, much as the United States no longer considers the Negro 3/5 of a person, or permits slavery, etc etc, but has amended its constitution to reflect changes in life in the modern age.
As far as keeping Oral Torah straight, its harder than a non-Jew thinks. Just because its been written down, in many cases, no firm decisions have been decided on its issues. They continued to be debated today. In some cases, firm decisions have been made, but in many, different decisions are made when the situation comes up depending on the circumstances.
Since human beings, and civilisations, do not always operate logically, application of the rules of logic cannot always apply. By that standard, they would have given up the search for the first three dynasties of China since for many, many years they had found NOTHING. But they did not, and eventually, the research paid off.
At present, I must sign off. Have a pleasant day, people.
When you see that the Written Torah is backed by the Oral Torah
As far as keeping Oral Torah straight, its harder than a non-Jew thinks. Just because its been written down, in many cases, no firm decisions have been decided on its issues. They continued to be debated today. In some cases, firm decisions have been made, but in many, different decisions are made when the situation comes up depending on the circumstances.I hope you notice the contradiction here.
DAVE, you evidently have no idea what you are talking about. The Oral Torah contains many things that the written Torah does not.
QUOTE OF MINE FROM ANOTHER THREAD: "Since the very foundational aspects of Jewish existence are based on the Exodus, it is difficult to conclude that such never occurred. Very much like the Chinese Civilisation, where the first three dynasties were determined to be mythical, now the third of those has been proven historical through archaeological and historical research. I expect the first two will as well. The same will occur with the Exodus in time.
To be blunt, and perhaps a bit rude, people don't just invent founding myths that endure for 4500 fucking years. You can invent shit that might endure for 50, or even a 100 years, but not for 4 and half a millenia. And ultimately, since the Book of Exodus has been around for 4500 years, and the atheistic/agnostic mindset only for about 250, I would submit that it is the latter upon whom the burden of proof rests. If you wish to argue that Exodus never happened, and challenge the accepted tradition of Jewish, Christian, and even Muslim civilisation by so arguing, then you'd better buy a damned good bow, and put some excellent arrows in your quiver, and be prepared to go to battle. While you're at it, be prepared not only to lose said battle, but be prepared to look like an asshole doing it.
And the claim that "modern biblical scholarship" has proven that Exodus was written 600 years after the event won't get you far with about 80% of the Jewish religious world (the non-religious Jewish world doesn't give a rat's ass one way or the other), and it won't get you too far with most of the Christian world, or any of the Muslim world (not that I care about the latter, but, I'm simply making a point). Most of us regard "modern biblical scholarship" as a joke. It was established largely BY atheists and agnostics, so it holds essentially no value because its deliberate intent from the beginning is to disprove the text, rather than look at it objectively.
I could go on, but I think I have made my point." END QUOTE.
Please quote normally. It's unnecessarily hard to read your posts.
Amish Paradise?Please quote normally. It's unnecessarily hard to read your posts.
He can't. He accesses the internet through an old wooden rotary phone.
I see no arguments from authority at all. Ad homs, yes, intended ones. Unless you count tradition as an authority (I'm not so sure I do, at least not a valid one per se). I mean, ok, it has a vote, but not a veto, lets put it that way.
I've studied "modern liberal Biblical scholarship" just as you have. In fact, I probably know more about it than you do, having been educated in a liberal Catholic university, where religion and theology courses were required. I also studied for ministry at one point. So don't try to lecture me about current liberal theology. I already know it better than you do. I simply am not stupid enough to accept it as you do.
That's not an argument. That is simply as statement of fact. He keeps trying make a "teachable moment" out his blathering, like he's leading me to the Great Well of Enlightenment, or something. Well, the truth is, I've been there, done that, bought the T-shirt, and the hat. I don't need his "teachable moments". I probably DO know more about the subject than he does.
Again, I am not trying to make any arguments with my statement. I am not even trying to say that I can prove that Moses wrote the Torah based on the fact that I know more about "modern liberal Biblical scholarship" than he does. I am simply making the acknowledgement that I do indeed have more knowledge on the subject than he does. Again, there is no argument being offered, but simply a point being made.
I see no purpose in reviewing stuff that I was forced to swallow in liberal left-wing unversity courses by professors that basically hated white, straight, male, Jewish persons. And ultimately God, of course. I had to read that shit once. I am all too familiar with the J, P, E, D, bullshit, and all the crap about the Bible not being written when tradition says it was, and the Exodus not having occurred, and yada, yada, yada.
My response? Bite me. Hell, I'm even familiar with the claims that Mark wrote his Gospel first, and that Matthew and Luke borrowed from him and some unknown document they call Q (from the German "Quelle" meaning "Source"). Well, of course, this is stupid. No one has ever found this mysterious "Q" document. Now, I am no Christian, but come on! How can you possibly make the claim that the Gospel writers used a source that you don't even know exists! That is just fucktarded!
So, Finkelstein can bite me. So can you, while you're at it. I've read all this shit before. I don't see the need to pollute my brain with further shit.
Considering his own ad Hominems he throws about his own professors, im not sure he considers his education valid. By his own insults, he probably knows only wrong things about the subject.I see no arguments from authority at all. Ad homs, yes, intended ones. Unless you count tradition as an authority (I'm not so sure I do, at least not a valid one per se). I mean, ok, it has a vote, but not a veto, lets put it that way.
This argument from authority:I've studied "modern liberal Biblical scholarship" just as you have. In fact, I probably know more about it than you do, having been educated in a liberal Catholic university, where religion and theology courses were required. I also studied for ministry at one point. So don't try to lecture me about current liberal theology. I already know it better than you do. I simply am not stupid enough to accept it as you do.
Remember what I have said repeatedly on this thread. Jews neither know, nor particularly care, what God has or has not taught non-Jews. We know what God has taught us, and what he expects of us. What lies beyond that is quite beyond our paygrade, and none of our concern.Unlesss its to kill Jews. Amirite?
I have studied practically every religion on the planet at one time or other.
I have studied practically every religion on the planet at one time or other. This involved visiting the mosque for a time. And since I attended a Catholic university, I knew that would involve taking religion courses. Which I wouldn't have minded had they actually taught true Catholic doctrine rather than the liberal bullshit that they actually taught. Fortunately, outside of the Religion Dept, the university in question was an excellent one, and my philosophy major (one of the few universities in the country where the majority of philosophy profs are theists) and my history major were conservative, traditional, and brilliant.This explains a few things. Thanks.
Remember that I was raised completely NON-Observant. I was less Jewish than anybody I ever knew. I began exploring spirituality when I was about 12, but I didn't start with Judaism. I came to my own Faith late. My family did not encourage me to explore Judaism at all. That was a decision I made completely on my own, comparatively recently. In fact, where I lived, there was no synagogue, so I ended up starting my search in churches.
This journey for some Jews is NOT unusual. I always knew my ethnicity was Jewish, but it was essentially in a coma, and I never looked to the religion to succor me, since I lived in a totally non-Jewish environment. Why would I? What was there to appeal to me, until I came into contact with Jews? So it was much later, after exploring Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism that I finally turned to Judaism.
I can't believe I just read a thread and found sandokhan to have a significantly more convincing argument than his opponent. I need to go lie down.
As I said to him, it depends on whether or not you accept the claims of modern liberal biblical scholarship. I don't. So none of his arguments affect me in any way. And to give him credit, he didn't plagiarise. He did quote and give credit from where the quotes were derived. Granted, the whole argument was based on those quotes, but still.
But his argument presupposes that his interlocutor is on the same page he is. I am not. I don't except any of the "biblical research" that liberal scholars have made since the middle of about the 19th Century, or at least very little of it. So he can't argue with me on it. There is no hoping to convince me. The whole conversation is pointless.
VINDICTUS, remember, you are indeed as dumb as you look. Refusing to accept modern day liberal biblical scholarship is simply refusal to be taken in by the claptrap that is put out by man-hating, white-hating, mostly Jew-hating, and straight-bating Left-wing batch of morons who call themselves intellectuals.
Anyone who is stupid enough, again to use a Christian example, to accept that Matthew and Luke used Mark and a hypothetical "Q" document to write their own books, even though the "Q" document has NEVER been found, and no one has any clear idea what may have been in it, shouldn't be allowed out in public.
So, anyone who rejects the traditional Mosaic authorship of the Torah without extraordinary good reason (which these "scholars" have been unable to provide) should also not be allowed in public.
claptrap that is put out by man-hating, white-hating, mostly Jew-hating, and straight-bating Left-wing batch of morons who call themselves intellectuals.and, more importantly, that it is inaccurate. Or, just say that you don't especially care what the reality of the situation is because you prefer your version of events. Either of those is fine, but don't say the second and pretend you mean the first.
QUOTE: "Anyone who is stupid enough, again to use a Christian example, to accept that Matthew and Luke used Mark and a hypothetical "Q" document to write their own books, even though the "Q" document has NEVER been found, and no one has any clear idea what may have been in it, shouldn't be allowed out in public."
That is a perfect example of the "scholarship" I am talking about.
Lets be honest. In what universe is an argument like that logical? If a court of law were trying to figure out how two different people wrote their books, any books, not necessarily the Gospels, and I as an attorney were to say to the Judge, "Sir, they used a third book that we have, and then a fourth document that no one has ever found. But we know it must exist.", how far do you think I'd get? Seriously.
Actually, no, the comparison fails. its one thing to HAVE SOMETHING in your hand. A tradition, a long-standing idea, that people have believed, at that has been the basis of your civilisation. Then history comes along and says, "guess what? You were right for the last 2000 years." Its another thing to totally invent shit up out of whole cloth to try to explain your shoddy "scholarship" and your incompetence.
Now, PLEASE note, I am NOT claiming to know the answer. I am merely claiming that the Exodus occurred
On the other hand, good luck finding proof of a "Q", which NO ONE ever talked about until somebody invented the idea in their pea-brain in the 19th Century to explain how Mark came to be written first (which is crap; I expect the Catholic Church is right when they say that Matthew was first, and possibly originally in Hebrew, although the oldest copies that Christians possess are in Greek).No one talked about Germs until the 19th century either. Just saying...
You have to go back to Ockham's Razor. The simplest answer is the true one.Ok.
They tell the story a bit differently, and inaccurately, ...Citation needed.
I believe the first 11 chapters of Genesis to be indecipherable. I do think there was a Flood, if for no other reason then that most major cultures in the world have a Flood story. As for the Creation, I'm not sure what I think about that. The talking Serpent and all that. I certainly do think that God can permit a serpent to talk if that is what he wishes to do. And in the Garden, perhaps ALL the animals talked. I don't know. Unfortunately, the Book of Genesis doesn't give us a lot of information. However, I can say that with the Sun and the Moon not having been created until the Fourth Day, you have to take at least the first three days as not necessarily being 24 hours in duration. They could have been whole eons of time for all I know.
I have read further about what caused the destruction of the Cities on the Plain, and some have theorised that it might have been a nuclear explosion. It certainly is possible. God has certainly been known to be behind some pretty crazy shit back in the day, and if you believe that God allowed Oppenheimer to create the thing that wiped out two Japanese cities, well, why couldn't he have sent angels to do the same thing back then?That is probably he most retarted thing you have come out with. Nuclear explosion? Why would angels build a nuclear bomb? First, they have divine power and blow away a city with a fart and a naked flame. Second, if they have to observe physics, why would they pick a 20th century dirty weapon? Why not a 50th century one that is more precise and has no fall out?
THORK, first, I strongly recommend that you make use of the spell-check device on this system. "Retarted" is not a word.One day, when you lrn2internet, you will read this back and feel silly.
Nor did I say that Angels built a nuclear bomb. I said they caused a nuclear explosion.That is one hell of an interpretation. I mean you are literally reading one thing, and coming to the conclusion of another. This is how sneaky Jews have used religion for war for thousands of years. It does not say anything about nuclear explosions in the Bible or any other religious text. Stop being a retart.
IMHO.Which at this stage isn't worth very much.
And your opinion has not been asked for. Frankly, I could give a rat's ass what your opinion is. TAUSAMI asked for a Jewish response to the biblical story, and I gave him one. I could give a flying fuck about your interpretation.This isn't your forum and I can give an opinion on anything I so choose. Its likely to be backed with a little more education than yours.
Someone who can't even spell "retard" correctly is not likely to have an advanced degree. I do.Apparently they didn't teach you about memes when you earned your advanced degree. I'd ask for a refund.
Someone who can't even spell "retard" correctly is not likely to have an advanced degree. I do. Notice also, fucktard, I did not say whether I thought it was a nuclear explosion. I said some scholars have interpreted it as such. Remember, you are a fucktard. You can give your opinion, but be advised that nobody cares. One, you are not a Jew, so you know nothing about the Jewish response, which is the purpose of this thread. Two, you are stupid enough to believe the Earth is flat. That automatically indicates that you have no advanced education, or, if you do, that you are what we here in Iowa call an educated idiot.
So, I call bullshit on you claiming any kind of an education. I think you are full of it. You do know how to make up a good story, though. Keep at it, old boy. I'm sure you can fool at least a few people.
I am saying that the Four Cities on the Plain may have been destroyed by means of a nuclear explosion.There were 5 cities. Sodom and Gomorrah were allied with the cities of Admah, Zeboim and Bela. Also angels don't use nukes, Fucktart.
I didn't say angels did anything. I am saying that the Four Cities on the Plain may have been destroyed by means of a nuclear explosion. How that may have occurred is not my province to explain. I am only telling you what some scholars have suggested.
Nor did I say that Angels built a nuclear bomb. I said [angels] caused a nuclear explosion.
I'd understand if he only misspelled it once. But he spells it incorrectly every time he uses the word. And I do know what a meme is in the Dawkins sense of the word. And its kind of a stupid idea, really.
There were five cities. Only four were destroyed.So how are the two daughters able to claim that there were no men left on earth? There is another city full of men, left intact.
Wisdom 10:6 refers to Five Cities, including Sodom, or Pentapolis: "Wisdom rescued a righteous man when the ungodly were perishing; he escaped the fire that descended on the Five Cities."
I'd understand if he only misspelled it once. But he spells it incorrectly every time he uses the word. And I do know what a meme is in the Dawkins sense of the word. And its kind of a stupid idea, really.
So there's 26 references to people who can't spell the word "retarded" correctly. That is ridiculous. Meanwhile, a meme is defined as the following:
QUOTE: "A meme (/ˈmiːm/ meem)[1] is "an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture."[2]" (Wikipedia).
I don't see the point.
An Internet meme (/ˈmiːm/ MEEM) is an activity, concept, catchphrase or piece of media which spreads, often as mimicry, from person to person via the Internet.
He's gone to count money.
That's the first time I've gotten that question. The answer is, yes. She is a non-Jew, and I don't force her to comport herself with Jewish manners. As long as she comports herself with the proper conservativism of a non-Jew, I can live with that. I myself do not shake other women's hands, unless I am forced into it in some way (ie, if it would appear grossly rude to refuse). Generally, I try to put myself in a physical stance such that I can hold my hands behind my back and when the hand comes out, and I can kindly explain that it is my custom not to shake hands with women outside the family. With Jewish women, this is not a problem, even if they are the liberal type. With non-Jewish women, this may or may not be possible. It depends on the situation.
Its not a question of maturity at all. Its a question of what's appropriate or not. It is not appropriate to touch women that are outside one's family (ie, not one's wife, mother, sister, or other immediate family relative). Gentiles have similar rules, they just don't extend them as far as we do. For example, you would not want your wife to show affection to another man in certain ways. We simply take the thing a little further. Notice that when Jews lived among Jews we had fewer incidences of men and women cheating on their spouses (at least, reported incidences), and fewer divorces, and definitely lower ratings of alcoholism than the general population. Now that we live with non-Jews, our alcoholism rate is only slightly lower than the general population.
The rules are good for all concerned. They reduce the risk of misunderstanding between two people that can result in incredible pain and sorrow to three or even four people. It is unwise to change things without EXTREMELY good reason to do so.
I don't have any citations. That' something I've always heard older Jews state, particularly the ones that lived through the Holocaust, and previously lived in Shtetls. The casual link between hand-shaking and divorce is simply saying that a handshake CAN become (not necessarily WILL become) something more than that.
You are right. It is an ethical choice. Is there an empirical fact outcome? Perhaps none that I personally can prove, since I am not a statistician. I'm sure someone could look at the date and come up with proof one way or the other.
But ultimately, why don't we touch our neighbour's wife? Because the Torah has been interpreted as telling us not to. I can't recall if its in the text itself, or if one has to go to the Talmud to find it. But the Torah of God has been interpreted as requiring very strict rules about our consideration of the other sex. Since not touching one's wife during her menses is in Torah, I expect the rest of it is too. I would look the matter up now, but I am in a bit of a hurry.
Well, to be blunt, if you violate the Sabbath in some parts of the world (say, KJ), the only reason they WON'T execute you is because they don't have the authority to do so. If they could, I expect they probably would.
Israel is governed largely by secular Jews who don't even worry about touching across gender lines, let alone other violations of the Torah. So that's not relevant.
I would strongly advise you, if you are ever in KJ, or any place like it (there are several such communities in the USA, and quite a few in Israel), DON'T go and break the rules of Torah. You will be ridden out of town on a rail at the very least, and possibly worse. For example, show up to KJ some time, ladies, wearing daisey dukes and a halter-top and start wandering around. I can pretty much assure you that within about five or ten minutes, you WILL get stones thrown at you until you either one, leave, or two, are seriously injured or killed. And no, don't expect some "good Samaritan" to call the outside authorities to help you. Won't happen. The same is true for men who misbehave or get into mischief.
So, remember. Just because the Jews you SEE don't kill each other for violating Sabbath doesn't mean it couldn't happen. It just means that the Jews you see in the public eye are the liberal Jews or the non-religious Jews. The same Jews that touch each other outside the family are the ones who don't worry about violating the sabbath. The ones who won't touch each other are the same who would not violate the Sabbath, and so would do fine in some place like KJ.
And as men are to women, so women are to men. The restrictions are to men. Gay Jews are not contemplated in this scheme of things, obviously. When the text was written, no one really gave that much thought, I don't suppose. At the time, homosexuality was understood to be forbidden outright under penalty of death. As we've come to differently understand human sexualities, I am not sure what that may or may not do to the traditional standards. Probably nothing. Since the majority of men are straight, as are the majority of women, I expect that there won't be much change in the question of who may touch whom, especially since the Bible has spoken clearly on the matter. The Bible never spoke clearly on the matter of homosexuality. But on the matter of who can touch whom, it does.
The difference is that we don't want to impose our beliefs on non-Jews. The Muslims do.
Well, to be blunt, if you violate the Sabbath in some parts of the world (say, KJ), the only reason they WON'T execute you is because they don't have the authority to do so. If they could, I expect they probably would.
KJ is Kiryas Joel, a town in New York that is 99% Jewish, nearly all of the Satmar Hasidic group, that essentially dominates everything to do with the town . And I reconcile the statements by saying that the people of KJ aren't seeking to make non-Jews live there. Yes, they are a bit nasty toward their neighbours, and they do want to expand, but not so as to acquire the land and property in which non-Jews are now living. Rather, they want to acquire what is now empty land and then build on it to allow their ever growing population room to expand.
But yes, if you are stupid enough to go into an area that is predominantly Jewish, and attempt to impose your beliefs on the native population, then you deserve whatever happens to you, including stoning, frankly. I have no problem if the people in KJ want to stone the hypothetical girl wearing Daisy Dukes in the middle of town.
In fact, I wouldn't even object to Muslims in London feeling the same way, except for one minor difference. They took over a portion of the main city that people have to travel through. Nobody HAS to travel to or through KJ. It is easily avoidable. Plus, I'm not worried about the people of KJ being good citizens. They don't feel the need to blow shit up. The Muslims do. But if the Muslims wanted to be left alone and follow their own unusual customs, it wouldn't bother me at all as such. I just don't trust the bastards.
Actually, they are native to Kiryas Joel. It was founded in 1979, and that is when the Grand Rabbi (who selected the location for it) and the families that initiated the profect moved there after the land was bought. You can't be more native than that.
Throwing said rock is certainly not immoral to the person throwing it.So what? The law is an unreasonable infringement on someone's right to life. There are very few acts that could be considered so obviously immoral as throwing a rock at someone for not conforming to their beliefs. This is getting more barbaric by the minute.
It is not in the constitution one way or the other.
Whether its illegal or not may or may not depend on whether you're standing inside KJ or not.
And on a personal level, I'll be honest. You go into somebody's shit, you should probably do as the Romans do. That's just a personal opinion, and I'm not saying they should back it up with stoning (that's a bit much), but still, its called, be a little sensitive, fucker, or go home.
According to 2008 census figures, the village has the highest poverty rate in the nation. More than two-thirds of residents live below the federal poverty line and 40% receive food stamps
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiryas_Joel,_New_YorkAccording to 2008 census figures, the village has the highest poverty rate in the nation. More than two-thirds of residents live below the federal poverty line and 40% receive food stamps
Yep, religion sure is great.
Well, most of us know Vindictus is as stupid as he looks.
But it is true that they do have the highest poverty rate in the USA. That again, is not so much from religion as it is from the social rules that give them VERY large families with only one income. It tends to be from an over literal interpretation of religion, if anything.
Actually, they are native to Kiryas Joel. It was founded in 1979, and that is when the Grand Rabbi (who selected the location for it) and the families that initiated the profect moved there after the land was bought. You can't be more native than that.
Throwing said rock is certainly not immoral to the person throwing it. It is not in the constitution one way or the other. Whether its illegal or not may or may not depend on whether you're standing inside KJ or not.
New York most likely tolerates such a barbaric town for the same reason Europe tolerates Muslim communities. The authorities fear retributive backlash in the form of "ow, my religious rights!" even though it's an obvious case of the religion pushing on other people, not the opposite. And Yaakov, you can't say "well, just don't go there." This is a civilized country where anywhere one goes, they will (or at least should) receive their rights. No religious text trumps federal law.
If KJ is poor, does that mean they don't have any Jew Gold?KJ is not technically poor. The people who live there are poor but the township is not. This is because, as I understand it, the township owns all the money the people generate. Or at least most of it.
Yes, I have heard about the alleged shopping practices. IF that is true, then that is clearly quite rude. The key word being IF. I'm also familiar with theme attempting to annex territory. They say they are doing it to accomodate their increasing popuation's need for water. Their neighbours say that it would from the property values of their (the neighbour's) own housing if high rise) apts were built on the land that currently is natural land, with nothing on it. My own opinion on that is mixed. Clearly people need a place to live. I would need to study to situation out before I determined whether KJ needed for land or not. I simply can't answer that. I don't think the neighbour's home values are relevant at all. What IS relevant is, do people have a place to live or not? If yes, thebn don't annex shit. If no, then take the territory. Its that simple.There is no if. My wife saw them every week at Macy's.
Yes, I have heard about the alleged shopping practices. IF that is true, then that is clearly quite rude. The key word being IF. I'm also familiar with theme attempting to annex territory. They say they are doing it to accomodate their increasing popuation's need for water. Their neighbours say that it would from the property values of their (the neighbour's) own housing if high rise) apts were built on the land that currently is natural land, with nothing on it. My own opinion on that is mixed. Clearly people need a place to live. I would need to study to situation out before I determined whether KJ needed for land or not. I simply can't answer that. I don't think the neighbour's home values are relevant at all. What IS relevant is, do people have a place to live or not? If yes, thebn don't annex shit. If no, then take the territory. Its that simple.
Actually, they are native to Kiryas Joel. It was founded in 1979, and that is when the Grand Rabbi (who selected the location for it) and the families that initiated the profect moved there after the land was bought. You can't be more native than that.I don't think that's what native means. How can you be native to a place where you weren't born? ???
I can cite international law as much as I like. The fact that the so-called "arbiters" of international law are anti-Semitic and anti-Israel is not my fault. So what you are telling me is that when it works in the favour of non-Jews, international law can be used. But when it doesn't, it can't be? My only response to that is, go fuck yourself. If the UN wasn't such a hypocritical fucking joke that needed to be abolished straightaway, Israel would be judged in the right 90% of the time. I used your much vaunted international law to prove a point, and make you look stupid, and I succeeded. Ultimately, I believe that the UN and the ICC should be abolished and their buildings incinerated, preferably with the members still in them. So like I said, go fuck yourself.
I can cite international law as much as I like. The fact that the so-called "arbiters" of international law are anti-Semitic and anti-Israel is not my fault. So what you are telling me is that when it works in the favour of non-Jews, international law can be used. But when it doesn't, it can't be? My only response to that is, go fuck yourself. If the UN wasn't such a hypocritical fucking joke that needed to be abolished straightaway, Israel would be judged in the right 90% of the time. I used your much vaunted international law to prove a point, and make you look stupid, and I succeeded. Ultimately, I believe that the UN and the ICC should be abolished and their buildings incinerated, preferably with the members still in them. So like I said, go fuck yourself.
I can find a whole country that agrees with me. Its called Israel. You may have heard of it. And a good portion of the US and Canada seem to as well, unless you count the idiot President we currently have, with his Left-wing minions who don't have a clue how to conduct foreign policy. A trained fucking polar bear with a oujia board and a set of dice could do a better job.I'd say this was an argument ad populum but at 0.12% of the total population I don't think that counts.
And since "Palestinians" are only one step up from the higher primates... I mean, seriously. Only the latest models can actually talk. The rest of them are still swinging from their tails.Wow. With an attitude like that, it's no wonder the Palestinians hate you.
I can find a whole country that agrees with me. Its called Israel. You may have heard of it. And a good portion of the US and Canada seem to as well, unless you count the idiot President we currently have, with his Left-wing minions who don't have a clue how to conduct foreign policy. A trained fucking polar bear with a oujia board and a set of dice could do a better job.
And since "Palestinians" are only one step up from the higher primates... I mean, seriously. Only the latest models can actually talk. The rest of them are still swinging from their tails.Wow. With an attitude like that, it's no wonder the Palestinians hate you.
My only response to that is, go fuck yourself. If the UN wasn't such a hypocritical fucking joke that needed to be abolished straightaway, Israel would be judged in the right 90% of the time. I used your much vaunted international law to prove a point, and make you look stupid, and I succeeded. Ultimately, I believe that the UN and the ICC should be abolished and their buildings incinerated, preferably with the members still in them. So like I said, go fuck yourself.
Yaakov, please keep the personal insults out of your posts. You're welcome to think that Thork/Saddam/everyone is a terrible sub-human, and you're welcome to express these views in Angry Ranting and Complete Nonsense, but this is not something that will be allowed in the upper fora. You've been warned about this before by Junker and you've clearly ignored it, so next time we're gonna have to start handing out short bans.
2 days is a bit soft, isn't it?If it doesn't work, subsequent bans will get bigger.
Anyone promoting genital mutilation of children, male or female, should be banned forever.Male circumcision is not mutilation and never has been. It is widely done in the the USA by non-Jews simply as a health measure, to aid in the cleaning of the penis.It appears that your definition of mutilation disagrees with mine.
There has never been any practice of female cutting of any sort by Jews.
On a male, the pain, if any, is very brief.
It also appears that your definition of mutilation disagrees with dictionaries.
QUOTE
Some ethnic groups practice ritual mutilation, e.g. circumcision, scarification, burning, flagellation, tattooing, or wheeling, as part of a rite of passage. In some cases, the term may apply to treatment of dead bodies, such as soldiers mutilated after they have been killed by an enemy.
(NOTE TO CENSORS: Also not an insult, but rather, a fair observation on the maturity or lack thereof of a person)
[...]and no damage done to the penis.
And it appears that the Moderators tend to be a little sensitive on this forum when it comes to perceived insults.Sensitive? We've literally ignored your shit for months.
It does NOT harm the penis. It removes the foreskin, which is NOT a part of the penis itself, but rather, is the foreskin, which is separate.
At least pretend to be someone else.
There is very little holding the foreskin to the penis, actually. Its a separate piece of flesh entirely, attached by a small piece of skin near the tip, and a ring of skin at the base, and not much more than that.
I choose to NOT insult anybody, as that has been the request. Any other Jew who saw this thread would probably go ballistic on here. Between the statements about counting Jew gold, and owning the Bank of England, and all that, along with the anti-Israel garbage, there is enough anti-Semitism to make Hitler proud. But hey, I choose to engage the thread anyway, and not lose my cool. And I admit that I have at times been a bit uncharitable myself. I apologise for that. There is no excuse for me to be an alter kacker, even if some people here are less than kind. So, perhaps we could all take a break from being harsh to each other, and lets have a genuine discussion with each other, and be reasonable, shall we?
There is very little holding the foreskin to the penis, actually. Its a separate piece of flesh entirely, attached by a small piece of skin near the tip, and a ring of skin at the base, and not much more than that.
Between the statements about counting Jew gold, and owning the Bank of EnglandLol.
>gets banned for offensive language
>makes alt account with offensive language
>doesn't get banned
If I break one rule, that's no bueno, if I break two, that's legit. Okay.
So, anti-Semitism is allowed, but if I say anything against the Muslims, that's not allowed. I see how it is... Political Correctness at its best.
So, anti-Semitism is allowed, but if I say anything against the Muslims, that's not allowed. I see how it is... Political Correctness at its best.
So, anti-Semitism is allowed, but if I say anything against the Muslims, that's not allowed. I see how it is... Political Correctness at its best.
Jews are in control of everything. The only reason that you would ever lose control of a situation (e.g. get banned) is because you're not Jewing hard enough. It wasn't that you said anything against Muslims, its just that you obviously didn't say enough. Ignite the rage inside and please the Jew overlords.
Yaakov, where does your new username come from? Is this another one of your jew names?
This thread is proof that Yakkov is either a terrible person, a terrible jew, or the best jew ever.
Either way, Yakkov is not someone I personally like.
This thread is proof that Yakkov is either a terrible person, a terrible jew, or the best jew ever.
Either way, Yakkov is not someone I personally like.
I think advocating mass genocide is enough to consider them a pretty bad person ::)
Actually, IMHO, the Censors, had they been truly neutral, would have banned several people by now right along with me, but in their cases, for being grossly anti-Semitic. Just the anti-Israel crap would be enough to do it. All of you failing to even consider facts in the Israel/"Palestinian" situation would be enough. For example, the absolutely absurd accusation of genocide, when in fact the "Palestinian" population has multiplied by four times since '67, is enough in and of itself to prove that the other accusations should at least be reconsidered. The fact that a "Palestinian" right now can take a picture of Netanyahu and write on it that "Netanyahu sucks ass" and go and hold it up in public, with nothing happening to him, is a clear indicator that for an Occupying Power, Israel is remarkably tolerant. Try anything similar in Tibet. For that matter, try it in ANY Muslim country of the Middle East, Arab or Persian, for that matter. The fact that the same "Palestinian", if he has an objection to his treatment by the Occupying Power, can sue said Occupying Power in that Power's own Supreme Court, and has a good chance of winning his case (many "Palestinians" have), is quite remarkable for an Occupying Power. I have to go for a moment. But when I come back, I can have more of these factoids available to show that as far as Occupying Powers go, Israel is a pretty decent one.
They aren't advocating mass genocide, just forced relocation and encampment. You know, like the Indians.This thread is proof that Yakkov is either a terrible person, a terrible jew, or the best jew ever.
Either way, Yakkov is not someone I personally like.
I think advocating mass genocide is enough to consider them a pretty bad person ::)
Actually, IMHO, the Censors, had they been truly neutral, would have banned several people by now right along with me, but in their cases, for being grossly anti-Semitic. Just the anti-Israel crap would be enough to do it. All of you failing to even consider facts in the Israel/"Palestinian" situation would be enough. For example, the absolutely absurd accusation of genocide, when in fact the "Palestinian" population has multiplied by four times since '67, is enough in and of itself to prove that the other accusations should at least be reconsidered. The fact that a "Palestinian" right now can take a picture of Netanyahu and write on it that "Netanyahu sucks ass" and go and hold it up in public, with nothing happening to him, is a clear indicator that for an Occupying Power, Israel is remarkably tolerant. Try anything similar in Tibet. For that matter, try it in ANY Muslim country of the Middle East, Arab or Persian, for that matter. The fact that the same "Palestinian", if he has an objection to his treatment by the Occupying Power, can sue said Occupying Power in that Power's own Supreme Court, and has a good chance of winning his case (many "Palestinians" have), is quite remarkable for an Occupying Power. I have to go for a moment. But when I come back, I can have more of these factoids available to show that as far as Occupying Powers go, Israel is a pretty decent one.
You didn't get banned for being an Islamophobe. There are worse people than you on this forum. You got banned for constantly insulting everyone. It's not cool, dude. It's just not cool.
They aren't advocating mass genocide, just forced relocation and encampment. You know, like the Indians.This thread is proof that Yakkov is either a terrible person, a terrible jew, or the best jew ever.
Either way, Yakkov is not someone I personally like.
I think advocating mass genocide is enough to consider them a pretty bad person ::)
Commenting on a remark that utterly ridiculous would just make me equally ridiculous. Welcome to anti-Semitism at its best, is all I can say.Or, it could mean that you have finally given in to the ridiculousness of this place.
I'm not sure any forced relocation is humane. I mean, what if every jew was forced to move to Israel with 6 months pay? (what level exactly?) I mean, we'd be ripping families apart if they're mixed religion. We'd be destroying lives. I've moved against my will before. I did not enjoy the experience. I can't imagine anyone enjoying it.They aren't advocating mass genocide, just forced relocation and encampment. You know, like the Indians.This thread is proof that Yakkov is either a terrible person, a terrible jew, or the best jew ever.
Either way, Yakkov is not someone I personally like.
I think advocating mass genocide is enough to consider them a pretty bad person ::)
Forced relocation, yes, in a sense. But done humanely, as has had to be done before. The Germans of the Sudentenland after 1945, Some of the Muslims of India, and nearly all of the Hindus of Pakistan after 1947, being a few that ring bells right off hand. 750,000 Jews that lived in Arab countries all being deported to Israel in 1948 being some more. The difference is the Jews weren't kindly relocated, but forced out with nothing but what they could carry.
There's no difference between killing a city of humans and killing the ants in an ant mound, which people do every day.
And don't start with the "ants are a lower lifeform, they're barely sentient" nonsense.
There's no difference between killing a city of humans and killing the ants in an ant mound, which people do every day.
And don't start with the "ants are a lower lifeform, they're barely sentient" nonsense.
Ants are territorial and hostile. They bring it upon themselves.
Vindictus, you have, as usual, failed to see the point. I have at no time advocated genocide. Again, Israel has never engaged in the practice. Given that the "Palestinian" population has multiplied by 4 times in 47 years, lets face it, they're doing a piss-poor job of it if that is what they are attempting to do. If Israel truly wanted to eliminate every "Palestinian", it could be accomplished within a week. Intensive carpet bombing or fire bombing would do the job quite nicely. I realise you regularly fail to see my point. I've gotten used to that, so don't expect me to be overly surprised.
the Quran, which I have read three times, but I suspect you have not read at all, tells them they must convert me, force me to pay the Jizyah tax, or kill me.
I have not advocated the genocide of Muslims around the world. I have advocated their complete subjugation. Nor do I apologise for that.
Islam is the state religion of Saudi Arabia. Although no law specifically requires Saudi citizens or passport holders to be Muslim, public observance and proselytism of religions other than Islam are forbidden.
LORD DAVE, you have made my point for me. Thank you.And what point did I make exactly? Because last time I checked, you don't need to practice jeudaism to be a Jew. You said something similar yourself. So unless you wish to claim that you are physically incapable of not openky practicing your religion for a few days, you can visit Saudi Arabia just as I can.
PARSIFAL, you know, I'm not contesting the fact that I was banned. To be honest, I deserved it, at least the first time. I just believe that several other people deserved it along with me. I appreciate that my alt, as you put it, has been left alone. I am trying not to insult anyone here with it. I agree this is off-topic, which doesn't mean it can't be discussed here. However, I can slide on over to S&C if you like. BEFORE I do, I would ask that you read through the thread yourself, and for good measure, the one on ISIS and the Middle East, and observe the rampant, disgusting level of anti-Semitism you will find in both of them.Anti-American isn't against the rules either. And being jewish is a culture isn't it?
I suggest that you refer to the law codes of Saudi Arabia. If you are known to be Jewish at all, you are not permitted to enter the Kingdom. Atheist Jews are no different than other Jews, or for that matter other atheists, since atheists can be executed for denial of God's existence. Furthermore, if you have ever visited Israel in such manner that your passport bears a stamp from that country, you also will not be permitted entry to Saudi Arabia for any reason whatsoever.Ooohhhh, so they did what you feel should be done to Muslims. Guess they're just better than you at keeping "inferior" religions out eh?
I am NOT going to take the time to hunt down the laws for you. If you want to do that, that is your problem, not mine. I already know Saudi law from discussion with Arabs at the Mosque. And no, I was never a Muslim. I studied it for two years. there is a difference.
Being Jewish is ethno-religious. That is the difference. It is more than just being a culture.You have stated quite clearly that a Jew is still a Jew even if they don't practice.
big wall of text
The term jizyah, rendered by me as "exemption tax", occurs in the Qur'an only once, but its meaning and purpose have been fully explained in many authentic Traditions. It is intimately bound up with the concept of the Islamic state as an ideological organization: and this is a point which must always be borne in mind if the real purport of this tax is to be understood. In the Islamic state, every able-bodied Muslim is obliged to take up arms in jihad (i.e., in a just war in God's cause) whenever the freedom of his faith or the political safety of his community is imperilled: in other words, every able-bodied Muslim is liable to compulsory military service. Since this is, primarily, a religious obligation, non-Muslim citizens, who do not subscribe to the ideology of Islam, cannot in fairness be expected to assume a similar burden. On the other hand, they must be accorded full protection of all their civic rights and of their religious freedom: and it is in order to compensate the Muslim community for this unequal distribution of civic burdens that a special tax is levied on non-Muslim citizens (ahl adh-dhimmah, lit., "covenanted" [or "protected"] people", i.e., non-Muslims whose safety is statutorily assured by the Muslim community). Thus, jizyah is no more and no less than an
exemption tax in lieu of military service and in compensation for the "covenant of protection" (dhimmah) accorded to such citizens by the Islamic state. (The term itself is derived from the verb jazd, "he rendered [something] as a satisfaction", or "as a compensation [in lieu of something else]" - cf. Lane II, 422.)
Saudi Law makes it clear that no Jew can enter the Kingdom for any reason whatsoever. In fact, during the first Gulf War, when our soldiers were there to defend them, that law had to be placed in temporary abeyance so that our soldiers who were Jewish would be allowed to be deployed there. My brother who was in the military was aware of this problem. So I would encourage you to get your facts straight on the matter.
It is true that some Jewish travelers—usually people who were born in Israel or who have evidence of travel to Israel on their passports—sometimes have trouble obtaining visas for Saudi Arabia and some other Middle Eastern countries. This is not a new development. But there are ways to get around the restriction, and Jewish travelers can fly to Saudi and have done so in the past.
QUOTE: "Anyone promoting genital mutilation of children, male or female, should be banned forever. Consenting adults should be allowed to mutilate themselves, if they wish. Subjecting minors is just plain wrong!"An interesting rant. I have never posted anything anti-semitic and never will.
Ok. Let's deal with this rude and immature comment first, shall we (NOTE TO CENSORS: Not an insult to the person who made the remarks, but rather a commentary on the remarks themselves; there is a difference)?
Point One: 1. I am sure that if you looked up the word "bris" in a Hebrew dictionary, you would get a different definition. Point Two: 2. Male circumcision is practiced by non-Jews often in the USA as a health measure to aid in the cleaning of the penis. It causes very little or no pain, and in no way damages the penis. FGM, on the other hand, serves no valid purposes, is not backed by ANY religious practices whatsoever, and causes permanent and lasting harm to the female genitalia, aside from being horrifically painful. Conclusion: My advice, Spanner, would be to grow up, and cease to be an anti-Semitic, uninformed child, and begin to act like an adult (NOTE TO CENSORS: Also not an insult, but rather, a fair observation on the maturity or lack thereof of a person). That would benefit us all.
We're allowed to completely circumvent our bans with alts?
We're allowed to completely circumvent our bans with alts?
No.
We're allowed to completely circumvent our bans with alts?
No.
Did you and the other censors arrange a special agreement for Yonah/Yaakov, then?
He didn't circumvent a ban.
He didn't circumvent a ban.
Yaakov was banned again on Oct. 4th. He registered as Yonah the same day and continued posting.
He didn't circumvent a ban.
Yaakov was banned again on Oct. 4th. He registered as Yonah the same day and continued posting.
Indeed, as there was no ban imposed on Yonah. What did he circumvent, exactly?
He didn't circumvent a ban.
Yaakov was banned again on Oct. 4th. He registered as Yonah the same day and continued posting.
Indeed, as there was no ban imposed on Yonah. What did he circumvent, exactly?
I thought the purpose of a ban was to keep a particular person from posting for a certain amount of time, not a particular account.
Because there's about 1 atheist (not non-religious) to every 10 theists in pretty much every country around the world.
Because there's about 1 atheist (not non-religious) to every 10 theists in pretty much every country around the world.
Um, no. A lot of European countries are 50%+ atheist.
Because there's about 1 atheist (not non-religious) to every 10 theists in pretty much every country around the world.
Um, no. A lot of European countries are 50%+ atheist.
Atheist or non-religious? Regardless, everyone knows America is the whole world, eurofag.
Are you implying that if someone is non-religious, they have to be atheist?Because there's about 1 atheist (not non-religious) to every 10 theists in pretty much every country around the world.
Um, no. A lot of European countries are 50%+ atheist.
Atheist or non-religious? Regardless, everyone knows America is the whole world, eurofag.
Atheistic religions aren't particularly common in Europe, so I don't know why you're asking.
It's an important distinction, I'm sure many people here identify as non-religious but not atheist. Sometimes they're still counted a Christian despite not practicing/believing.
Ok, let me break it down for you. Anybody who can't figure out the difference between FGM and standard male circumcision can be clearly defined as anti-Semitic.So ignorance of medical procedures is anti-jew now? Damn. At this rate simply being non-jew will be anti-jew.
Anyone who would illegalise one of the primary rituals of our Faith can be defined as an anti-Semite.
I don't know how you get around either of those two things. Ergo, you are posting things that are anti-Semitic. Ergo, you are an anti-Semite. I am not trying to insult you, I am just defining what you are.I was wrong, the next step is to label anything YOU don't understand as anti-jew. I'd hate to be an astrophysicist in Israel right now.
I don't care whether you respond to me or not. That sounds like a personal issue if you ask me. By not responding to me, you have acknowledged the superiority of my argument. Thank you. Have a pleasant day.For someone who says they don't care what others think, you seem to be very sensitive to what we say. Almost as though your trying to prove your superiority yet can't understand why everyone isn't agreeing with you.
Question: why do you call Jew haters anti-semite when Semite refers to more than just Jews and the person who associated anti-semite (incorrectly) to only be about Jew hating was a proto Nazi? Why not just say "anti-jew" and deny the Nazis of their word?
Are you implying that if someone is non-religious, they have to be atheist?Because there's about 1 atheist (not non-religious) to every 10 theists in pretty much every country around the world.
Um, no. A lot of European countries are 50%+ atheist.
Atheist or non-religious? Regardless, everyone knows America is the whole world, eurofag.
Atheistic religions aren't particularly common in Europe, so I don't know why you're asking.
I'm glad you admit the superiority of my argument. Thanks. :)Question: why do you call Jew haters anti-semite when Semite refers to more than just Jews and the person who associated anti-semite (incorrectly) to only be about Jew hating was a proto Nazi? Why not just say "anti-jew" and deny the Nazis of their word?
The rest of what you said wasn't worth a response.
This, however, is a worthwhile question. Whatever I may think of the origin of the word, the fact remains that, in the English language, and in several others, the word "anti-Semite" has come to be accepted as being the appropriate word to describe a person who despises Jews. It doesn't matter that the term is not scientific. Its just like the fact that we still tend to divide the human species into races, even though most of us know that race itself has no meaningful relevance from an anthropological or scientific point of view.So if anti-semite eventually came to mean the proper term (anyone whose language root is Semite) then will you call yourself anti-semite as you hate Palestinians who are part of this group?
The fact that the term "anti-Semite" refers to a person who hates Jews, even if that person is an Arab, and is therefore a Semite, is not my problem. Welcome to the joys of the language.
QUOTE: "MYTH
“Arabs cannot be anti-Semitic as they are themselves Semites.”
FACT
The term “anti-Semite” was coined in Germany in 1879 by Wilhelm Marr to refer to the anti-Jewish manifestations of the period and to give Jew-hatred a more scientific sounding name.1 “Anti-Semitism” has been accepted and understood to mean hatred of the Jewish people. Dictionaries define the term as: “Theory, action, or practice directed against the Jews” and “Hostility towards Jews as a religious or racial minority group, often accompanied by social, economic and political discrimination.”2
The claim that Arabs as “Semites” cannot possibly be anti-Semitic is a semantic distortion that ignores the reality of Arab discrimination and hostility toward Jews. Arabs, like any other people, can indeed be anti-Semitic.
“The Arab world is the last bastion of unbridled, unashamed, unhidden and unbelievable anti-Semitism. Hitlerian myths get published in the popular press as incontrovertible truths. The Holocaust either gets minimized or denied....How the Arab world will ever come to terms with Israel when Israelis are portrayed as the devil incarnate is hard to figure out.”
— Columnist Richard Cohen3
1Vamberto Morais, A Short History of Anti-Semitism, (NY: W.W Norton and Co., 1976), p. 11; Bernard Lewis, Semites & Anti-Semites, (NY: WW Norton &Co., 1986), p. 81.
2Oxford English Dictionary; Webster’s Third International Dictionary.
3Washington Post, (October 30, 2001)."
Source: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths3/MFtreatment.html#n1
It's an important distinction, I'm sure many people here identify as non-religious but not atheist. Sometimes they're still counted a Christian despite not practicing/believing.
Ever thought about canceling your membership? I did it a couple of years ago.It's an important distinction, I'm sure many people here identify as non-religious but not atheist. Sometimes they're still counted a Christian despite not practicing/believing.
Often people "count as Christian" because they are members of a church due to having been born that way. I, for instance, am legally a Christian because I'm a member of the evangelical Lutheran church of Finland, but I also happen to be an atheist because I don't believe in God, which happens to be the only necessary factor in atheism.
Ever thought about canceling your membership? I did it a couple of years ago.It's an important distinction, I'm sure many people here identify as non-religious but not atheist. Sometimes they're still counted a Christian despite not practicing/believing.
Often people "count as Christian" because they are members of a church due to having been born that way. I, for instance, am legally a Christian because I'm a member of the evangelical Lutheran church of Finland, but I also happen to be an atheist because I don't believe in God, which happens to be the only necessary factor in atheism.
LORD DAVE, actually, no, you have no argument. Hence, no need to respond.Denial won't help you in the long run.
Regarding your proposal on the evolution of the word "anti-Semite", that is also a non-argument, since the word is highly unlikely to ever make such an evolution. Ergo, I am not going to have to worry about it. I already despise "Palestinians", and have never denied it. That, in present day parlance, makes me anti-"Palestinian", and possibly anti-Arab, although I have less of a problem with non-"Palestinian" Arabs.Language changes often so its quite likely that the meaning of the word will change. Hopefully before you die.
Lets face it. Even other Arabs despise the "Palestinians". The only reason "Palestinians" have any support at all in the world is because Arabs hate Jews more than they despise the "Palestinians". But if the Jews did not exist, no self-respecting Arab would want anything to do with a "Palestinian", who at the best are classified as half-breeds by other Arabs, given their Canaanite heritage, and at worst are basically considered to be lower than the dust. I'm not trying to be insulting or nasty. I'm just telling it like it is.
Its ok to be anti-Muslim because they have a habit of blowing shit up and taking hostages when they don't like something.So it's ok to be anti-x if they do things you don't like? What if they started blowing up say... nazis? You'd have to still be anti-muslim right? Because they're blowing shit up and taking hostages when they don't like Nazis? Or maybe Palistinians? What if they blew them up and took hostages? Wouldn't you have to still be anti-muslim? And what about American Muslims who don't blow shit up and take hostages when they don't like something? (and most muslims at that) I'm only guessing but based on what I see in suicide bombings, mortar attacks, and active combat units, I'd wager the total amount of Muslims who blow shit up and take hostages isn't even reaching the millions yet. Are you anti-muslim because a minority blow shit up and take hostages when they don't like something?
We don't. Neither do the Christians.Uuuuhhh.....
Is that fair? Well, it depends what you are being given a pass for. If you are being given a pass for bad behaviour, then no, it is not fair, and I shall acknowledge that some Jews do act like alter kackers and then excuse it on grounds of the victim mentality. My response to that is, "Dude! Grow the fuck up! The Holocaust ended 69 years ago. Quit whining."What is ok to be given a pass for?
Now, what about the nation of Israel? I only have a few minutes before I have to leave, so let me make this quick. The State of Israel is NOT perfect. One can, and should, be willing to criticise, or listen to constructive criticisms of the various policies of the State of Israel without automatically screaming "anti-Semitism!".So Israel IS a conquer and occupying nation. Gotcha.
HOWEVER, and this is key, there is a difference between constructive criticism, and criticism for its own sake. To criticise Israel constructively is once thing. To criticise it because it is Israel is something yet again, and that IS anti-Semitism, and needs to be called out as such.
Israel is, facts be known, one of the kindest occupying powers in the history of the world. I challenge anybody to find me an occupying power that would allow the occupied to criticise the leaders of the occupiers, to sue in the occupier's supreme court, to request review of any action the occupying military takes, etc. You will be hard-pressed to find any occupying power in the world other than Israel that permits this.
I challenge anyone to find me a more moral army than Israel's. Israel does everything it can to try to get civilians out of the way, by dropping leaflets, by phone calls, text messages, roof knocking... find me another army that does the same.
Now, is the IDF perfect? NO! When it fucks up, should it be called out? YES! I think every Jew, Israeli and otherwise, would agree. But all told, Israel as a nation, and its army, are a helluva lot more moral than just about any other country you are going to find.
So, do some Jews demand unfair treatment because of the Holocaust? Yes. Is that unfair? Damn straight it is, and they should learn to shut the fuck up, because they make us ALL look bad. But we are NOT all that way. I have to go. I'll be back later today. See you then.
Well, at least you can spell the word ''retarded" correctly. That's a start. Frankly, it has less to do with the text, and more to do with the fact that the Jews took the land from the Canaanites. The Bible's history is more or less accurate in terms of the Israelites entering Canaan and taking the land from the people who lived there before. The people who lived in Canaan, and were the ancestors of modern "Palestinians" (according to "Palestinians" themselves, not me), were savage animals that engaged in human sacrifice, temple prostitution, and other social ills that the Israelites wiped out, thereby doing the world a service. Now, if you take my perspective (and that of most scholars, for that matter), "Palestinians" are a blend of Canaanite and Arab ancestry. The Canaanites deserved what they got, and still would. The Arabs are invaders in a land that is not theis, so they have to leave. So long, goodbye, auf wiedershen, etc. Have a good life, but don't have it in Greater Israel, thank you very much.
So Jews have virtually no land. They are then offered 50% of the pie and the Arabs get upset. The same offer is made again, the Arabs are still upset. The Jews, supported with massive foreign aid (for some retarded reason) win a bunch of wars, benevolently preside over the ghettoization of the native Arabs and then offer the Arabs less than 50%. The Arabs are still upset, so the Jews silently allow apocalyptic zionists to encroach on the ghetto and build a wall around the rest. Is that about right?
By Arabs you mean non-Muslims right?So Jews have virtually no land. They are then offered 50% of the pie and the Arabs get upset. The same offer is made again, the Arabs are still upset. The Jews, supported with massive foreign aid (for some retarded reason) win a bunch of wars, benevolently preside over the ghettoization of the native Arabs and then offer the Arabs less than 50%. The Arabs are still upset, so the Jews silently allow apocalyptic zionists to encroach on the ghetto and build a wall around the rest. Is that about right?
Actually, the Jews got NO foreign aid except from other Jews until AFTER the War for Independence. Israel then began receiving aid from the United States which has been steady since. I believe Germany and Britain also help. But I don't think they get much from elsewhere. And given the fact that Arabs don't belong in Greater Israel anyway, the fact that Israel was willing to share is pretty cool to me. I have no sympathy for th bastards. But within the Green Line, 22% the population IS Arab, and they are happy. They vote, serve in the Knesset, serve (voluntarily; they are NOT subject to the draft as Jews are) in the IDF, they serve in on the Supreme Court, and have all the other rights and duties of citizens. And they are happy as such. Ask the avg Arab citizen of Israel if he would rather live elsewhere in the ME. He will think you are high. So don't sit there and lecture me about the big bad Jews. Show me a country in the Middle East that treats its Jews as well as Israel treats its Arab citizens. "Palestinians" are not citizens, but occupied persons. They get what they have been dishing out, and they have to FUCKING LIKE IT! I have no sympathy for them.
What would you say to the accusation that Judaism has caused more problems than it has solved? Arguably it has lowered the quality of life across the entire planet by a significant margin due to wars, in-fighting, and petty rules.
Actually, no. The vast majority of Arabs in Israel are indeed Muslim. They are simply among the civilised of the batch.Woah, hold on. You said and have been saying that all Muslims are bad. Now you're contradicting that? WTF?
So Jews have virtually no land. They are then offered 50% of the pie and the Arabs get upset. The same offer is made again, the Arabs are still upset. The Jews, supported with massive foreign aid (for some retarded reason) win a bunch of wars, benevolently preside over the ghettoization of the native Arabs and then offer the Arabs less than 50%. The Arabs are still upset, so the Jews silently allow apocalyptic zionists to encroach on the ghetto and build a wall around the rest. Is that about right?
Actually, the Jews got NO foreign aid except from other Jews until AFTER the War for Independence. Israel then began receiving aid from the United States which has been steady since. I believe Germany and Britain also help. But I don't think they get much from elsewhere. And given the fact that Arabs don't belong in Greater Israel anyway, the fact that Israel was willing to share is pretty cool to me. I have no sympathy for th bastards. But within the Green Line, 22% the population IS Arab, and they are happy. They vote, serve in the Knesset, serve (voluntarily; they are NOT subject to the draft as Jews are) in the IDF, they serve in on the Supreme Court, and have all the other rights and duties of citizens. And they are happy as such. Ask the avg Arab citizen of Israel if he would rather live elsewhere in the ME. He will think you are high. So don't sit there and lecture me about the big bad Jews. Show me a country in the Middle East that treats its Jews as well as Israel treats its Arab citizens. "Palestinians" are not citizens, but occupied persons. They get what they have been dishing out, and they have to FUCKING LIKE IT! I have no sympathy for them.
I also happen to be an atheist because I don't believe in God, which happens to be the only necessary factor in atheism.
Ok, aside from y'all's inability to spell the word "retarded", let me break it down for you. In the Torah, There is a commandment that states, "you shall not boil a kid (the young of a goat) in its mother's milk."
Now, here is where a principle can be demonstrated. The Torah gives certain commandments. But the Rabbis who EXPLAINED the Torah wanted to "build a fence around the Torah". The idea was that if you didn't break the laws surrounding the laws, you would never get close enough to breaking the laws themselves. Now that probably doesn't make much sense. Let me explain.
So, you have the Torah, with its rules that allow or forbid certain things. You don't want to break those rules. Then, around that, you have a set of rules that exist such that, if you follow that larger set of rules, you won't come anywhere close to breaking Torah rules.
The rule you asked about is one of those. Its not in the Torah. Its one of those that the Rabbis legislated as a rule that builds a fence around the Torah. If you can't even mix milk and meat on your plate, you certainly aren't going to be able to boil a kid in the milk of its mother!
Now, before you ask the question, DO I mix milk and meat? Yes, I do. I follow strictly biblical commandments, unless I see extraordinarily good reasons to follow Rabbinically ordained ones. Obviously, if I am at Shul, or an Orthodox Jew's home, then I will follow the more strict practices. But in my personal life, I tend to disregard Rabbinical laws unless I see the value in them peronally, and there are many that I do. But there are many that I don't, and this is one of them.
Jewish dietary restrictions are literally retarted. Why can you not mix dairy and meat?From what I heard, it was essentially an issue of cross contamination. Wooden bowls, utensils and such were common back in the day and could be very difficult to clean as thoroughly as you might like. Bits of dairy products could get caught in the tiny cracks of the wood and contaminate the meat or vice versa.
Agnostics don't believe in God, but they also don't believe in the absence of God. Atheists subscribe to the belief that God does not exist, in addition to not holding the belief that God exists.Yeah, no. This is a common mistake propagated by religious people, possibly because it lets them use convenient tactics like "but you can't prove that there is no god!"
It depends on where you live. In America, many infants are circumcised so that they can better clean their penis, and so that they are less likely to catch HIV/AIDS and other STDs from a female partner, as circumcision has proven to reduce this problem as well. So, in a country where many are circumcised, a person's lack of foreskin will not be remarked on. Now, I suppose if you live in a country wherein circumcision is not practiced much, you might have some issues if you drop your pants in front of other persons (say, in the military for a "nuts and butts" exam). Certainly it was easy for the Nazis to figure out who the Jewish men were. All they had to do was require a man to drop his pants. Non-Jewish German men at that time did not circumcise their boys.
I don't have the Talmud in my library, because I can't afford it, quite frankly. The whole collection of 20 odd books costs several hundred dollars.
Circumcision decreases the penis's sensitivity with regards to sex. This story was likely created to quell the pleasure of sex at an early age.If you're cutting children's penises because a voice told you so, then yeah you're probably crazy.
AIDS/HIV did not exist (or were not know of) at the time so that's not a reason.
Its also possible that Abraham was a sick bastard who decided to mutilate the penis of his sons out of insanity or mental illness and y'all assumed God said so.
I expect other STD's did exist, however, even though HIV/AIDS didn't.Since blood tests didn't exist either, any STD would have been one that has easily identifiable symptoms. And such women with those were loose and not worth marrying. And as we all know, it was a sin to have sex out of wedlock and all married women are virgins on their wedding day so this, theory doesn't hold water.
It does, from what I have been told, desensitize the penis a bit.
I would suggest that denial of God's existence makes one crazy.
Quite
I don't have the Talmud in my library, because I can't afford it, quite frankly. The whole collection of 20 odd books costs several hundred dollars.
I expect other STD's did exist, however, even though HIV/AIDS didn't. It does, from what I have been told, desensitize the penis a bit. I would suggest that denial of God's existence makes one crazy.
And yes, it is crazy to believe that the entire universe and all that therein lies is an accident. Again, for further argumentation, read Anselm's Argument of Ontology.
Except we know that the universe is NOT eternal. Rather, it started with the Big Bang about `13.8 billion years ago.
QUOTE: "Since blood tests didn't exist either, any STD would have been one that has easily identifiable symptoms. And such women with those were loose and not worth marrying. And as we all know, it was a sin to have sex out of wedlock and all married women are virgins on their wedding day so this, theory doesn't hold water."Unless it says that prostitutes are perfectly ok to marry, its irrelevant to the discussion or why God would give you foreskin then say "cut it off" a few thousand years after doing so. Doesn't make much sense now does it?
Well, for an interesting take on prostitution, read about Judah and Tamar in Gen. 38.
I don't anticipate being spoken to by a voice in a burning bush. So the point is irrelevant. And remember, the bush burned but was not consumed. First off, SOMEONE wouldn't convince me. SOMEONE implies a human being. We don't believe that humans can be God. We leave that to the Christians, who believe that Jesus is God.God can't appear to you as a human, animal, or other physical object? Wow, your god is pretty limited. (Appear being not the same as IS. So Jesus IS a human but God could appear to you looking like an old man who can walk through walls)
So anything claiming to be God would have to be non-human or non-animal, presumably non-corporeal.
So, how would YOU determine it was God?I can't. To determine someone or something is God, I have to first believe that God exists. I do not.
And yes, it is crazy to believe that the entire universe and all that therein lies is an accident. Again, for further argumentation, read Anselm's Argument of Ontology.Except God. He was totally an accident.
Except we know that the universe is NOT eternal. Rather, it started with the Big Bang about `13.8 billion years ago.
Who said the universe was created by accident. A lack of intelligent will does not automatically make something accidental. That is a non-sequitur. It is a mistake commonly made when conceptualizing evolution through natural selection. Based on our current knowledge the creation of the universe was likely non-random.
QUOTE: "Since blood tests didn't exist either, any STD would have been one that has easily identifiable symptoms. And such women with those were loose and not worth marrying. And as we all know, it was a sin to have sex out of wedlock and all married women are virgins on their wedding day so this, theory doesn't hold water."Unless it says that prostitutes are perfectly ok to marry, its irrelevant to the discussion or why God would give you foreskin then say "cut it off" a few thousand years after doing so. Doesn't make much sense now does it?
Well, for an interesting take on prostitution, read about Judah and Tamar in Gen. 38.QuoteI don't anticipate being spoken to by a voice in a burning bush. So the point is irrelevant. And remember, the bush burned but was not consumed. First off, SOMEONE wouldn't convince me. SOMEONE implies a human being. We don't believe that humans can be God. We leave that to the Christians, who believe that Jesus is God.God can't appear to you as a human, animal, or other physical object? Wow, your god is pretty limited. (Appear being not the same as IS. So Jesus IS a human but God could appear to you looking like an old man who can walk through walls)
So anything claiming to be God would have to be non-human or non-animal, presumably non-corporeal.QuoteSo, how would YOU determine it was God?I can't. To determine someone or something is God, I have to first believe that God exists. I do not.
You, however, do. Hence why I'm asking you. I mean, if Moses accepted a burning bush with a disembodied voice, why can't you? I'm sure he didn't think he'd see one either.QuoteAnd yes, it is crazy to believe that the entire universe and all that therein lies is an accident. Again, for further argumentation, read Anselm's Argument of Ontology.Except God. He was totally an accident.
Except we know that the universe is NOT eternal. Rather, it started with the Big Bang about `13.8 billion years ago.
Who said the universe was created by accident. A lack of intelligent will does not automatically make something accidental. That is a non-sequitur. It is a mistake commonly made when conceptualizing evolution through natural selection. Based on our current knowledge the creation of the universe was likely non-random.
You would have to find a very good explanation to prove to me that the creation of the Universe was non-random, and yet non-intelligent. That is one of the dumbest things I think I've ever had the misfortune of every hearing. Not that you are dumb, which you are clearly not, but that the statement you uttered was.
You would have to find a very good explanation to prove to me that the creation of the Universe was non-random, and yet non-intelligent. That is one of the dumbest things I think I've ever had the misfortune of every hearing. Not that you are dumb, which you are clearly not, but that the statement you uttered was.The creation of snowflakes is non-random and non-intelligent. Just saying.
God COULD appear as a human, or anything else for that matter. However, that would NOT be in line with how God has chosen to reveal himself to the Jewish People for 4500 years. So I suspect that doing so would be very unlikely. Praying to a human or animal is directly forbidden in Judaism. I don't think that God would appear as something to which Jews are forbidden to pray.Jews can pray to burning bushes?
Foreskin was ordered to be removed as a sign of being part of the Covenant. Why that and not something else, I am uncertain. I don't particularly care, however. It is what it is. The benefits to it outweigh the negatives.So did Abraham remove his own foreskin?
God was not an accident, since he has ALWAYS existed, without beginning, and without end.Replace God with Universe. Just because the earliest we have is a big bang, doesn't mean that was the start nor does it mean that this is the only universe to have ever existed.
As for determining that something was God if I saw it, I have no frame of reference for doing that, as I have never had the experience. I recommend you read Torah. That might give you some ideas as to how certain people handled the issue.So basically you believe God exists but God himself couldn't prove it to you. No wonder he doesn't talk to you.
>causality is a stupid idea
uhhh lol
Also, the big bang couldn't have been accidental if there isn't a god, because accidents are unexpected or unintentional events and there would have to be a cognitive being with the ability to expect or have the intent for something else in order for an event to be an accident. As for whether or not it was random, it's impossible to know so I don't know why it would be stupid to believe either way. It's not like random events are particularly remarkable, especially since the big bang theoretically had an unlimited amount of time to occur at random - which makes its occurrence given a long enough timespan a near certainty.
You would have to find a very good explanation to prove to me that the creation of the Universe was non-random, and yet non-intelligent. That is one of the dumbest things I think I've ever had the misfortune of every hearing. Not that you are dumb, which you are clearly not, but that the statement you uttered was.The creation of snowflakes is non-random and non-intelligent. Just saying.QuoteGod COULD appear as a human, or anything else for that matter. However, that would NOT be in line with how God has chosen to reveal himself to the Jewish People for 4500 years. So I suspect that doing so would be very unlikely. Praying to a human or animal is directly forbidden in Judaism. I don't think that God would appear as something to which Jews are forbidden to pray.Jews can pray to burning bushes?QuoteForeskin was ordered to be removed as a sign of being part of the Covenant. Why that and not something else, I am uncertain. I don't particularly care, however. It is what it is. The benefits to it outweigh the negatives.So did Abraham remove his own foreskin?
Also, isn't that kind of Gay? I mean, how do jewish men identify other jewish men? Why they have to look at each other's penises right?
And what about women? Not allowed to be in a Covenant?
And did God confirm this with anyone else other than Abraham? If someone came upp to you and said "God came to me as a tree shaking without wind and told me to cut my arm to show servitude." Would you?QuoteGod was not an accident, since he has ALWAYS existed, without beginning, and without end.Replace God with Universe. Just because the earliest we have is a big bang, doesn't mean that was the start nor does it mean that this is the only universe to have ever existed.QuoteAs for determining that something was God if I saw it, I have no frame of reference for doing that, as I have never had the experience. I recommend you read Torah. That might give you some ideas as to how certain people handled the issue.So basically you believe God exists but God himself couldn't prove it to you. No wonder he doesn't talk to you.
Also: Every way in the Torah can be faked using modern technology. Not sure it applies.
ran·dom
ˈrandəm/Submit
adjective
1.
made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision.
"a random sample of 100 households"
synonyms: unsystematic, unmethodical, arbitrary, unplanned, undirected, casual, indiscriminate, nonspecific, haphazard, stray, erratic; More
antonyms: systematic
STATISTICS
governed by or involving equal chances for each item.
(of masonry) with stones of irregular size and shape.
2.
informal
odd, unusual, or unexpected.
"I find it impossible to not laugh at such a random guy"
Since NOTHING, not even time, existed before the Big Bang, other than God, there was NO TIME in which something could have occurred randomly.
There was no measurement for time before the big bang, yes. "Time" is an abstract concept and its existence is relative to the person observing it. Time as you know it is not necessary for the big bang to happen.
But if we go by your logic, there was "NO TIME" for God to do shit either. So looks like we're at a stalemate logically, but of course you're going to claim that God works outside of time and space... to which I say: bullshit.
There was no measurement for time before the big bang, yes. "Time" is an abstract concept and its existence is relative to the person observing it. Time as you know it is not necessary for the big bang to happen.
But if we go by your logic, there was "NO TIME" for God to do shit either. So looks like we're at a stalemate logically, but of course you're going to claim that God works outside of time and space... to which I say: bullshit.
measurement of time = time
wow i learned some thing new!!
There was no measurement for time before the big bang, yes. "Time" is an abstract concept and its existence is relative to the person observing it. Time as you know it is not necessary for the big bang to happen.
But if we go by your logic, there was "NO TIME" for God to do shit either. So looks like we're at a stalemate logically, but of course you're going to claim that God works outside of time and space... to which I say: bullshit.
measurement of time = time
wow i learned some thing new!!
Are you trying to say that time is not an abstract concept? I'm confused by your snide coolness.
There was no measurement for time before the big bang, yes. "Time" is an abstract concept and its existence is relative to the person observing it. Time as you know it is not necessary for the big bang to happen.
But if we go by your logic, there was "NO TIME" for God to do shit either. So looks like we're at a stalemate logically, but of course you're going to claim that God works outside of time and space... to which I say: bullshit.
measurement of time = time
wow i learned some thing new!!
Are you trying to say that time is not an abstract concept? I'm confused by your snide coolness.
I'm just wondering why you think "abstract concept" means anything in this context, or how you followed that to the conclusion that its existence is relative to observation
I guess time didn't exist before humans came around, wow!!!
There was no measurement for time before the big bang, yes. "Time" is an abstract concept and its existence is relative to the person observing it. Time as you know it is not necessary for the big bang to happen.
But if we go by your logic, there was "NO TIME" for God to do shit either. So looks like we're at a stalemate logically, but of course you're going to claim that God works outside of time and space... to which I say: bullshit.
measurement of time = time
wow i learned some thing new!!
Are you trying to say that time is not an abstract concept? I'm confused by your snide coolness.
I'm just wondering why you think "abstract concept" means anything in this context, or how you followed that to the conclusion that its existence is relative to observation
I guess time didn't exist before humans came around, wow!!!
Maybe this will help you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time
& http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest
The existence of time is completely dependent on observation. If an entity does not exist that can observe a passage of time (e.g. retain some form of memory or recording of the past) then the past effectively does not exist.
The measurement of time and the passage of time is entirely relative to the person observing it, however.
The measurement of time and the passage of time is entirely relative to the person observing it, however.
Not the existence of it.
The measurement of time and the passage of time is entirely relative to the person observing it, however.
Not the existence of it.
I personally agree, but that is still debatable.
Sorry for my poor word choice.
Except we know that the universe is NOT eternal. Rather, it started with the Big Bang about `13.8 billion years ago.
Except we know that the universe is NOT eternal. Rather, it started with the Big Bang about `13.8 billion years ago.
That was the beginning of the observable Universe, yes. There are many theories regarding how our Universe came about, none of them involve a God.
Except we know that the universe is NOT eternal. Rather, it started with the Big Bang about `13.8 billion years ago.
That was the beginning of the observable Universe, yes. There are many theories regarding how our Universe came about, none of them involve a God.
What about creation science?
The measurement of time and the passage of time is entirely relative to the person observing it, however.
Not the existence of it.
The measurement of time and the passage of time is entirely relative to the person observing it, however.
Not the existence of it.
Prove it. Prove to me that time is a literal, concrete object that exists regardless of observation.
Nobody made that claim.
Nobody made that claim.
Except that Blanko is claiming that time would still exist if no one was there to see it while simultaneously saying it is an abstract idea. Abstract ideas don't exist outside of the human mind, which is why they are abstract in the first place. So yes, Blanko did make that claim.
QUOTE from Vaux: "And Yaakov, what if there are no rodents to observe the tree? Please don't cite angels."And what do you base the existence of angels and djinn on? Is it because your Rabbi said so? Is it because a 4,000 year old book says so? Or is it because everyone around you says so?
Why can't I cite Angels? The Talmud, and the Qur'an both cite Angels and Djinn. Angels are made of Light, and Djinn are made of Smokeless Fire. Humans are made of Dust (sometimes translated as Clay).
Your refusal to accept either Djinn or Angels does not speak for their non-existence, but rather, for your own ignorance of their existence. Judaism and Islam acknowledge belief in both. Christianity at least acknowledges belief in Angels and rebellious Angels (Demons), as does Islam. Judaism doesn't accept that idea, hence the lack of belief in Hell. Other religions also cite belief in Angels. Among them are Mormonism, Zoroastrianism, various forms of Hinduism, Yazidis, and other related groups in Iraq and surrounding countries.
The fundamental fact is that a good 90% of the world is theistic. Even the Buddhist world, at least in its Tibetan form, is theistic. To deny the existence of God, to espouse open atheism, is to be a small minority. Although I don't dispute your right to do so, I certainly don't believe that the onus is on me to prove my case. The Ontological Argument has already done that.
I don't accept "Creation Science" any more than Richard Dawkins does. Frankly, I consider it a load of crap. Even assuming I accepted a literal interpretation of Genesis (and I am not so sure that I do), the text never claimed to be a frigging science book. Those who take it as such have their head stuck in their ass, in my own opinion.
But to stop me from mentioning Angels and Djinn just because you yourself do not believe in them is simply absurd. What if a Djinn decided to make its presence known, as they are sometimes known to do?
QUOTE from Lord Dave: "And what do you base the existence of angels and djinn on? Is it because your Rabbi said so? Is it because a 4,000 year old book says so? Or is it because everyone around you says so?"The same thing I base the non-existence of Unicorns. Do YOU believe in Unicorns? And Dragons? Maybe the Easter Bunny? Or what about Santa Clause? They have stories about them. Heck, we have tons of pictures AND they're believed by more people than all the Jews in the world.
And upon what do you base their non-existence on?
I base their existence on the experience of many men in Scripture. I base the existence of Djinn on my own personal experience, which I shall not explain to you, except to say that I believe it to be a valid experience of the existence of a Djinn. And, said 4,000 yo book has been around far longer than you or me, and will continue to be around long after we are dust. I have seen no reason to accept the attacks of idiots the like of Richard Dawkins, whose name will be forgotten within a year or two of his death, I expect.Neither have the great Pharos of Egypt, or the Gods of Olympus, or even Norse Gods. Are they just as real?
The name of Moses, however, has not been forgotten in 4500 years. So ask me which one I trust more, Moses or Richard Dawkins. I think my point has been made.
Interestingly enough, the author of LotR was an EXTREMELY devout Roman Catholic. JRR Tolkien rejected most of Vatican II, especially the changes to the Mass, particularly the use of the vernacular, insisting on responding to his Priest in Latin, even after the service was being done in English.
So, when I hear people talking about JRR Tolkien being more consistent than the Bible, I laugh, because they are unknowingly making fools of themselves.
Eri is practically deistic with only a couple of interventions since the beginning of Ëa.
"Name
Moses' name is given to him by Pharaoh's daughter: "He became her son, and she named him Moshe (Moses)." This name may be either Egyptian or Hebrew. If connected to an Egyptian root, via msy "to be born" and ms, "a son", it forms a wordplay: "he became her son, and she named him Son." There should, however, be a divine element to the name Moses (bearers of the Egyptian name are the "son of" a god, as in Thutmose, "son of Thut"), and his full name may therefore have included the name of one of the Egyptian gods. If the name is from a Hebrew root, then it is connected to the verb "to draw out": "I drew him (masha) out of the water," states Pharaoh's daughter, possibly looking forward to Moses at the well in Midian, or to his role in saving Israel at the Red Sea. Most scholars agree that the name is Egyptian, and that the Hebrew etymology is a later interpretation.[11]" {Wikipedia}.
Therefore I expect his name was Moshe, but derived from the Egyptian, since his foster mother was Egyptian. I seriously doubt she would have called him anything in Hebrew. The fact that the word is also a word in Hebrew (meaning something else, of course), is coincidental, and lucky for us, particularly insofar as that "something else" has something to do with narrative of his birth (being drawn out of the water).
The fact that you can't spell "retard" right speaks volumes. That is precisely the point. I won't speak for the so-called "New Testament". It is not a book I believe in, it is not a part of my Faith, and I consider it as irrelevant to my life as I do the Qur'an or the Bhagavad-Gita.Please stop this. We're far more intelligent than you seem to assume. We know, all too well, that you're being delusional if you honestly believe that "My Faith isn't wrong, you're just stupid/ignorant" is a valid argument.
But, looking at the Jewish Bible alone of 24 Books (the Protestants divide these books differently and come up with 39, but the text is the same), the fact that they were written by so many people, and yet, are as consistent as they are is quite amazing. I estimate that the Hebrew Bible had approximately 25 authors in total. Looking at the text the way Protestants divide it, into 39 individual books (Jews count the Minor Prophets, of which there are 12, as one book, and they count 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2 Chronicles, and Ezra and Nehemiah, as each being one book), one can see that there is considerable unity in the text. Of course, your modern day so-called "liberal biblical scholars" would say otherwise. Not that that is particularly relevant, given that they can't even get the New Testament right regarding the so-called "Q" source. How could I possibly expect them to get the Divine Word right?
You telling me that there are websites devoted to the inconsistencies of the Bible is about as relevant as informing me that in reality, the Pope is indeed Catholic. I am aware of the websites, and have read quite a few of them. Invariably they are critical of Christianity, rather than Judaism, so they spend most of their time on the New Testament, or on a Christian interpretation of the Hebrew Bible.
Keep in mind, I have read the New Testament twice, which I expect is probably at least once or twice more than you have. I have read the Hebrew Bible once in full, and the Torah twice, which again, is probably at least once or twice more than you have. And in Shul we go through the entire Torah once a year. So, that should count as well.
My inevitable conclusion to the Hebrew Scriptures is the following: If there is something in it that you do not understand, or that appears inconsistent, this is due to your lack of understanding. I would advise seeking out resources that are reliable, both pro and con, to bring to the matter, and exploring the true meaning of the text, and without taking the verses out of context. In fact, if at all you find verses that make no sense, don't just read those, but rather, read the entire chapter in which they appear, and perhaps the chapter before, and the chapter after. This will give you a background for what the author is trying to say.
But remember, and THIS IS KEY: if you fail to comprehend the text, it is not because of a weakness in the text. It is because your mind is failing to comprehend. There IS an answer. It is your duty to find it. That is the simple answer to that. It really isn't that hard.
Allow me to demonstrate by way of example. The Torah has often been used to display the idea that Moses did not write all of it, or for that matter, any of it. Instead, we are told that the Yahwist Source, the Elowist Source, the Priestly Source, and Deuteronomist Source wrote it (JEPD Sources). These sources later were redacted into one complete volume that we today know as the Pentateauch.
In a word, BULLSHIT. Moses wrote the Torah. Moses led the people out of Egypt. As far as numbers go, that is a debatable question. For an interesting take on that, read the following: Source: http://www.askelm.com/secrets/sec095.htm (http://www.askelm.com/secrets/sec095.htm)
And the following: Source: http://www.askelm.com/secrets/sec107.htm (http://www.askelm.com/secrets/sec107.htm)
Both are Christian sources, but contain much good information.
Anyway, why did Moses refer to God as "YHWH" at one point and as "Elohim" at another point? I don't know, and frankly, I don't care much. It was how he chose to do it, or how God told him to do it. Perhaps it had to do with the nature of God being first God, and later, friend. I am not sure. But both titles are acceptable to God.
And why would Deuteronomy have to be written separately from the other four books? There is absolutely no reason to assume this unless you have an agenda to push. And why would the Priests need to write their stuff separately? Moses WAS a Priest. He was uniquely qualified for writing that material as well as the rest of it. So, what is the major malfunction here?
The rest of the Hebrew Bible has no contradictions that can't be explained. It is your duty to see that they are, rather than questioning the text. So, grow up, put on your big-boy pants, and get to work!
Eri is practically deistic with only a couple of interventions since the beginning of Ëa.
Yes, except he doesn't dare people to kill their kids before yelling "LOL JKS! Cut your doodle instead".
Eri is practically deistic with only a couple of interventions since the beginning of Ëa.
Yes, except he doesn't dare people to kill their kids before yelling "LOL JKS! Cut your doodle instead".
Well he did annihilate the Great Armament of the Numenorians, so Eru was not exactly the nicest God ever.
Eri is practically deistic with only a couple of interventions since the beginning of Ëa.
Yes, except he doesn't dare people to kill their kids before yelling "LOL JKS! Cut your doodle instead".
Well he did annihilate the Great Armament of the Numenorians, so Eru was not exactly the nicest God ever.
They sailed to Valinor in order to start a war, I think they got what they deserved.
Unlike every other religion on the planet, who depend on one person to have seen God (whom they then identify as a Prophet), we as a People saw God.
Unlike every other religion on the planet, who depend on one person to have seen God (whom they then identify as a Prophet), we as a People saw God.
But Yaakov, you haven't seen god. That must mean you weren't the chosen people after all.
In order:
1. Your immersion if your delusional belief in to your culture does not make it truer, only sadder.
Your statement is utterly illogical. The Jew's very continued existence against all odds is proof of that. And your claim that my culture is delusional is not backed up by any evidence. The fact is undeniable that a sizable number of persons SAW GOD at Mt. Sinai. You can do with that what you wish.
2. Your only source for a national revelation is self referential and totally unreliable as such.
I am again inclined to disagree. Since the history of my People is both oral and written, it is very likely to be as true as Troy. Remember Heinrich Schliemann. You have a whole nation that saw the Deity. That is hard to gainsay. I don't think its self referential at all. In fact, we have learned from experience how to wrestle with God. We know our forefathers saw him in the deserts of Sinai, but we also know that in the Holocaust, he was silent. So, we have learned to struggle with him. But we have never denied what our forefathers have told us. An entire nation for 4500 years doesn't lie about things like that and get away with it.
3. People can make current remarks about how cultures treat Jews and so on, but no serious thinker would imply morality is tied to treatment of Jews as there are moral cultures that would not have had contact with Jews until the last century or two. It is only a sassy intellectual exercise no different in intellectual substance than this very thread.
I am, of course, speaking of those cultures that have had frequent interaction with Jews. Actually there was a survey done of 190 countries, in which it was determined that 26% of adults worldwide harboured anti-Semitic feelings. The largest percentage was in the "Palestinian" Territories, where it was 93%. The lowest was in Laos, where it was at 0.02%. Any serious thinker would consider the morality of a culture that has harboured Jews in its territory for a long period of time to be partially determined by how it has treated said Jews.
4. Academics have shown by the always ethno-centric nature of religion and the spontaneous nature with which they can pop up (e.g. Cargo cults) that God is likely not to exist. As with all things in the scientific realm, there are no absolutes. We save those for you, the religious fanatic.
Since the fact that religion popping up has nothing whatsoever to do with whether God actually exists or not, the whole point is irrelevant. Some savage on Papua New Guinea after WWII building fake aeroplanes to entice "the gods" back is no commentary on whether a Supreme Being actually exists or not. Any "academic" who says it is probably received his credentials from a Cracker Jack box. As I said in an earlier post, the Atheist has no proof or even probable proof that God does not exist. At least the Theist has probable proof that he does.
5. Atheists and agnostics spend a lot of time rebutting religious folk because of the dangerous and heinous thoughts that the religious utter, like casting aspersions on the millions of lawful and good Muslims because of the actions of some thousands.
Of course, I'll keep in mind the dangerous thoughts of the atheists during the French Revolution, or the Russian, or the Chinese, or the Cambodian, or the Ethiopian, or... Lets see how many millions of people State sponsored Atheism has managed to kill. In Russia, some 40 million. In China, some 60 million. In Cambodia, 2 million. Shall I continue?
6. 90% believe in some higher power ergo there must be God is utterly fallacious and goes by the name Argumentum ad Populem.
I am not using the argument in that sense. I am merely saying that it is not up to us to prove to you that God exists. It is up to you to prove otherwise.
7. Again, I must stress that although creation need not be willful the laws of physics do not create phenomena by accident. Please learn the difference.
We've been over this. Please demonstrate. If you are not able to, then be silent.
8. There have been many good arguments against the impossibility of an uncaused cause. Look them up your ignorance combined with acrimony and self-righteousness is unbecoming.
Demonstrate or be silent. Plato, Aristotle, and MANY others would disagree, thank you.
9. Eru's judgement upon the Great Armament was unjust because it was imposed upon a majority that were likely conscripted by the lords of Numenór. However, it was likely his last act in Eä and was obviously to preserve its unfolding cosmic harmony and as such could be viewed as righteous.
In order:
1. Your immersion if your delusional belief in to your culture does not make it truer, only sadder.
Your statement is utterly illogical. The Jew's very continued existence against all odds is proof of that. And your claim that my culture is delusional is not backed up by any evidence. The fact is undeniable that a sizable number of persons SAW GOD at Mt. Sinai. You can do with that what you wish.
2. Your only source for a national revelation is self referential and totally unreliable as such.
I am again inclined to disagree. Since the history of my People is both oral and written, it is very likely to be as true as Troy.
Remember Heinrich Schliemann. You have a whole nation that saw the Deity. That is hard to gainsay.
I don't think its self referential at all. In fact, we have learned from experience how to wrestle with God. We know our forefathers saw him in the deserts of Sinai, but we also know that in the Holocaust, he was silent. So, we have learned to struggle with him. But we have never denied what our forefathers have told us. An entire nation for 4500 years doesn't lie about things like that and get away with it.[/size]Irrelevant.
3. People can make current remarks about how cultures treat Jews and so on, but no serious thinker would imply morality is tied to treatment of Jews as there are moral cultures that would not have had contact with Jews until the last century or two. It is only a sassy intellectual exercise no different in intellectual substance than this very thread.
I am, of course, speaking of those cultures that have had frequent interaction with Jews. Actually there was a survey done of 190 countries, in which it was determined that 26% of adults worldwide harboured anti-Semitic feelings. The largest percentage was in the "Palestinian" Territories, where it was 93%. The lowest was in Laos, where it was at 0.02%. Any serious thinker would consider the morality of a culture that has harboured Jews in its territory for a long period of time to be partially determined by how it has treated said Jews.
4. Academics have shown by the always ethno-centric nature of religion and the spontaneous nature with which they can pop up (e.g. Cargo cults) that God is likely not to exist. As with all things in the scientific realm, there are no absolutes. We save those for you, the religious fanatic.
Since the fact that religion popping up has nothing whatsoever to do with whether God actually exists or not, the whole point is irrelevant. Some savage on Papua New Guinea after WWII building fake aeroplanes to entice "the gods" back is no commentary on whether a Supreme Being actually exists or not. Any "academic" who says it is probably received his credentials from a Cracker Jack box. As I said in an earlier post, the Atheist has no proof or even probable proof that God does not exist. At least the Theist has probable proof that he does.
5. Atheists and agnostics spend a lot of time rebutting religious folk because of the dangerous and heinous thoughts that the religious utter, like casting aspersions on the millions of lawful and good Muslims because of the actions of some thousands.
Of course, I'll keep in mind the dangerous thoughts of the atheists during the French Revolution, or the Russian, or the Chinese, or the Cambodian, or the Ethiopian, or... Lets see how many millions of people State sponsored Atheism has managed to kill. In Russia, some 40 million. In China, some 60 million. In Cambodia, 2 million. Shall I continue?
6. 90% believe in some higher power ergo there must be God is utterly fallacious and goes by the name Argumentum ad Populem.
I am not using the argument in that sense. I am merely saying that it is not up to us to prove to you that God exists. It is up to you to prove otherwise.
7. Again, I must stress that although creation need not be willful the laws of physics do not create phenomena by accident. Please learn the difference.Demonstrate what exactly? That the laws of physics on the macro scale are deterministic? This is hardly controversial. Please demonstrate that a creator is responsible for the universe's existence.
We've been over this. Please demonstrate. If you are not able to, then be silent.
8. There have been many good arguments against the impossibility of an uncaused cause. Look them up your ignorance combined with acrimony and self-righteousness is unbecoming.Argument from authority. You suck. Watch this rebuttal to the Kalam Cosmologocal Argument that tackles the exact territory.
Demonstrate or be silent. Plato, Aristotle, and MANY others would disagree, thank you.
9. Eru's judgement upon the Great Armament was unjust because it was imposed upon a majority that were likely conscripted by the lords of Numenór. However, it was likely his last act in Eä and was obviously to preserve its unfolding cosmic harmony and as such could be viewed as righteous.
In order:
1. Your immersion if your delusional belief in to your culture does not make it truer, only sadder.
Your statement is utterly illogical. The Jew's very continued existence against all odds is proof of that. And your claim that my culture is delusional is not backed up by any evidence. The fact is undeniable that a sizable number of persons SAW GOD at Mt. Sinai. You can do with that what you wish.
It is not a fact of any sort that a sizable number of people saw God. Between the self-referential nature of the bible, the penchant for the religious to interpret their texts in turn as literal or metaphorical, as they see fit and the complete lack of God's appearance to any other than the chosen people, it seems far more likely that God did not appear to the unwashed masses but rather the author of that particular portion of text was fulfiling a political agenda or some other corporeal need.
You can choose to reject the idea that an entire nation saw God. Your great great great great great grandchildren can also reject the idea that an entire nation fought the American Revolution.Quote2. Your only source for a national revelation is self referential and totally unreliable as such.
I am again inclined to disagree. Since the history of my People is both oral and written, it is very likely to be as true as Troy.
You are not claiming the gods fought at Troy are you? Because that is what the mythological texts say. I treat the bible in the same light. Mythologized ancestry, nothing more.
I'm not claiming anything about deities. But it wouldn't surprise me if angels weren't on hand that the Greeks thought were gods. And the fact that you are willing to disregard the evidence of 2 million persons (refer to my post above on that) makes you out to be acting the fool, nothing more.QuoteRemember Heinrich Schliemann. You have a whole nation that saw the Deity. That is hard to gainsay.
Except that we don't have the testimony of a nation do we? We have the words of the sole author of that section of the Torah. Quite easy to gainsay.
We have the words of Moses, and the testimony of every Jew who learned it at his father's knee for the 4500 years since it happened. Oral history has been proven right before. Again, I would direct you to Troy.QuoteI don't think its self referential at all. In fact, we have learned from experience how to wrestle with God. We know our forefathers saw him in the deserts of Sinai, but we also know that in the Holocaust, he was silent. So, we have learned to struggle with him. But we have never denied what our forefathers have told us. An entire nation for 4500 years doesn't lie about things like that and get away with it.[/size]Irrelevant.Quote3. People can make current remarks about how cultures treat Jews and so on, but no serious thinker would imply morality is tied to treatment of Jews as there are moral cultures that would not have had contact with Jews until the last century or two. It is only a sassy intellectual exercise no different in intellectual substance than this very thread.
I am, of course, speaking of those cultures that have had frequent interaction with Jews. Actually there was a survey done of 190 countries, in which it was determined that 26% of adults worldwide harboured anti-Semitic feelings. The largest percentage was in the "Palestinian" Territories, where it was 93%. The lowest was in Laos, where it was at 0.02%. Any serious thinker would consider the morality of a culture that has harboured Jews in its territory for a long period of time to be partially determined by how it has treated said Jews.
I disagree and you have hardly made your case. Obviously the Palestinians would treat Jews badly, as anyone would treat their oppressive overlord. Your factoids don't happen to give any context either. I can determine exactly nothing about the subject from what you have told me.
Since the "Palestinians" are the ones who started the conflict, they are the ones who deserve the treatment, not us. Frankly, they deserve to be eliminated, through deportation. Trust me, Israel is by far a much kinder "overlord" than they deserve.
Quote4. Academics have shown by the always ethno-centric nature of religion and the spontaneous nature with which they can pop up (e.g. Cargo cults) that God is likely not to exist. As with all things in the scientific realm, there are no absolutes. We save those for you, the religious fanatic.
Since the fact that religion popping up has nothing whatsoever to do with whether God actually exists or not, the whole point is irrelevant. Some savage on Papua New Guinea after WWII building fake aeroplanes to entice "the gods" back is no commentary on whether a Supreme Being actually exists or not. Any "academic" who says it is probably received his credentials from a Cracker Jack box. As I said in an earlier post, the Atheist has no proof or even probable proof that God does not exist. At least the Theist has probable proof that he does.
I dare say the ease with which religions, professing privileged divine relations, pop up is a good indicator that religions hardly occur because of an actual divine relationship it rather because of a fact of human psychology and sociology.
Also, you can drop the notion that theists have "proof" based on arguments like Anselm's, et al. These constitute nothing empirical, but rather a logical framework under which a God could occur. Nothing definitive, only something notional. There is no reason to suspect that metaphysical ideas must actually exist.
I'm only suggesting that we have more probable proof, not deductive proof. So your point is entirely irrelevant.Quote5. Atheists and agnostics spend a lot of time rebutting religious folk because of the dangerous and heinous thoughts that the religious utter, like casting aspersions on the millions of lawful and good Muslims because of the actions of some thousands.
Of course, I'll keep in mind the dangerous thoughts of the atheists during the French Revolution, or the Russian, or the Chinese, or the Cambodian, or the Ethiopian, or... Lets see how many millions of people State sponsored Atheism has managed to kill. In Russia, some 40 million. In China, some 60 million. In Cambodia, 2 million. Shall I continue?
Please don't. This is like the religious version of Godwin's law. Nothing was done in the name of Atheism but rather under the guise of ideologies like communism, which you also espouse. Stop your emotional appeal.
Hardly Godwin's. Simply an acknowledgement that all the governments that have been brutally atheist have been murderous thugs, and the first victims have always been the monks, priests, nuns, and Rabbis.Quote6. 90% believe in some higher power ergo there must be God is utterly fallacious and goes by the name Argumentum ad Populem.
I am not using the argument in that sense. I am merely saying that it is not up to us to prove to you that God exists. It is up to you to prove otherwise.
I carry no burden of proof since my position is merely that your proof of God's existence is utterly unconvincing. All you have shown is an ancient text, written thousands of years ago by the power brokers of the time with no evidence of any supernatural occurrence since then that is anything more than anecdotal. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
It is far more extraordinary to claim that the universe just exists randomly. So show me your evidence.Quote7. Again, I must stress that although creation need not be willful the laws of physics do not create phenomena by accident. Please learn the difference.Demonstrate what exactly? That the laws of physics on the macro scale are deterministic? This is hardly controversial. Please demonstrate that a creator is responsible for the universe's existence.
We've been over this. Please demonstrate. If you are not able to, then be silent.
I have no need to demonstrate that a Creator is responsible. That's already been done by men smarter than me. Pick up a book or two. You have to prove to me that without a Creator, things can happen by accident, or even worse, by design (which is,without doubt, one of the dumbest things I have ever heard). A thing cannot occur on purpose without an inelligence behind it.Quote8. There have been many good arguments against the impossibility of an uncaused cause. Look them up your ignorance combined with acrimony and self-righteousness is unbecoming.Argument from authority. You suck. Watch this rebuttal to the Kalam Cosmologocal Argument that tackles the exact territory.
Demonstrate or be silent. Plato, Aristotle, and MANY others would disagree, thank you.
Its not an Argument from Authority when the Authority is accurate.That's like saying it will rain because the weather man said so and being accused of arguing from authority.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEw8VzzXcjEQuote9. Eru's judgement upon the Great Armament was unjust because it was imposed upon a majority that were likely conscripted by the lords of Numenór. However, it was likely his last act in Eä and was obviously to preserve its unfolding cosmic harmony and as such could be viewed as righteous.
Jesus, learn to quote properly already.
No, but Atheism was essentially the State Faith of Communism, lets be blunt. I am a member of the Communist Party USA, so I don't object to Communism per se, and neither does the Party. But lets be honest. The first people to go to their deaths were monks, nuns, priests, and Lams, Christian and Buddhist.
9. Eru's judgement upon the Great Armament was unjust because it was imposed upon a majority that were likely conscripted by the lords of Numenór. However, it was likely his last act in Eä and was obviously to preserve its unfolding cosmic harmony and as such could be viewed as righteous.
Yaakov-
1. To say the revelation is as historical as the American Revolution is terrifyingly inaccurate. Please talk to a PhD student about your idea and witness the blank and slightly troubled look you get.
The only reason it is thought of as less accurate is because it happened a LONG time ago, vs 238 years ago. Give it a few thousand years, and see how mythologised the American Revolution becomes. Hell, just watch Mel Gibson's "The Patriot", and see how mythologised it already is. For more on the Exodus from Egypt, read the Pocket Bible Handbook, by Henry H. Halley, 18th Edition, 2nd Printing, copyright 1950, pp. 106-127. Although Christian, and with considerable faults, it is still a pretty good reference. The book is still in print, but the current 25th Edition, though it does have its strengths, is generally not as good.However, for your reference, Halley's Bible Handbook, with the New International Version, copyright 2000, 2007 by Halley's Bible Handbook, Inc. It is done through Zondervan. I have it on my Nook, so no pagination, but the Chapter is "The Exodus from Egypt: Exodus-Deuteronomy".
2.Millions of people and only one surviving historical source... Not even one other written account amongst your gloriously literate society of antiquity. That strikes me as exactly what I would expect of the revelation were a myth.
And you are forgetting the non-canonical sources such as the Book of Jubilees, and other sources.
3. I am not referring to whether or not the Palestinians are getting what's coming to them merely that it is not at all surprising that they do have enmity with the Jews.
Understood.
4. What is your standard of probability? Personal credulity?
No response necessary.
5.Correlation does not equal causation.
Except insofar as that was the stated aim of the governments in question.
6. Read "A Universe from Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss.
Summarise, please.l
7. I never said the universe exists and have pointed out that the laws of physics are deterministic. What's the problem here?
The universe doesn't exist?
8. I have provided a rebuttal to Plato and Aristotle and you are asserting they are right merely because of who they are. Sounds like an argument from authority.
I don't have 2 hours to listen to an argument. Summarise, please.
Yaakov-
1. To say the revelation is as historical as the American Revolution is terrifyingly inaccurate. Please talk to a PhD student about your idea and witness the blank and slightly troubled look you get.
The only reason it is thought of as less accurate is because it happened a LONG time ago, vs 238 years ago. Give it a few thousand years, and see how mythologised the American Revolution becomes. Hell, just watch Mel Gibson's "The Patriot", and see how mythologised it already is. For more on the Exodus from Egypt, read the Pocket Bible Handbook, by Henry H. Halley, 18th Edition, 2nd Printing, copyright 1950, pp. 106-127. Although Christian, and with considerable faults, it is still a pretty good reference. The book is still in print, but the current 25th Edition, though it does have its strengths, is generally not as good.However, for your reference, Halley's Bible Handbook, with the New International Version, copyright 2000, 2007 by Halley's Bible Handbook, Inc. It is done through Zondervan. I have it on my Nook, so no pagination, but the Chapter is "The Exodus from Egypt: Exodus-Deuteronomy".
So as we get further from the event it becomes more mythologized. This does not help your argument really.Quote2.Millions of people and only one surviving historical source... Not even one other written account amongst your gloriously literate society of antiquity. That strikes me as exactly what I would expect of the revelation were a myth.
And you are forgetting the non-canonical sources such as the Book of Jubilees, and other sources.
How many sources refer to the revelation?Quote3. I am not referring to whether or not the Palestinians are getting what's coming to them merely that it is not at all surprising that they do have enmity with the Jews.
Understood.
4. What is your standard of probability? Personal credulity?
No response necessary.
So you concede and we need not take metaphysical arguments as evidence. Glad we agree.Quote5.Correlation does not equal causation.
Except insofar as that was the stated aim of the governments in question.
Citation required.Quote6. Read "A Universe from Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss.
Summarise, please.l
That it is plausible that the universe can arise from the quantum fluctuations of empty space.Quote7. I never said the universe exists and have pointed out that the laws of physics are deterministic. What's the problem here?
The universe doesn't exist?
Oops! Not sure what I meant by the first part however I have pointed out that laws of physics are deterministic and as such are non-random.Quote8. I have provided a rebuttal to Plato and Aristotle and you are asserting they are right merely because of who they are. Sounds like an argument from authority.
I don't have 2 hours to listen to an argument. Summarise, please.
That not everything that begins to exist must have a cause. We are not capable of making this statement with any sort of certainty.
Yaakov: You liar. You big, fat, ugly, liar. I can't believe you can come in here and spout such horrible lies as fact.
You claim it's fact that Jews saw God at Mt. Sinai yet your own book says this is a lie.
The Jews saw only smoke, not God. They HEARD a voice, but saw nothing.
For those interested let me paint you a picture:
Moses hears God tell him to go up a mountain. He "talks" to God who tells him to tell everyone to listen to him because he did all the stuff for them. So Moses comes back and tells his people who then agree. So Moses has to go BACK up the mountain to tell God what they said. At which point God tells them to get nice and clean and holy in 2 days and on the third, he'll talk to them. Oh and that if anyone climbs the mountain or even touches it, they'll die.
So on the third day, the mountain is covered in smoke with a big fire at the top (fire causes smoke FYI) and a loud voice proclaims the commandments. So Moses goes BACK up the mountain after this and spends 40 days and 40 nights to "receive" the stone tablets, the written Torah AND the Oral Torah. So one guy was on a mountain, alone, and after 40 days, he returns with two written works and one oral one. Why would it take God 40 days to give him this stuff? It would take 10 seconds, max. It's FAR more likely that it was Moses who did it. Especially since he came back, broke the stone tablets, and had to go back for 40 days and nights to get new ones.
It would take 40 days at least to write the Written Torah by hand. The Oral Torah would take at LEAST that long to memorise. Then he would have to do it again!
If this were any other religion, you'd call Moses a con man. But because you were brainwashed into believing this, you can't accept any evidence contrary.
Moses was the original Wizard of Oz. So put on your big boy pants and accept the truth. Stop being a child who accepts dragons because your friends say someone saw one.
I would say it's time for you to put on your big-boy pants and admit that 2 million people at one time don't lie and get away with it. Grow up.
Yaakov-
1. To say the revelation is as historical as the American Revolution is terrifyingly inaccurate. Please talk to a PhD student about your idea and witness the blank and slightly troubled look you get.
The only reason it is thought of as less accurate is because it happened a LONG time ago, vs 238 years ago. Give it a few thousand years, and see how mythologised the American Revolution becomes. Hell, just watch Mel Gibson's "The Patriot", and see how mythologised it already is. For more on the Exodus from Egypt, read the Pocket Bible Handbook, by Henry H. Halley, 18th Edition, 2nd Printing, copyright 1950, pp. 106-127. Although Christian, and with considerable faults, it is still a pretty good reference. The book is still in print, but the current 25th Edition, though it does have its strengths, is generally not as good.However, for your reference, Halley's Bible Handbook, with the New International Version, copyright 2000, 2007 by Halley's Bible Handbook, Inc. It is done through Zondervan. I have it on my Nook, so no pagination, but the Chapter is "The Exodus from Egypt: Exodus-Deuteronomy".
So as we get further from the event it becomes more mythologized. This does not help your argument really.
It helps insofar as it recognises that mythologising occurs with anything. The Exodus is as believable as the American Revolution will one day be.Quote2.Millions of people and only one surviving historical source... Not even one other written account amongst your gloriously literate society of antiquity. That strikes me as exactly what I would expect of the revelation were a myth.
And you are forgetting the non-canonical sources such as the Book of Jubilees, and other sources.
How many sources refer to the revelation?
I would have to check. I know the Book of Jubilees does. I know there are others. As far as numbers, I am not certain.Quote3. I am not referring to whether or not the Palestinians are getting what's coming to them merely that it is not at all surprising that they do have enmity with the Jews.
Understood.
4. What is your standard of probability? Personal credulity?
No response necessary.
So you concede and we need not take metaphysical arguments as evidence. Glad we agree.
I do not concede. I simply consider that you do not have an argument worth a response.Quote5.Correlation does not equal causation.
Except insofar as that was the stated aim of the governments in question.
Citation required.
The Dalai Lama. Chairman Mao repeatedly told him that religion was poison. The Cultural Revolution in which all religion was intended to be wiped out across the country. In Albania, which was officially declared an Atheist country in 1967, wherein EVERY single house of worship was closed, and where owning a Bible or Qur'an was punishable by death or long prison sentences. It was the only country in the world that actually went so far as to declare itself officially Atheist, and actually outlawed religion outright, although ALL Soviet, Chinese, and Korean style Communist countries severely curtailed the rights of believers. In the USSR, it was illegal to teach one's faith to anyone under the age of 18, even one's own children.Quote6. Read "A Universe from Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss.
Summarise, please.l
That it is plausible that the universe can arise from the quantum fluctuations of empty space.
It might arise, but what kind of order would it have? Sounds like it would be pretty random to me.Quote7. I never said the universe exists and have pointed out that the laws of physics are deterministic. What's the problem here?
The universe doesn't exist?
Oops! Not sure what I meant by the first part however I have pointed out that laws of physics are deterministic and as such are non-random.
Citation needed please.Quote8. I have provided a rebuttal to Plato and Aristotle and you are asserting they are right merely because of who they are. Sounds like an argument from authority.
I don't have 2 hours to listen to an argument. Summarise, please.
That not everything that begins to exist must have a cause. We are not capable of making this statement with any sort of certainty.
Forgive me, but saying that something exists without cause is utterly illogical in the extreme. That is absurd. I'll just leave that one there.
So God is nothing but smoke and loud noise now?Yaakov: You liar. You big, fat, ugly, liar. I can't believe you can come in here and spout such horrible lies as fact.
You claim it's fact that Jews saw God at Mt. Sinai yet your own book says this is a lie.
The Jews saw only smoke, not God. They HEARD a voice, but saw nothing.
For those interested let me paint you a picture:
Moses hears God tell him to go up a mountain. He "talks" to God who tells him to tell everyone to listen to him because he did all the stuff for them. So Moses comes back and tells his people who then agree. So Moses has to go BACK up the mountain to tell God what they said. At which point God tells them to get nice and clean and holy in 2 days and on the third, he'll talk to them. Oh and that if anyone climbs the mountain or even touches it, they'll die.
So on the third day, the mountain is covered in smoke with a big fire at the top (fire causes smoke FYI) and a loud voice proclaims the commandments. So Moses goes BACK up the mountain after this and spends 40 days and 40 nights to "receive" the stone tablets, the written Torah AND the Oral Torah. So one guy was on a mountain, alone, and after 40 days, he returns with two written works and one oral one. Why would it take God 40 days to give him this stuff? It would take 10 seconds, max. It's FAR more likely that it was Moses who did it. Especially since he came back, broke the stone tablets, and had to go back for 40 days and nights to get new ones.
It would take 40 days at least to write the Written Torah by hand. The Oral Torah would take at LEAST that long to memorise. Then he would have to do it again!
If this were any other religion, you'd call Moses a con man. But because you were brainwashed into believing this, you can't accept any evidence contrary.
Moses was the original Wizard of Oz. So put on your big boy pants and accept the truth. Stop being a child who accepts dragons because your friends say someone saw one.
I would say it's time for you to put on your big-boy pants and admit that 2 million people at one time don't lie and get away with it. Grow up.
"Chapter 19
19:1 In the third month after the children of Israel were gone forth out of the land of Egypt, the same day came they into the wilderness of Sinai.
19:2 And when they were departed from Rephidim, and were come to the wilderness of Sinai, they encamped in the wilderness; and there Israel encamped before the mount.
19:3 And Moses went up unto God, and the Lord called unto him out of the mountain, saying: 'Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel:
19:4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto Myself.
19:5 Now therefore, if ye will hearken unto My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be Mine own treasure from among all peoples; for all the earth is Mine;
19:6 and ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.'
19:7 And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and set before them all these words which the Lord commanded him.
19:8 And all the people answered together, and said: 'All that the Lord hath spoken we will do.' And Moses reported the words of the people unto the Lord. 9 And the Lord said unto Moses: 'Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and may also believe thee for ever.' And Moses told the words of the people unto the Lord.
19:10 And the Lord said unto Moses: 'Go unto the people, and sanctify them to-day and to-morrow, and let them wash their garments,
19:11 and be ready against the third day; for the third day the Lord will come down in the sight of all the people upon mount Sinai.
Notice: He will come down in the sight of all the people. All 2 million of them.
19:12 And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying: Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it; whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death;
19:13 no hand shall touch him, but he shall surely be stoned, or shot through; whether it be beast or man, it shall not live; when the ram's horn soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount.'
19:14 And Moses went down from the mount unto the people, and sanctified the people; and they washed their garments.
19:15 And he said unto the people: 'Be ready against the third day; come not near a woman.' 16 And it came to pass on the third day, when it was morning, that there were thunders and lightnings and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of a horn exceeding loud; and all the people that were in the camp trembled.
Notice: Thunder and lightning and a thick cloud on the mount. This implies nowhere else.
19:17 And Moses brought forth the people out of the camp to meet God; and they stood at the nether part of the mount.
19:18 Now mount Sinai was altogether on smoke, because the Lord descended upon it in fire; and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly.
Notice: the Lord descended in fire on the mountain. What do you want him to do, show up as Derek Jeter?
19:19 And when the voice of the horn waxed louder and louder, Moses spoke, and God answered him by a voice.
Moses speaks, and then God blantantly speaks. Damn!
19:20 And the Lord came down upon mount Sinai, to the top of the mount; and the Lord called Moses to the top of the mount; and Moses went up.
19:21 And the Lord said unto Moses: 'Go down, charge the people, lest they break through unto the Lord to gaze, and many of them perish.
19:22 And let the priests also, that come near to the Lord, sanctify themselves, lest the Lord break forth upon them.'
19:23 And Moses said unto the Lord: 'The people cannot come up to mount Sinai; for thou didst charge us, saying: Set bounds about the mount, and sanctify it.'
19:24 And the Lord said unto him: 'Go, get thee down, and thou shalt come up, thou, and Aaron with thee; but let not the priests and the people break through to come up unto the Lord, lest He break forth upon them.'
19:25 So Moses went down unto the people, and told them.
Chapter 20
20:1 And God spoke all these words, saying:
20:2 I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.
20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;
20:5 thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me;
20:6 and showing mercy unto the thousandth generation of them that love Me and keep My commandments.
20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain.
20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work;
20:10 but the seventh day is a sabbath unto the Lord thy God, in it thou shalt not do any manner of work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates;
20:11 for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. 12 Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
20:13 Thou shalt not murder.
20:13 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
20:13 Thou shalt not steal.
20:13 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
20:14 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. 15 And all the people perceived the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the voice of the horn, and the mountain smoking; and when the people saw it, they trembled, and stood afar off.
20:16 And they said unto Moses: 'Speak thou with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak with us, lest we die.'
20:17 And Moses said unto the people: 'Fear not; for God is come to prove you, and that His fear may be before you, that ye sin not.'
20:18 And the people stood afar off; but Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was.
One assumes that there was no thick darkness elsewhere.
19 And the Lord said unto Moses: Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel: Ye yourselves have seen that I have talked with you from heaven.
20:20 Ye shall not make with Me--gods of silver, or gods of gold, ye shall not make unto you.
20:21 An altar of earth thou shalt make unto Me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt-offerings, and thy peace-offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen; in every place where I cause My name to be mentioned I will come unto thee and bless thee.
20:22 And if thou make Me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stones; for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast profaned it.
20:23 Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto Mine altar, that thy nakedness be not uncovered thereon."
Source: Tanach, Jewish Publication Society. http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/exodus-jps.html
I am astounded at your line of argumentation being so poor. I thought I was actually going to be challenged seriously. Wow. That was seriously weak, friend. When I can give you a kicking that badly in 10 minutes, I am disappointed, really. Better luck next time. If at first you don't succeed...
Of course, you will say that this proves nothing. But, you, like so many, fail to keep the rest of the Torah in context, namely, remembering the people the Lord has stricken down in His wrath. The Wizard of Oz didn't do that, and neither did Moses. God did that. Try again...
So the American Revolution one day will sound like the Exodus. So your point is that one day in the future a completely mundane event will be characterized as supernatural, even though it wasn't. Got it. Can we move on?
No, you missed my point. The American Revolution was not supernatural, nor will it be classed as such. My point is that people will have the same questions as to whether or not it even occurred.
Asking a question about your standard of what is probable is not even an argument. You know that right?
Ah, ok. Whatever that means.
By your comments about atheist countries it appears you do not understand what a citation is. Please try again.
I'm stating facts. One does not need citations when one is stating facts that any person can look up in any decent encyclopedia. Go have look at Wikipedia.
In regards to your comment bout a universe arising from nothing why are you using your opinion about what it seems like the universe should be? Are you an expert in cosmology? Here is a source that discusses in part how QM and other natural laws are deterministic.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/quantum-physics-free-will/
So please drop this nonsense that the universe is random. It only appears that way due to a lack of information. Again: universe=non-random=creation need not be an accident in the absence of a prime-mover.
So, you are basing this off one article. IMPRESSIVE! (NOT!) There are so many theories about the universe and how it got to be here that you could power the city of San Diego with them for about 10 years if you kept one person reciting them all, and hooked his mouth up to a generator. I think you are doing rather poorly so far trying to prove your point.
Of course my summation of a PhD philosopher's argument may sound absurd on its face. Maybe you should take the time to listen to what the expert has to say instead of making an argument from personal credulity.
(Sorry for the lack of quotes, on my phone and don't have time to parse it all.)
So God is nothing but smoke and loud noise now?
"Chapter 19
19:1 In the third month after the children of Israel were gone forth out of the land of Egypt, the same day came they into the wilderness of Sinai.
19:2 And when they were departed from Rephidim, and were come to the wilderness of Sinai, they encamped in the wilderness; and there Israel encamped before the mount.
19:3 And Moses went up unto God, and the Lord called unto him out of the mountain, saying: 'Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel:
19:4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto Myself.
19:5 Now therefore, if ye will hearken unto My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be Mine own treasure from among all peoples; for all the earth is Mine;
19:6 and ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.'
19:7 And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and set before them all these words which the Lord commanded him.
19:8 And all the people answered together, and said: 'All that the Lord hath spoken we will do.' And Moses reported the words of the people unto the Lord. 9 And the Lord said unto Moses: 'Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and may also believe thee for ever.' And Moses told the words of the people unto the Lord.
19:10 And the Lord said unto Moses: 'Go unto the people, and sanctify them to-day and to-morrow, and let them wash their garments,
19:11 and be ready against the third day; for the third day the Lord will come down in the sight of all the people upon mount Sinai.
Notice: He will come down in the sight of all the people. All 2 million of them.
19:12 And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying: Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it; whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death;
19:13 no hand shall touch him, but he shall surely be stoned, or shot through; whether it be beast or man, it shall not live; when the ram's horn soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount.'
19:14 And Moses went down from the mount unto the people, and sanctified the people; and they washed their garments.
19:15 And he said unto the people: 'Be ready against the third day; come not near a woman.' 16 And it came to pass on the third day, when it was morning, that there were thunders and lightnings and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of a horn exceeding loud; and all the people that were in the camp trembled.
Notice: Thunder and lightning and a thick cloud on the mount. This implies nowhere else.
19:17 And Moses brought forth the people out of the camp to meet God; and they stood at the nether part of the mount.
19:18 Now mount Sinai was altogether on smoke, because the Lord descended upon it in fire; and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly.
Notice: the Lord descended in fire on the mountain. What do you want him to do, show up as Derek Jeter?
19:19 And when the voice of the horn waxed louder and louder, Moses spoke, and God answered him by a voice.
Moses speaks, and then God blantantly speaks. Damn!
19:20 And the Lord came down upon mount Sinai, to the top of the mount; and the Lord called Moses to the top of the mount; and Moses went up.
19:21 And the Lord said unto Moses: 'Go down, charge the people, lest they break through unto the Lord to gaze, and many of them perish.
19:22 And let the priests also, that come near to the Lord, sanctify themselves, lest the Lord break forth upon them.'
19:23 And Moses said unto the Lord: 'The people cannot come up to mount Sinai; for thou didst charge us, saying: Set bounds about the mount, and sanctify it.'
19:24 And the Lord said unto him: 'Go, get thee down, and thou shalt come up, thou, and Aaron with thee; but let not the priests and the people break through to come up unto the Lord, lest He break forth upon them.'
19:25 So Moses went down unto the people, and told them.
Chapter 20
20:1 And God spoke all these words, saying:
20:2 I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.
20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;
20:5 thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me;
20:6 and showing mercy unto the thousandth generation of them that love Me and keep My commandments.
20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain.
20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work;
20:10 but the seventh day is a sabbath unto the Lord thy God, in it thou shalt not do any manner of work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates;
20:11 for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. 12 Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
20:13 Thou shalt not murder.
20:13 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
20:13 Thou shalt not steal.
20:13 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
20:14 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. 15 And all the people perceived the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the voice of the horn, and the mountain smoking; and when the people saw it, they trembled, and stood afar off.
20:16 And they said unto Moses: 'Speak thou with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak with us, lest we die.'
20:17 And Moses said unto the people: 'Fear not; for God is come to prove you, and that His fear may be before you, that ye sin not.'
20:18 And the people stood afar off; but Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was.
One assumes that there was no thick darkness elsewhere.
19 And the Lord said unto Moses: Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel: Ye yourselves have seen that I have talked with you from heaven.
20:20 Ye shall not make with Me--gods of silver, or gods of gold, ye shall not make unto you.
20:21 An altar of earth thou shalt make unto Me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt-offerings, and thy peace-offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen; in every place where I cause My name to be mentioned I will come unto thee and bless thee.
20:22 And if thou make Me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stones; for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast profaned it.
20:23 Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto Mine altar, that thy nakedness be not uncovered thereon."
Source: Tanach, Jewish Publication Society. http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/exodus-jps.html
I am astounded at your line of argumentation being so poor. I thought I was actually going to be challenged seriously. Wow. That was seriously weak, friend. When I can give you a kicking that badly in 10 minutes, I am disappointed, really. Better luck next time. If at first you don't succeed...
Of course, you will say that this proves nothing. But, you, like so many, fail to keep the rest of the Torah in context, namely, remembering the people the Lord has stricken down in His wrath. The Wizard of Oz didn't do that, and neither did Moses. God did that. Try again...
Sorry but I could fake all that with nothing more than time and an assistant. Using no technology either.
It would be rather difficult with the Bronze Age technology (or rather, the lack thereof) to fake thunders and lightnings and a thick cloud upon the mount. One can imagine that it was not a small amount. In fact, Torah states that the smoke ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly. Moses would have had a hard time pulling that off 4500 years ago.
And having to take 40 days to "get" a scroll and two stone tablets seems like a long time for god doesn't it? He, who can poof such things into your hands in a moment required 40 days and 40 nights and to be alone with one man to do it. This is what a conman would do.
Since Moses had to write it out longhand, it would take about 40 days. Memorising the entire Oral Torah would take at LEAST that long!
You also made the assumption that darkness was no where else. Why would God want darkness instead of light I wonder?
Why wouldn't he? How is that in the slightest a relevant question?
Also, 19:21 clearly states that anyone who looks at The Lord will perish. So how can you see God and live? You cant. So again, no one saw God, they saw smoke, fire (which creates smoke), thunder and lightning. In fact, one may even think that if Moses knew a storm was coming he timed it perfectly. And one trumpet and an assistant with a bullhorn would be the Voice of God.
Trumpets didn't exist. Shofarim did. I hear them blast every year in the Synagogue. It would be hard to fool anyone with one of those. They are not loud enough. Bullhorns also did not exist.
You continue to do a PISS POOR job of defending your argument. Keep trying, friend...
PLEASE NOTE: Words like "horn" or "trumpet" are usually how the word in Hebrew, "shofar", ends up being translated. A shofar is the horn of a ram that is made into a trumpet that is used today for religious purposes, and at one time was used also for military purposes. However, calling it a trumpet is a bit misleading, as it doesn't have the volume of a trumpet, and couldn't be used in fakery for 2 million persons.
So the American Revolution one day will sound like the Exodus. So your point is that one day in the future a completely mundane event will be characterized as supernatural, even though it wasn't. Got it. Can we move on?In all fairness, some people already do revere the founding fathers like Gods.
Asking a question about your standard of what is probable is not even an argument. You know that right?
By your comments about atheist countries it appears you do not understand what a citation is. Please try again.
In regards to your comment bout a universe arising from nothing why are you using your opinion about what it seems like the universe should be? Are you an expert in cosmology? Here is a source that discusses in part how QM and other natural laws are deterministic.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/quantum-physics-free-will/
So please drop this nonsense that the universe is random. It only appears that way due to a lack of information. Again: universe=non-random=creation need not be an accident in the absence of a prime-mover.
Of course my summation of a PhD philosopher's argument may sound absurd on its face. Maybe you should take the time to listen to what the expert has to say instead of making an argument from personal credulity.
(Sorry for the lack of quotes, on my phone and don't have time to parse it all.)
Unlikely considering the plethora of primary sources for the American Revolution and the Dearth for the Exodus. As an aside I thought you were suspicious of the number of Jews in the Exodus being in the millions.So the American Revolution one day will sound like the Exodus. So your point is that one day in the future a completely mundane event will be characterized as supernatural, even though it wasn't. Got it. Can we move on?
No, you missed my point. The American Revolution was not supernatural, nor will it be classed as such. My point is that people will have the same questions as to whether or not it even occurred.
Asking a question about your standard of what is probable is not even an argument. You know that right?
Ah, ok. Whatever that means.
By your comments about atheist countries it appears you do not understand what a citation is. Please try again.
I'm stating facts. One does not need citations when one is stating facts that any person can look up in any decent encyclopedia. Go have look at Wikipedia.
In regards to your comment bout a universe arising from nothing why are you using your opinion about what it seems like the universe should be? Are you an expert in cosmology? Here is a source that discusses in part how QM and other natural laws are deterministic.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/quantum-physics-free-will/
So please drop this nonsense that the universe is random. It only appears that way due to a lack of information. Again: universe=non-random=creation need not be an accident in the absence of a prime-mover.
So, you are basing this off one article. IMPRESSIVE! (NOT!) There are so many theories about the universe and how it got to be here that you could power the city of San Diego with them for about 10 years if you kept one person reciting them all, and hooked his mouth up to a generator. I think you are doing rather poorly so far trying to prove your point.
Of course my summation of a PhD philosopher's argument may sound absurd on its face. Maybe you should take the time to listen to what the expert has to say instead of making an argument from personal credulity.
Unlikely considering the plethora of primary sources for the American Revolution and the Dearth for the Exodus. As an aside I thought you were suspicious of the number of Jews in the Exodus being in the millions.So the American Revolution one day will sound like the Exodus. So your point is that one day in the future a completely mundane event will be characterized as supernatural, even though it wasn't. Got it. Can we move on?
No, you missed my point. The American Revolution was not supernatural, nor will it be classed as such. My point is that people will have the same questions as to whether or not it even occurred.
I am not prepared to answer the question about the size of the Exodus at present time. I have heard so many arguments about it being 2 million or less than that that I don't have an answer. I am using that number as a point of reference. For future purposes, please understand that when I say "two million", that stands for an undetermined number, and that I use it because that is what the Torah states. I am doing more research on that subject now. If I come to a conclusion regarding it, I shall let you all know what it is.QuoteAsking a question about your standard of what is probable is not even an argument. You know that right?
Ah, ok. Whatever that means.
Good talk.QuoteBy your comments about atheist countries it appears you do not understand what a citation is. Please try again.
I'm stating facts. One does not need citations when one is stating facts that any person can look up in any decent encyclopedia. Go have look at Wikipedia.
Ah ok. Let's keep your statement in mind later.QuoteIn regards to your comment bout a universe arising from nothing why are you using your opinion about what it seems like the universe should be? Are you an expert in cosmology? Here is a source that discusses in part how QM and other natural laws are deterministic.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/quantum-physics-free-will/
So please drop this nonsense that the universe is random. It only appears that way due to a lack of information. Again: universe=non-random=creation need not be an accident in the absence of a prime-mover.
So, you are basing this off one article. IMPRESSIVE! (NOT!) There are so many theories about the universe and how it got to be here that you could power the city of San Diego with them for about 10 years if you kept one person reciting them all, and hooked his mouth up to a generator. I think you are doing rather poorly so far trying to prove your point.
Of course my summation of a PhD philosopher's argument may sound absurd on its face. Maybe you should take the time to listen to what the expert has to say instead of making an argument from personal credulity.
No I listed one source of many. If you wish to learn more and cease sitting there being spoon fed you can heed your own advice regarding factual information spouted above and do your own research. Don't go to Wikipedia though.
Trumpets totally did exist.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_primitive_and_non-Western_trumpets
And could easily amplify human voices. They'd be distorted but God doesn't have to speak with crystal clarity when Moses told everyone what he said anyway.
I stand corrected on the point regarding trumpets. However, you couldn't imitate the voice of God such that 2 million people could all hear it. That would be hard to do even today, let alone then.
Also, thank you for admitting Moses wrote the Torah himself. Sole source of all your culture right there.
And if it took him 40 days to write the Torah, memorize the oral Torah, AND make 2 stone tablets, why did it take him an equal time to just make two stone tablets?
Ah, no, HE did not write the Torah. He wrote what God dictated him to write. You really are trying to be obtuse. As to why he spent another 40 days up there the second time, I am guessing God decided to reveal more Oral Torah to him while he was there. I don't know, and ultimately, don't care.
And if God came to this mountain then it should still have evidence of his presence. So where is the mountain?
And why would it have evidence of God's presence? What would possibly lead you to that conclusion?
Sorry but Moses had this stuff down long before "God" descended on a mountain on fire.
1. Yeah you can. It's on a mountain.Trumpets totally did exist.I stand corrected on the point regarding trumpets. However, you couldn't imitate the voice of God such that 2 million people could all hear it. That would be hard to do even today, let alone then.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_primitive_and_non-Western_trumpets
And could easily amplify human voices. They'd be distorted but God doesn't have to speak with crystal clarity when Moses told everyone what he said anyway.
And they said unto Moses:'Speak thou with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak with us, lest we die.'Did all 2 million speak? Because that's really loud. I mean, so loud that nothing Moses would say could get to anyone. Do you know how loud 2 million people are? Obama had almost as many people at his first inauguration. If you have 2 million people scared of a mountain, you are not getting a word in.
He wrote what god dictated and who said that? Oh right, Moses. So Moses said that God said it all. Gotcha. If God Changed his mind, that doesn't make a good case. What if Moses didn't drop the stone tablets? Would you have less Oral Torah?QuoteAlso, thank you for admitting Moses wrote the Torah himself. Sole source of all your culture right there.Ah, no, HE did not write the Torah. He wrote what God dictated him to write. You really are trying to be obtuse. As to why he spent another 40 days up there the second time, I am guessing God decided to reveal more Oral Torah to him while he was there. I don't know, and ultimately, don't care.
And if it took him 40 days to write the Torah, memorize the oral Torah, AND make 2 stone tablets, why did it take him an equal time to just make two stone tablets?
So shaking mountains and burning rocks don't leave evidence? He's GOD! His divine presence is so powerful looking at him kills people. You think he can descend on a mountain in fire and not scorch a few rocks?QuoteAnd if God came to this mountain then it should still have evidence of his presence. So where is the mountain?
And why would it have evidence of God's presence? What would possibly lead you to that conclusion?
Oh I'm doing a great job, you're just brainwashed. Your world is so rigid that not even God himself could change your "facts". You are the worst kind of human.QuoteSorry but Moses had this stuff down long before "God" descended on a mountain on fire.
Again, still doing a terrible job. But do keep trying. Its entertaining me.
Oh I'm doing a great job, you're just brainwashed. Your world is so rigid that not even God himself could change your "facts". You are the worst kind of human.1. Yeah you can. It's on a mountain.Trumpets totally did exist.I stand corrected on the point regarding trumpets. However, you couldn't imitate the voice of God such that 2 million people could all hear it. That would be hard to do even today, let alone then.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_primitive_and_non-Western_trumpets
And could easily amplify human voices. They'd be distorted but God doesn't have to speak with crystal clarity when Moses told everyone what he said anyway.
2. 2 million is a lot for Moses to talk to isn't it? How did he do it? 19:25 clearly states that Moses told everyone. How did he tell all 2 million people?
I am assuming through messengers. I don't know, and don't care much about the mechanics of it.
3. 20:16 clearly states that the people didn't want god to speak to them or they'd die. So where does it say everyone heard God?
Ah, God is God. He can do that. Even you acknowledged in reply #902, p. 46 that "They HEARD a voice". So make up your sorry excuse for a mind.
Ex. 19:8-9 "And all the people answered together, and said: 'All that the Lord hath spoken we will do.' And Moses reported the words of the people unto the Lord. 9 And the Lord said unto Moses: 'Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and may also believe thee for ever.' And Moses told the words of the people unto the Lord."QuoteAnd they said unto Moses:'Speak thou with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak with us, lest we die.'Did all 2 million speak? Because that's really loud. I mean, so loud that nothing Moses would say could get to anyone. Do you know how loud 2 million people are? Obama had almost as many people at his first inauguration. If you have 2 million people scared of a mountain, you are not getting a word in.
I'm assuming again, likewise through messengers. Again, I don't know for certain, and I'm not too preoccupied with the matter.QuoteHe wrote what god dictated and who said that? Oh right, Moses. So Moses said that God said it all. Gotcha. If God Changed his mind, that doesn't make a good case. What if Moses didn't drop the stone tablets? Would you have less Oral Torah?QuoteAlso, thank you for admitting Moses wrote the Torah himself. Sole source of all your culture right there.Ah, no, HE did not write the Torah. He wrote what God dictated him to write. You really are trying to be obtuse. As to why he spent another 40 days up there the second time, I am guessing God decided to reveal more Oral Torah to him while he was there. I don't know, and ultimately, don't care.
And if it took him 40 days to write the Torah, memorize the oral Torah, AND make 2 stone tablets, why did it take him an equal time to just make two stone tablets?
And ultimately not caring is why this is so frustrating. When you're confronted with something you can't explain, you choose apathy. This is classic brainwashing. You literally can't care about mistakes that make you question something. At this point God could come down to you by making your house on fire (but not burn) and tell you you're wrong and you'd still dismiss it as a lie.QuoteQuote
Methinks the Lady doth protest too much. It is not too hard hard to consider the strong possibility that Moses wrote the Torah on a scroll the first 40 days, and received the Oral Torah during the second 40 days. I am assuming that God wanted to use the time wisely. I am also assuming that had Moses NOT broken the Tables of the Law, God would have called him back up the Mount anyway. The point is, the Torah doesn't tell us what God might have done. It tells us only what he did. Quit whining.
And if God came to this mountain then it should still have evidence of his presence. So where is the mountain?
And why would it have evidence of God's presence? What would possibly lead you to that conclusion?
So shaking mountains and burning rocks don't leave evidence? He's GOD! His divine presence is so powerful looking at him kills people. You think he can descend on a mountain in fire and not scorch a few rocks?
Observe a fire on a mountain, and then go back several years later and observe the same mountain. Although you will find evidence, it will NOT be easy to find, except perhaps in the rocks. You WILL have to search for it. My father was a firefighter, and knew that much, and that was just in the life of one man. Now imagine the time being stretched to 4500 years. There might be evidence, but it wouldn't be readily observable without A LOT of research on said mountain. And that is only if God decides to LEAVE evidence. What if he chooses not to?QuoteSorry but Moses had this stuff down long before "God" descended on a mountain on fire.
Again, still doing a terrible job. But do keep trying. Its entertaining me.
So if I'm understanding you right, you don't care about specifics just the general idea.I suggest you let the child molesting bigot rant away by himself. Ignore the twat.
I guess that's required then isn't it? I mean, if you look too hard you'll see flaws so the best solution is to not look very hard at all.
And by not caring, you acknowledge my argument as being valid. (you did the same to spanner) so thanks for that. I'm happy to know that your "facts" have as much basis in reality as Unicorns.
I'm actually debating if I should keep going or not. On one hand, I find it fun to constantly poke holes in all of your points and "facts", resulting in you having to say "I don't know and don't care". On the other hand, it's not fun trying to argue with someone who has no free will on the subject. It's like arguing with a book really. No matter how wrong the book is, it'll never change it's text. As I said, God himself could not change your mind. Which you have ignored so I assume you agree. (Would that be irony?)
So if I'm understanding you right, you don't care about specifics just the general idea.I suggest you let the child molesting bigot rant away by himself. Ignore the twat.
I guess that's required then isn't it? I mean, if you look too hard you'll see flaws so the best solution is to not look very hard at all.
I think you are failing to see that Exodus is written no differently than any other report of an event. When you read about a baseball game between the Padres and the Dodgers, you don't expect the author of the report to tell you what would have happened if so-and-so had not struck out. You only want what did happen. You seem to want to what would have happened. Nobody is allowed that knowledge.
And by not caring, you acknowledge my argument as being valid. (you did the same to spanner) so thanks for that. I'm happy to know that your "facts" have as much basis in reality as Unicorns.
No, I am not acknowledging your argument as valid. I am acknowledging that you have no argument at all. Basically, I am acknowledging that you are an idiot.
I'm actually debating if I should keep going or not. On one hand, I find it fun to constantly poke holes in all of your points and "facts", resulting in you having to say "I don't know and don't care".
If someone asks me what WOULD have happened if Derek Jeter HAD caught a certain ball, my answer will be, "I don't know and I don't care". That doesn't mean the ball game never took place. So, yeeeeeeaaaah-no. Your haven't poked a hole in anything other than your own head.
On the other hand, it's not fun trying to argue with someone who has no free will on the subject. It's like arguing with a book really. No matter how wrong the book is, it'll never change it's text. As I said, God himself could not change your mind. Which you have ignored so I assume you agree. (Would that be irony?)
Why would I bother to respond to such a remarkably stupid statement?
Ooh, do I feel insulted by someone that can't do anything more than indicate his lack of vocabulary. My, now I am accused of being a child molester. Well, since such a statement is simply fucktarded, and indicates utmost stupidity on your part, and a failure to be able to present a cogent argument to anything I've said, I'll just take it as a sign that you're a complete moron incapable of anything else.
Well, your people do cut off babys' penises.
Well, your people do cut off babys' penises.
As do plenty of American non-Jews for sanitary reasons. We've been over this. Now you are reaching a point of being stupid.
Considering you can't quote correctly, I'm having trouble seeing your "intelligence".
I'm not talking about what ifs but so much as unexplained time. If it takes 30 minutes to fetch a new bat then the hitter realizes he needs a new one and it takes another 30 minutes to get it, that makes one ask why it took so along.
God, you do try to be dense. Moses didn't just go up for tablets. He went up and wrote the entire text of the Torah and got the Oral Torah. That would take at least 80 days, schmuck.
Now God is all powerful and makes land masses in a day. A stone tablet should be no problem yet it takes 40 times as long.
And you don't watch baseball much. They talk about what could have happened all the time.
Not in the newspaper report they don't. They might in casual conversation, or in game analysis, but in the basic report of what occurred, or on the nightly news, they don't.
Also, if I heard a game where the batter hit the ball into the lights then the next thing they said was that he was out, I'd want to know how that happened.
Your point?
1. How do you know how long such a task would take?Considering you can't quote correctly, I'm having trouble seeing your "intelligence".God, you do try to be dense. Moses didn't just go up for tablets. He went up and wrote the entire text of the Torah and got the Oral Torah. That would take at least 80 days, schmuck.
I'm not talking about what ifs but so much as unexplained time. If it takes 30 minutes to fetch a new bat then the hitter realizes he needs a new one and it takes another 30 minutes to get it, that makes one ask why it took so along.
So the holy word of God is nothing more than a newspaper article or the nightly news? Man, God has serious detail issues.QuoteNow God is all powerful and makes land masses in a day. A stone tablet should be no problem yet it takes 40 times as long.
And you don't watch baseball much. They talk about what could have happened all the time.
Not in the newspaper report they don't. They might in casual conversation, or in game analysis, but in the basic report of what occurred, or on the nightly news, they don't.
That you need to ask questions when things don't make logical sense.QuoteAlso, if I heard a game where the batter hit the ball into the lights then the next thing they said was that he was out, I'd want to know how that happened.Your point?
The Bible is equivalent to a 500 word sports editorial?No, God.
1. How do you know how long such a task would take?Considering you can't quote correctly, I'm having trouble seeing your "intelligence".God, you do try to be dense. Moses didn't just go up for tablets. He went up and wrote the entire text of the Torah and got the Oral Torah. That would take at least 80 days, schmuck.
I'm not talking about what ifs but so much as unexplained time. If it takes 30 minutes to fetch a new bat then the hitter realizes he needs a new one and it takes another 30 minutes to get it, that makes one ask why it took so along.
2. Correct me if I'm wrong but isnt' the Torah a collection of many "chapters" (for lack of a better word) such as:
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbersm, and Deuteronomy.
And didn't Numbersm, and Deuteronomy get written AFTER Exodus? (ie. after Moses went to see God on the mountain) I find it very curious that God gave Moses the creation story, a history he already knew (including his own), a chapter on laws and rituals, and 2 Chapters worth of the future.
3. If it would take 80 days to write all that, why did he come down after only 40? WITH the Oral and Written Torah? You have agreed that he did so at best it would take him only 40 days for both. But let's go with some math shall we?
The Written Torah consists of 79,847 words. (I'm assuming he wrote even the stuff that didn't happen yet)
Average human hand-writing is 20 words per minute for copying. This gives us 3992.35 minutes to copy it down. Which is 66.5 hours. That's not exactly 40 days and 40 nights. He'd have to be writing at around 2 words a minute and working for 12 hours a day to get around 40 days. Both times. And why would he write it down? Why not let God poof him a scroll? He'd be done in seconds rather than 2.5 months.
Again, you're demonstrating your own stupidity. You are good at that, aren't you? I expect that as he was writing Torah, he probably had a shit-ton of questions that God had to patiently answer. When God gave him laws for the Jewish People, he probably wanted to know why they were given, so he could explain. Those questions, and their answers, would form part of the Oral Torah, but they would take a long time to answer. He would need the first 40 days, and likewise another 40. As I indicated, I am guessing that God was going to call him back up the Mount even if he HADN'T broken the first tablets. The fact that he did I suspect is just a side-note insofar as he needed them again.QuoteSo the holy word of God is nothing more than a newspaper article or the nightly news? Man, God has serious detail issues.QuoteNow God is all powerful and makes land masses in a day. A stone tablet should be no problem yet it takes 40 times as long.
And you don't watch baseball much. They talk about what could have happened all the time.
Not in the newspaper report they don't. They might in casual conversation, or in game analysis, but in the basic report of what occurred, or on the nightly news, they don't.
Stupid response not worthy of reply.QuoteThat you need to ask questions when things don't make logical sense.QuoteAlso, if I heard a game where the batter hit the ball into the lights then the next thing they said was that he was out, I'd want to know how that happened.Your point?
It does make logical sense if you have an IQ above single digits.
The Bible is equivalent to a 500 word sports editorial?No, God.
Ah, whatever.
Ah, extra-whatever.
So you don't know. You create facts based on assumption. You have nothing and you call me dumb? You can't even answer a simple question.Again, you're demonstrating your own stupidity. You are good at that, aren't you? I expect that as he was writing Torah, he probably had a shit-ton of questions that God had to patiently answer. When God gave him laws for the Jewish People, he probably wanted to know why they were given, so he could explain. Those questions, and their answers, would form part of the Oral Torah, but they would take a long time to answer. He would need the first 40 days, and likewise another 40. As I indicated, I am guessing that God was going to call him back up the Mount even if he HADN'T broken the first tablets. The fact that he did I suspect is just a side-note insofar as he needed them again.1. How do you know how long such a task would take?Considering you can't quote correctly, I'm having trouble seeing your "intelligence".God, you do try to be dense. Moses didn't just go up for tablets. He went up and wrote the entire text of the Torah and got the Oral Torah. That would take at least 80 days, schmuck.
I'm not talking about what ifs but so much as unexplained time. If it takes 30 minutes to fetch a new bat then the hitter realizes he needs a new one and it takes another 30 minutes to get it, that makes one ask why it took so along.
2. Correct me if I'm wrong but isnt' the Torah a collection of many "chapters" (for lack of a better word) such as:
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbersm, and Deuteronomy.
And didn't Numbersm, and Deuteronomy get written AFTER Exodus? (ie. after Moses went to see God on the mountain) I find it very curious that God gave Moses the creation story, a history he already knew (including his own), a chapter on laws and rituals, and 2 Chapters worth of the future.
3. If it would take 80 days to write all that, why did he come down after only 40? WITH the Oral and Written Torah? You have agreed that he did so at best it would take him only 40 days for both. But let's go with some math shall we?
The Written Torah consists of 79,847 words. (I'm assuming he wrote even the stuff that didn't happen yet)
Average human hand-writing is 20 words per minute for copying. This gives us 3992.35 minutes to copy it down. Which is 66.5 hours. That's not exactly 40 days and 40 nights. He'd have to be writing at around 2 words a minute and working for 12 hours a day to get around 40 days. Both times. And why would he write it down? Why not let God poof him a scroll? He'd be done in seconds rather than 2.5 months.
So you have no argument against my statement. Gotcha. Thanks for proving my point. :)QuoteQuoteSo the holy word of God is nothing more than a newspaper article or the nightly news? Man, God has serious detail issues.QuoteNow God is all powerful and makes land masses in a day. A stone tablet should be no problem yet it takes 40 times as long.
And you don't watch baseball much. They talk about what could have happened all the time.
Not in the newspaper report they don't. They might in casual conversation, or in game analysis, but in the basic report of what occurred, or on the nightly news, they don't.
Stupid response not worthy of reply.
QuoteIt does make logical sense if you have an IQ above single digits.QuoteThat you need to ask questions when things don't make logical sense.QuoteAlso, if I heard a game where the batter hit the ball into the lights then the next thing they said was that he was out, I'd want to know how that happened.Your point?
So you don't know. You create facts based on assumption. You have nothing and you call me dumb? You can't even answer a simple question.Again, you're demonstrating your own stupidity. You are good at that, aren't you? I expect that as he was writing Torah, he probably had a shit-ton of questions that God had to patiently answer. When God gave him laws for the Jewish People, he probably wanted to know why they were given, so he could explain. Those questions, and their answers, would form part of the Oral Torah, but they would take a long time to answer. He would need the first 40 days, and likewise another 40. As I indicated, I am guessing that God was going to call him back up the Mount even if he HADN'T broken the first tablets. The fact that he did I suspect is just a side-note insofar as he needed them again.1. How do you know how long such a task would take?Considering you can't quote correctly, I'm having trouble seeing your "intelligence".God, you do try to be dense. Moses didn't just go up for tablets. He went up and wrote the entire text of the Torah and got the Oral Torah. That would take at least 80 days, schmuck.
I'm not talking about what ifs but so much as unexplained time. If it takes 30 minutes to fetch a new bat then the hitter realizes he needs a new one and it takes another 30 minutes to get it, that makes one ask why it took so along.
2. Correct me if I'm wrong but isnt' the Torah a collection of many "chapters" (for lack of a better word) such as:
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbersm, and Deuteronomy.
And didn't Numbersm, and Deuteronomy get written AFTER Exodus? (ie. after Moses went to see God on the mountain) I find it very curious that God gave Moses the creation story, a history he already knew (including his own), a chapter on laws and rituals, and 2 Chapters worth of the future.
3. If it would take 80 days to write all that, why did he come down after only 40? WITH the Oral and Written Torah? You have agreed that he did so at best it would take him only 40 days for both. But let's go with some math shall we?
The Written Torah consists of 79,847 words. (I'm assuming he wrote even the stuff that didn't happen yet)
Average human hand-writing is 20 words per minute for copying. This gives us 3992.35 minutes to copy it down. Which is 66.5 hours. That's not exactly 40 days and 40 nights. He'd have to be writing at around 2 words a minute and working for 12 hours a day to get around 40 days. Both times. And why would he write it down? Why not let God poof him a scroll? He'd be done in seconds rather than 2.5 months.
Lets see. God wants to give you laws for an entire nation of people. He expects you then to enforce those laws after writing them down. You aren't going to have ANY questions for him? NONE? Seriously?! How ludicrous can you get?!QuoteSo you have no argument against my statement. Gotcha. Thanks for proving my point. :)QuoteQuoteSo the holy word of God is nothing more than a newspaper article or the nightly news? Man, God has serious detail issues.QuoteNow God is all powerful and makes land masses in a day. A stone tablet should be no problem yet it takes 40 times as long.
And you don't watch baseball much. They talk about what could have happened all the time.
Not in the newspaper report they don't. They might in casual conversation, or in game analysis, but in the basic report of what occurred, or on the nightly news, they don't.
Stupid response not worthy of reply.
Your statement was essentially a non-statement which added nothing to the argument. Therefore, you made no point. Therefore, I proved no point of yours, except perhaps the one on top of your head. :) You're welcome.QuoteQuoteIt does make logical sense if you have an IQ above single digits.QuoteThat you need to ask questions when things don't make logical sense.QuoteAlso, if I heard a game where the batter hit the ball into the lights then the next thing they said was that he was out, I'd want to know how that happened.Your point?
You have yet to show any proof of logic. All you've thrown out are logical fallacies. And since the only argument you really seem to have these days is Ad hominim, then it seems to me you really have no answers. All you have in your limited mind is a book that you have decided must be factual and contain no errors or inconsistencies.
Since you have presented no arguments worth arguing against, all I can do is politely inform you that you lack overall intelligence. It is not an ad hominem to inform someone that they are stupid when in fact, that statement is true. I'm not trying to prove an argument by doing that. I'm trying to help you by pointing out that you probably need special education or therapy.You have made no argument to argue against. If you had, I would be arguing against it without telling you that you were stupid, even though you are. But when someone does not MAKE an argument, it is hard to argue with that person.
I pray that if you have children, they do not suffer the same fate. :(
Lets see. God wants to give you laws for an entire nation of people. He expects you then to enforce those laws after writing them down. You aren't going to have ANY questions for him? NONE? Seriously?! How ludicrous can you get?
He didn't have to. Its in Oral Torah. Every thing the Rabbis have ever debated about in the last 4500 years is classified as Oral Torah. That is the nature of the beast. We believe that that is what God gave us, but he gave us Oral Torah to figure out for ourselves. We have to use our own reason to get to the answers. Simply relying on "because Moses said so" is not enough. We need to understand for ourselves what God wanted us to do. The results that we come up with are invariably going the be the same ones that God gave to Moses, because God did not just tell Moses, because X. Instead, he made Moses answer his own question. So when Moses says, why can't we eat pork, God's answer is, why do you think you can't eat pork? Moses thinks, and processes that, and comes up with some possible answers, and God gives him some ideas. We use the same process now. Eventually, the same result will be obtained, because we believe that the Rabbis have the spirit of God in them, as Moses did.Best evidence for a lack of a God I've ever heard.
This is not to say that they are Prophets and Lawgivers the way he was. This is to say though, that they are not stupid men. They are entirely capable of understanding the world around them and coming up with answers to problems that present themselves. For that matter, so is the individual Jew on matters that affect him or his loved ones personally. With much prayer and meditation, one can know how to apply Jewish Law under some circumstances. Of course, the help of one's Rabbi is often of benefit.
Best evidence for a lack of a God I've ever heard.
I understand you have personal experience with being specially educated but I can assure you I've passed all intelligence tests with high marks. But I appreciate the concern for my well being.QuoteBest evidence for a lack of a God I've ever heard.Or perhaps just further evidence that you were too unintelligent to comprehend my response. Again, I strongly advise Special Education. If you like, tell me what city you're in, and I'll track down the aid that they have for Special Needs adults in that city, County, and State. I won't even charge you for the privilege. On the house.
You see, most of us appreciate being able to use our brains in concert with God to understand ourselves. We leave being told what to do in dictatorial fashion to the Southern Baptists.
And we leave the idea of thinking we have complete control over everything to people like you
, who have such limited intelligence that they honestly believe themselves when they say that the universe occurred by itself. Or even worse, that humans have complete control over their own lives.
Said the guy who can't learn to use the quote feature. Just saying..
So, good on you. In all these posts, you have managed to prove nothing except your own limitations, which appear to me to be quite severe. That is unfortunate. For the briefest moment, I thought you were actually going to be a challenge. NOT!Oh, well. A pity.
So I'm curious, why is it that so much is forbidden to eat? Let's use the standard pork and lobster as examples.
So I'm curious, why is it that so much is forbidden to eat? Let's use the standard pork and lobster as examples.
Well, there are a variety of answers I could give to the question that is posted here on the quoted page. But pork is simple. One, its EXTREMELY unhealthy for you. Two, its damned hard to cook without getting worms, especially over an open fire.
Now, why the original message asked about penguins, I am still trying to figure out! I don't know anything about penguins, let alone whether one is aloud to eat them, so I can't answer that question.
Wait... Jews can't even cook pork right and think its Extremely unhealthy? Wow...So I'm curious, why is it that so much is forbidden to eat? Let's use the standard pork and lobster as examples.
Well, there are a variety of answers I could give to the question that is posted here on the quoted page. But pork is simple. One, its EXTREMELY unhealthy for you. Two, its damned hard to cook without getting worms, especially over an open fire.
Now, why the original message asked about penguins, I am still trying to figure out! I don't know anything about penguins, let alone whether one is aloud to eat them, so I can't answer that question.
What makes pork more unhealthy than any other meat product? Of course you're keeping in mind that they would have come across wild pigs, and not domestic ones, so the meat from them was probably leaner than any well fed domestic animals at the time.
So I'm curious, why is it that so much is forbidden to eat? Let's use the standard pork and lobster as examples.
I understand you have personal experience with being specially educated but I can assure you I've passed all intelligence tests with high marks. But I appreciate the concern for my well being.QuoteBest evidence for a lack of a God I've ever heard.Or perhaps just further evidence that you were too unintelligent to comprehend my response. Again, I strongly advise Special Education. If you like, tell me what city you're in, and I'll track down the aid that they have for Special Needs adults in that city, County, and State. I won't even charge you for the privilege. On the house.Quote
Actually, no, I am just good at getting people help. My intelligence is fine, thank you.
You see, most of us appreciate being able to use our brains in concert with God to understand ourselves. We leave being told what to do in dictatorial fashion to the Southern Baptists.
Ummm.... the Torah seems to disagree with you on that.Quote
And we leave the idea of thinking we have complete control over everything to people like you
I control myself. I do not control the Universe (though I do control some small parts of it such as my TV, my computer, and the glass I am currently drinking from).Quote
, who have such limited intelligence that they honestly believe themselves when they say that the universe occurred by itself. Or even worse, that humans have complete control over their own lives.
Well considering I'm living comfortably and happy: I have a job I love that pays well enough, a wonderful wife, and a newborn son. If God has any control over my life, you'd think I'd be suffering right? I mean, I'm against his chosen people, or at least you. If God has control, why would he give me what one could easily consider a perfect life?QuoteSaid the guy who can't learn to use the quote feature. Just saying..
So, good on you. In all these posts, you have managed to prove nothing except your own limitations, which appear to me to be quite severe. That is unfortunate. For the briefest moment, I thought you were actually going to be a challenge. NOT!Oh, well. A pity.
Wait... Jews can't even cook pork right and think its Extremely unhealthy? Wow...So I'm curious, why is it that so much is forbidden to eat? Let's use the standard pork and lobster as examples.
Well, there are a variety of answers I could give to the question that is posted here on the quoted page. But pork is simple. One, its EXTREMELY unhealthy for you. Two, its damned hard to cook without getting worms, especially over an open fire.
Now, why the original message asked about penguins, I am still trying to figure out! I don't know anything about penguins, let alone whether one is aloud to eat them, so I can't answer that question.
Wait, no. I'm sorry: God thinks they can't cook it and that its bad for them. That rule came from God did it not?
So God thinks the Jews can't cook meat right. No wonder he had to give you the safety scissors of food.
Why would God make an animal that tastes so good also be very unhealthy to eat? Checkmate, Jews.
I went to a pig roast with a pig that was cooked under ground.What makes pork more unhealthy than any other meat product? Of course you're keeping in mind that they would have come across wild pigs, and not domestic ones, so the meat from them was probably leaner than any well fed domestic animals at the time.
Try to cook pork over an open fire, and try to make absolutely certain that it is cooked all the way through. Its damned hard to do. And if you don't, you get worms. Furthermore, they eat filth. If you want to eat that, feel free, but I damned sure don't.
In the wild, they are foraging animals, primarily eating leaves, grasses, roots, fruits and flowers. In confinement pigs are fed mostly corn and soybean meal with a mixture of vitamins and minerals added to the diet.
Actually, no, I am just good at getting people help. My intelligence is fine, thank you.So far you've confused and insulted people here more than educated. If you're good at getting people help, maybe you should find some for yourself. You clearly need it if you're going to interact with non-jews. Or at least try to educate them.
And your life is relevant to me how? I tend to think my life is close to perfect also. A beautiful wife (just married), a nice dog, no kids (don't want any of the little buggers). So, the fact that your life is in your mind perfect, and mine is likewise, doesn't change things one bit, now does it?Makes me wonder: If God is controlling both of our lives, even a little, why are we equal in our happiness? It's almost like it doesn't matter if you follow the laws of God or not. And doesn't it make you a bit jealous? Here I am, not following the laws of God, disrespecting his chosen people, insulting him directly, and God gives me the same level of happiness as you. You, who have suffered and sacrificed to follow his law.
And the fact that they eat filth. Along with shellfish, and catfish, and other things that Gentiles eat.Define "Filth" because I don't think you know what that means.
What is the "pot party"?
They favour the national legalisation of marijuana in the United States.[/size]I went to a pig roast with a pig that was cooked under ground.What makes pork more unhealthy than any other meat product? Of course you're keeping in mind that they would have come across wild pigs, and not domestic ones, so the meat from them was probably leaner than any well fed domestic animals at the time.
Try to cook pork over an open fire, and try to make absolutely certain that it is cooked all the way through. Its damned hard to do. And if you don't, you get worms. Furthermore, they eat filth. If you want to eat that, feel free, but I damned sure don't.
Perfectly.
So yeah, not very hard.
And you can't get worms if the pig doesn't have worms. Worms don't magically appear in pig meat from the fire.
Pigs eat Filth?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig#Diet_and_foraging (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig#Diet_and_foraging)QuoteIn the wild, they are foraging animals, primarily eating leaves, grasses, roots, fruits and flowers. In confinement pigs are fed mostly corn and soybean meal with a mixture of vitamins and minerals added to the diet.
Pigs forage for anything they can get and will eat carrion when they can as well.
You like to call people stupid and "special education" but you don't even know what pigs eat. What, did you think they ate poop or something?
You need an education in biology. Specifically the food chain.
You probably think Grass is "gross".Actually, no, I am just good at getting people help. My intelligence is fine, thank you.So far you've confused and insulted people here more than educated. If you're good at getting people help, maybe you should find some for yourself. You clearly need it if you're going to interact with non-jews. Or at least try to educate them.QuoteAnd your life is relevant to me how? I tend to think my life is close to perfect also. A beautiful wife (just married), a nice dog, no kids (don't want any of the little buggers). So, the fact that your life is in your mind perfect, and mine is likewise, doesn't change things one bit, now does it?Makes me wonder: If God is controlling both of our lives, even a little, why are we equal in our happiness? It's almost like it doesn't matter if you follow the laws of God or not. And doesn't it make you a bit jealous? Here I am, not following the laws of God, disrespecting his chosen people, insulting him directly, and God gives me the same level of happiness as you. You, who have suffered and sacrificed to follow his law.
You seem to forget that non-Jews are not obligated to follow God's laws. They are obligated only to the Laws of Noah. I would encourage you to look those up under the designation "Noahide Laws".And the fact that they eat filth. Along with shellfish, and catfish, and other things that Gentiles eat.Define "Filth" because I don't think you know what that means.
Antifreeze is a man-made chemical.
Delicious tasting berries do so to spread their seeds. The dead body of the organism who ate them provide nutrients for the seeds to grow. Better question: Why would god make a berry that is poisonous?
Its probably not poisonous to the animal that needs to eat it. And if it is, as you correctly point out, it serves its purpose, as all things do.
Oh I forgot to answer:
If God gave me a bunch of rules, I would not have a lot of questions. He's GOD for God's sake! If he says to jump off a bridge, you jump off the bridge. I would, however, expect God to at least update the rules once in a while.
Once the microwave came into being, you'd think Bacon would be totally ok.
QUOTE: "Pigs are omnivores, which means that they consume both plants and animals." Source, Wikipedia, article, Pig.
You don't eat any invertebrates?
NOW, they eat some pretty nasty shit, yes. But at the time, they weren't too bad. I stand corrected about the worms. NOW, I understand that chickens eat some Godawful shit.Thank you Monsantos.Chickens have always eaten worms, seeds, and insects.
Why would God make an animal that tastes so good also be very unhealthy to eat? Checkmate, Jews.
Ah, your point? Antifreeze tastes good to a dog. Why not give him some for dinner tonight? I am sure some very poisonous berries probably taste delightful. You're free to eat them if you wish, of course. You're not a good chess player. I wouldn't try that move again.
Actually, microwaves are even harder to determine whether bacon is thoroughly cooked, because the cooking time with them varies so much from device to device.
What makes pork more unhealthy than any other meat product?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichinosis
I've recently learned that Palestinians have the highest concentration of phDs, especially in economics, of any nationality in the world. Is this why jews hate them so badly? Are you jealous of their banking prowess?
Tausami, I find that unlikely, since most "Palestinians" are very poorly educated, if at all. In fact, I should like to see your source. But, even assuming you are right, and you might be, how is that relevant? I have no banking prowess at all. Your point?Why would God make an animal that tastes so good also be very unhealthy to eat? Checkmate, Jews.
Ah, your point? Antifreeze tastes good to a dog. Why not give him some for dinner tonight? I am sure some very poisonous berries probably taste delightful. You're free to eat them if you wish, of course. You're not a good chess player. I wouldn't try that move again.
I'm not sure you addressed his point. Why would god make something so bad so good? That doesn't make any sense.
Ah, because shit happens?
Actually, microwaves are even harder to determine whether bacon is thoroughly cooked, because the cooking time with them varies so much from device to device.
What? No, it doesn't. A microwave is a microwave. Unless you're using microwaves with different wattage ratings and expecting them to cook food at the same rate. You wouldn't be doing that, would you?
What makes pork more unhealthy than any other meat product?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichinosis
Even those with the same wattage vary with age. Trust me, I have run into this problem with the microwave I use now, compared to the one I used before I was married.
healthyeating.sfgate.com/risks-undercooked-chicken-2327.htmlWhat makes pork more unhealthy than any other meat product?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichinosis
Thank you, Markjo.
healthyeating.sfgate.com/risks-undercooked-chicken-2327.htmlWhat makes pork more unhealthy than any other meat product?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichinosis
Thank you, Markjo.
Pretty much any undercooked meat is bad. Pork is far from unique in that regard.
healthyeating.sfgate.com/risks-undercooked-chicken-2327.htmlWhat makes pork more unhealthy than any other meat product?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichinosis
Thank you, Markjo.
Pretty much any undercooked meat is bad. Pork is far from unique in that regard.
Chicken is pretty nasty for you if undercooked. But it doesn't have the double-whammy of eating carrion. Eating dead things was considered to be, and still is, so far as I know, EXTREMELY unhealthy for the human who came along and ate the thing that ate the carrion eater later. Seriously, now. Tell me. You wouldn't eat a vulture, but you do eat a hog? That is nasty-ass, and its comparable.
* Human meat eaters are NOT carnivores, because Real-Carnivores eat LIVING animals.
* REAL Carnivores salivate at the sight of an animal - as their prey. Humans do not.
* REAL Carnivores make the kill themselves with their own fangs and claws. Humans do not.
* Human (fake) 'carnivores' are merely CARRION EATERS, like scavengers or vultures, ...they only eat DEAD meat. In other words, they ingest only DEATH.
I think your yahoo.answers person doesn't know the difference between a predator and a carnivore. We eat meat and we eat veggies... omnivores.healthyeating.sfgate.com/risks-undercooked-chicken-2327.htmlWhat makes pork more unhealthy than any other meat product?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichinosis
Thank you, Markjo.
Pretty much any undercooked meat is bad. Pork is far from unique in that regard.
Chicken is pretty nasty for you if undercooked. But it doesn't have the double-whammy of eating carrion. Eating dead things was considered to be, and still is, so far as I know, EXTREMELY unhealthy for the human who came along and ate the thing that ate the carrion eater later. Seriously, now. Tell me. You wouldn't eat a vulture, but you do eat a hog? That is nasty-ass, and its comparable.Quote from: http://www.answers.com/Q/What_are_carrion_eaters* Human meat eaters are NOT carnivores, because Real-Carnivores eat LIVING animals.
* REAL Carnivores salivate at the sight of an animal - as their prey. Humans do not.
* REAL Carnivores make the kill themselves with their own fangs and claws. Humans do not.
* Human (fake) 'carnivores' are merely CARRION EATERS, like scavengers or vultures, ...they only eat DEAD meat. In other words, they ingest only DEATH.
I think your yahoo.answers person doesn't know the difference between a predator and a carnivore. We eat meat and we eat veggies... omnivores.healthyeating.sfgate.com/risks-undercooked-chicken-2327.htmlWhat makes pork more unhealthy than any other meat product?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichinosis
Thank you, Markjo.
Pretty much any undercooked meat is bad. Pork is far from unique in that regard.
Chicken is pretty nasty for you if undercooked. But it doesn't have the double-whammy of eating carrion. Eating dead things was considered to be, and still is, so far as I know, EXTREMELY unhealthy for the human who came along and ate the thing that ate the carrion eater later. Seriously, now. Tell me. You wouldn't eat a vulture, but you do eat a hog? That is nasty-ass, and its comparable.Quote from: http://www.answers.com/Q/What_are_carrion_eaters* Human meat eaters are NOT carnivores, because Real-Carnivores eat LIVING animals.
* REAL Carnivores salivate at the sight of an animal - as their prey. Humans do not.
* REAL Carnivores make the kill themselves with their own fangs and claws. Humans do not.
* Human (fake) 'carnivores' are merely CARRION EATERS, like scavengers or vultures, ...they only eat DEAD meat. In other words, they ingest only DEATH.
A carrion eater is something that eats a thing that died of itself. Humans do not generally eat something that died on its own. We generally kill it ourselves, and then find a way of making sure the meat is safe to eat. Eating carrion would be EXTREMELY hazardous, as would eating anything that eats carrion. Ergo, the need for the laws that forbid such. Our Yahoo answers friend is full of it.
Bye Markjo, hello Yakov.
But eating pork is fine. It is a domesticated animal reared for meat. And its delicious I might add.
The problem that jews and muslims have with pork, is that their religious texts do not keep up with technology. There is no Hebrew bible 2nd edition. They don't bring out a new one each year. 2000 years ago, eating pork in the desert would be a seriously bad idea. Pigs are similar in anthropology to humans. And so parasites that like pigs, tend to like humans too. You eat pork 2000 years ago in the desert and you are going to get worms, lice, bacterial infections etc etc.
And religious texts were a form of early law. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not kill. Still as useful today as they were back then. Don't eat pork .... well things have changed. We have antibiotics and medicate sick animals and crucially, we have refrigeration. Wise old law writers making a book to base a civilisation on aren't able to foresee that in 2000 years pork is gonna be great to eat and perfectly safe.
Christian rules don't have that, because Christians tended to be from Europe where its not as hot and the dangers of pork, not so bad. So European religions never forbade it. But our texts are equally as bad at keeping up with technology. Don't have sex with your immediate family. Of course, you don't want an inbred society. But these days we have contraception. You could have sex with a family member and if you were both up for it, its not going to make any difference. I still find it icky though because of my culture, much like you don't relish a bacon sandwich.
But I wouldn't care if I heard some guy was banging his sister and she loved it any more than you mind other people eating hot dogs. Its just not for me.
Well, though I still don't agree with you, this is by far the most logical and intelligent response I have gotten so far. Allow me to point out a few things. First off, only Jews are obligated to the 613 Commandments of the Law, many of which are the Laws of Kashruth (Kosher Laws). A non-Jew is only obligated to the Laws of Noah. I would encourage you all to refer to an internet search for "Noahides" on Google for information on that. God never said that a non-Jew couldn't eat a ham sandwich. So that is point one. Point two is that pork is still unhealthy courtesy of its tendency to be a carrion eater. And look what they feed it! Slop! I know it is reared for meat. I know risks are low today. But stilll...
And ultimately, here is what ALL these rules come down to. Why do we follow them? Well, I could give you plenty of reasons. But the ultimate reason is this: BECAUSE GOD SAID SO! No other reason necessary. God is God. One does not argue with the God of Israel when one is a Jew. One fulfills one's duty to one's God, and in return, one's God maintains his side of the Covenant. End of stary.
A carrion eater is something that eats a thing that died of itself.Incorrect.
Humans do not generally eat something that died on its own. We generally kill it ourselves, and then find a way of making sure the meat is safe to eat.When is the last time that you killed something that you ate?
You don't eat any invertebrates?
Ah, no. Even assuming I wanted to, I wouldn't be permitted to.
You can't eat insects, EXCEPT for locusts
Roadkill is not carrion. It did not die of itself. A human killed it by hitting it with a car. A thing only dies of itself because of old age or disease. And I am aware of TN law, having lived there for 3 of the most miserable years of my life. The people there are almost as backward as Arabs.
Roadkill is not carrion. It did not die of itself. A human killed it by hitting it with a car. A thing only dies of itself because of old age or disease.Carrion is defined as the decaying flesh of dead animals. How the animals die is completely irrelevant.
I don't know about you, but as I recall, the Bible defines it as anything that dies of itself.So you're saying that the rotting leftovers of a gazelle that's killed by a lion isn't carrion?
Why have we (or more specifically, you) not received an updated and properly translated book from the the storm cloud god (Thor?) you speak of? It seems like the guidance would change a bit noting advances in technology make things like how "dangerous" pig meat is irrelevant.
Maybe you consider the stuff safe, but I don't, thank you. Trichinosis is not my idea of healthy. Neither is an animal that eats slop.
No, I expect that he didn't want people to die. That's usually pretty helpful. Now, I won't deny. Can pork be cooked safely today? Sure. Can a rat? Sure. That doesn't mean I'm going to. Ultimately it comes down to the following: There are all kinds of explanations for the Kosher Laws. But the ultimate one is the following. GOD TOLD US TO. End of story. SHUT UP AND DO IT. He didn't tell the Goy to do it. He told us. So there you are.
No, I expect that he didn't want people to die.Except the people He tells you to kill, of course.
Now, I won't deny. Can pork be cooked safely today? Sure. Can a rat? Sure.Then you admit that kosher laws are essentially outdated and irrelevant today? Good to know.
That doesn't mean I'm going to. Ultimately it comes down to the following: There are all kinds of explanations for the Kosher Laws. But the ultimate one is the following. GOD TOLD US TO. End of story. SHUT UP AND DO IT. He didn't tell the Goy to do it. He told us. So there you are.So God doesn't want Jews to keep up with modern innovations in food safety? ???
Actually, you've got that completely wrong. Jews could care less about the rewards. Some Jews don't even believe in an Afterlife. As Jews, we follow the Law because it is the Law. We could care less about what happens after death. After all, when we do die, we suffer for a year and a day from demons of our own creation, and then we go to Sheol, and we are neither happy nor sad until Judgement Day.
On Judgement Day, the righteous shall enter Paradise. The unrighteous shall simply go extinct. There is no hell, or place of torment. You simply cease to exist. That is the standard view held by most, but not all Jews. However, some Jews do believe in Heaven and Hell, some believe reincarnation, some believe in no Afterlife at all. And in all cases, we don't follow the Torah out of interest for the end. We follow the Law because it is the Law. That simple.
Actually, you've got that completely wrong. Jews could care less about the rewards. Some Jews don't even believe in an Afterlife. As Jews, we follow the Law because it is the Law. We could care less about what happens after death. After all, when we do die, we suffer for a year and a day from demons of our own creation, and then we go to Sheol, and we are neither happy nor sad until Judgement Day.
On Judgement Day, the righteous shall enter Paradise. The unrighteous shall simply go extinct. There is no hell, or place of torment. You simply cease to exist. That is the standard view held by most, but not all Jews. However, some Jews do believe in Heaven and Hell, some believe reincarnation, some believe in no Afterlife at all. And in all cases, we don't follow the Torah out of interest for the end. We follow the Law because it is the Law. That simple.
You say that a reward doesn't exist and then immediately start talking about a reward. Do you believe that you will be rewarded for your deeds, either before death (karma) or after?
What I believe about the Afterlife or lack thereof is entirely irrelevant to the fact that I must obey the Torah because it is the Torah. Whether there is an Afterlife or not is entirely beside the point. And whether I believe there is an Afterlife is entirely beside the point.
No, I expect that he didn't want people to die. That's usually pretty helpful. Now, I won't deny. Can pork be cooked safely today? Sure. Can a rat? Sure. That doesn't mean I'm going to. Ultimately it comes down to the following: There are all kinds of explanations for the Kosher Laws. But the ultimate one
is the following. GOD TOLD US TO. End of story. SHUT UP AND DO IT. He didn't tell the Goy to do it. He told us. So there you are.
So you are the kind that likes being told what to do. Well, you ought to do just fine in North Korea.
No, I expect that he didn't want people to die. That's usually pretty helpful. Now, I won't deny. Can pork be cooked safely today? Sure. Can a rat? Sure. That doesn't mean I'm going to. Ultimately it comes down to the following: There are all kinds of explanations for the Kosher Laws. But the ultimate one
is the following. GOD TOLD US TO. End of story. SHUT UP AND DO IT. He didn't tell the Goy to do it. He told us. So there you are.So you are the kind that likes being told what to do. Well, you ought to do just fine in North Korea.
Actually, you've got that completely wrong. Jews could care less about the rewards. Some Jews don't even believe in an Afterlife.If there is no afterlife, then what's the point in pleasing God in this one?
A pig can be cooked safely. But should it be?Yes, it should.No.
It is still an unhealthy animal to eat because of what it eats.Farm raised pigs are fed much healthier diets than wild pigs.
And God at present doesn't command us to kill anyone. We are forced to kill Arabs because they want to destroy us.Apparently God doesn't want you to settle your differences with them eiter. ::)
Actually, you've got that completely wrong. Jews could care less about the rewards. Some Jews don't even believe in an Afterlife.If there is no afterlife, then what's the point in pleasing God in this one?
I am aware of living in one of the most racist societies in the western world. Racism is present to some degree everywhere, but in Israel it exists deep within the spirit of the laws. It is taught in schools and colleges, spread in the media, and above all and most dreadful, in Israel the racists do not know what they are doing and, because of this, feel in no way obliged to apologise. This absence of a need for self-justification has made Israel a particularly prized reference point for many movements of the far right throughout the world, movements whose past history of antisemitism is only too well known.
I am often ashamed of Israel, particularly when I witness evidence of its cruel military colonisation, with its weak and defenceless victims who are not part of the “chosen people”
What's the point of asking why if you don't change the law when the why becomes irrelevant?
Look at blood transfusions. Why was it forbidden? Because it could kill both of you since no one knew about needles or blood types and blood diseases. Can we do it safely now? Absolutely. So the why has become irrelevant and thus the law needs to be changed. But it never will. Hence why Jews live in such a primitive time compared to Christians.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/10/shlomo-sand-i-wish-to-cease-considering-myself-a-jewQuoteI am aware of living in one of the most racist societies in the western world. Racism is present to some degree everywhere, but in Israel it exists deep within the spirit of the laws. It is taught in schools and colleges, spread in the media, and above all and most dreadful, in Israel the racists do not know what they are doing and, because of this, feel in no way obliged to apologise. This absence of a need for self-justification has made Israel a particularly prized reference point for many movements of the far right throughout the world, movements whose past history of antisemitism is only too well known.QuoteI am often ashamed of Israel, particularly when I witness evidence of its cruel military colonisation, with its weak and defenceless victims who are not part of the “chosen people”
Fascinating. It's like he is referring directly to Yaakov.
People who disagree with me are evil
Evidently, he is a very poorly educated Jew. I didn't even bother reading the whole article. The fact is, Israel doesn't colonise anything. There isn't a single Jew in all of Gaza. NOT ONE. So quit whining. 85% of Israeli Jews have been polled, and have made clear that they would love to have a "Palestinian" State living in security next to Israel,if it would bring peace, which is an opinion I clearly do not share, because I don't believe it would bring peace.
Anybody who lives in Israel and can still say the things this guy does is clearly a fucking schmuck. The only reason "Palestinians" don't have a State is because they don't want one. In 2001 Ehud Barak offered Arafat 96% of the West Bank, ALL of the Gaza Strip, AND Arab East Jerusalem for a capital. Arafat started the 2nd Intifada instead. "Palestinians" would rather kill Jews then govern themselves.
Israel LEFT the Gaza in 2005. Completely left it, with a functioning agricultural industry. Hamas came to power in '07 and promptly destroyed the agricultural industry to use its equipment for weapons. Israel allowed imports to the Gaza of cement and like materials to build schools and homes. Instead of doing either, they built tunnels into Israel to kidnap and kill Israelis.
So, no, this man has no credibility. He's a fucking schmuck who has his head so far up his own ass that he can taste his own breakfast when it comes out about teatime. I'm not impressed.
Many reasons. Take, say, the term "apartheid." In the Occupied Territories, what Israel is doing is much worse than apartheid. To call it apartheid is a gift to Israel, at least if by "apartheid" you mean South African-style apartheid. What’s happening in the Occupied Territories is much worse. There’s a crucial difference. The South African Nationalists needed the black population. That was their workforce. It was 85 percent of the workforce of the population, and that was basically their workforce. They needed them. They had to sustain them. The bantustans were horrifying, but South Africa did try to sustain them. They didn’t put them on a diet. They tried to keep them strong enough to do the work that they needed for the country. They tried to get international support for the bantustans.
The Israeli relationship to the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories is totally different. They just don’t want them. They want them out, or at least in prison. And they’re acting that way. That’s a very striking difference, which means that the apartheid analogy, South African apartheid, to the Occupied Territories is just a gift to Israeli violence. It’s much worse than that. If you look inside Israel, there’s plenty of repression and discrimination. I’ve written about it extensively for decades. But it’s not apartheid. It’s bad, but it’s not apartheid. So the term, I just don’t think is applicable.
Israel has—Israeli experts have calculated in detail exactly how many calories, literally, Gazans need to survive. And if you look at the sanctions that they impose, they’re grotesque. I mean, even John Kerry condemned them bitterly. They’re sadistic. Just enough calories to survive. And, of course, it is partly metaphoric, because it means just enough material coming in through the tunnels so that they don’t totally die. Israel restricts medicines, but you have to allow a little trickle in. When I was there right before the November 2012 assault, visited the Khan Younis hospital, and the director showed us that there’s—they don’t even have simple medicines, but they have something. And the same is true with all aspects of it. Keep them on a diet, literally. And the reason is—very simple, and they pretty much said it: "If they die, it’s not going to look good for Israel. We may claim that we’re not the occupying power, but the rest of the world doesn’t agree. Even the United States doesn’t agree. We are the occupying power. And if we kill off the population under occupation, not going to look good." It’s not the 19th century, when, as the U.S. expanded over what’s its national territory, it pretty much exterminated the indigenous population. Well, by 19th century’s imperial standards, that was unproblematic. This is a little different today. You can’t exterminate the population in the territories that you occupy. That’s the dovish position, Weissglas. The hawkish position is Eiland, which you quoted: Let’s just kill them off.
Well, your point is? Noam Chomsky is a self-hating Jew. Has been for years. He is a RADICAL leftist. And the argument "very well known philosopher" sounds like an Appeal to Authority to me. Not a very good approach to take. And yes, if you had people who have proven that they will kill you the moment they get a chance, I would put them on a diet too. I am aware of the accusation. I am also aware of how untrue MOST accusations like that are. Of course, Mr. Chomsky offers no evidence for his claims, but simply claims that this is occurring.
Telling me anything about John Kerry is irrelevant. Kerry is an idiot. He got us into this mess in the first place. The United States should be incinerating Arabs, not rebuilding fucking Gaza, for God's sake!
So, when Mr. Chomsky can back up what he is saying with cold hard numbers directly from Israeli Government figures (NOT the UN, which we have established is NOT a credible organisation, and should be abolished forthwith as an eminent threat to world peace), then MAYBE I'll take the time for a second look.
Well, your point is? Noam Chomsky is a self-hating Jew. Has been for years. He is a RADICAL leftist. And the argument "very well known philosopher" sounds like an Appeal to Authority to me. Not a very good approach to take. And yes, if you had people who have proven that they will kill you the moment they get a chance, I would put them on a diet too. I am aware of the accusation. I am also aware of how untrue MOST accusations like that are. Of course, Mr. Chomsky offers no evidence for his claims, but simply claims that this is occurring.
Telling me anything about John Kerry is irrelevant. Kerry is an idiot. He got us into this mess in the first place. The United States should be incinerating Arabs, not rebuilding fucking Gaza, for God's sake!
So, when Mr. Chomsky can back up what he is saying with cold hard numbers directly from Israeli Government figures (NOT the UN, which we have established is NOT a credible organisation, and should be abolished forthwith as an eminent threat to world peace), then MAYBE I'll take the time for a second look.
So, that's your defense? Everyone who says bad things about Israel must be stupid because Israel is a shining beacon of perfection? Even worse, the only facts you'll accept are ones that come straight from Israel? Did you know courts ask defendants for a plea of guilty/not guilty and they normally plea not guilty? It is because people tend not to incriminate themselves.
I'm sorry, I thought I was having a rational discussion. I'll leave you to yourself, then.
lol UN as a threat to world peace. That's a new level of wacko. The UN just loves throwing their military weight around.
Well, lets see. Israel as an Occupying Power allows the Occupied to sue in its own Supreme Court.Just out of curiosity, how many times has Israel lost one of these supreme court cases?
The UN is a threat to world peace because everybody wants to go through the fucking Security Council which can't get out of its own way, and through the joke of a human rights council (remember such laudatory members as China, Syria, Cuba, Saudi Arabia...) to get anything done. By then its too late. People are dead, and raped and God knows what else. The UN hasn't preserved the peace once in the last 30-40 years. All they have done is further inflamed situations. They must be abolished forthwith, and every person on their payroll who does not automatically agree should be arrested for crimes against the people.
And since Israel doesn't murder "Palestinians", but only takes their lives in self-fence, there can be no question who is at fault there.
You would not believe, but MANY times. I would direct you to the website of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel.
http://elyon1.court.gov.il/eng/home/index.html
I would say about half the time of the cases I've reviewed, the Government and/or military have lost.
Not at all. Israel never listens to the UN. Nor should it. End of problem.
My point still stands: what is the point of asking why if you don't change the law when the why is irrelevant?What's the point of asking why if you don't change the law when the why becomes irrelevant?
Look at blood transfusions. Why was it forbidden? Because it could kill both of you since no one knew about needles or blood types and blood diseases. Can we do it safely now? Absolutely. So the why has become irrelevant and thus the law needs to be changed. But it never will. Hence why Jews live in such a primitive time compared to Christians.
Ah, what? Maybe you are thinking of Jehovah's Witnesses? Jews take blood. I took 2 full transfusions a few years ago. And JWs don't refuse for the reasons you suggest. they refuse because God ordered that we are not to eat blood, and they take that order to the extreme of not taking blood into the body in ANY way. You need to get your facts straight, Dude.
And since Israel doesn't murder "Palestinians", but only takes their lives in self-fence, there can be no question who is at fault there.You would not believe, but MANY times. I would direct you to the website of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel.
http://elyon1.court.gov.il/eng/home/index.html
I would say about half the time of the cases I've reviewed, the Government and/or military have lost.
Not one of the cases you reviewed had to do with a wrongful death?
My point still stands: what is the point of asking why if you don't change the law when the why is irrelevant?What's the point of asking why if you don't change the law when the why becomes irrelevant?
Look at blood transfusions. Why was it forbidden? Because it could kill both of you since no one knew about needles or blood types and blood diseases. Can we do it safely now? Absolutely. So the why has become irrelevant and thus the law needs to be changed. But it never will. Hence why Jews live in such a primitive time compared to Christians.
Ah, what? Maybe you are thinking of Jehovah's Witnesses? Jews take blood. I took 2 full transfusions a few years ago. And JWs don't refuse for the reasons you suggest. they refuse because God ordered that we are not to eat blood, and they take that order to the extreme of not taking blood into the body in ANY way. You need to get your facts straight, Dude.
Also, no evidence exists that Moses asked god why. We know this because rabbi's have been debating it for centuries and Moses made no mention of reasons anywhere.
I'm sure there are more than a few outdated laws you have to follow.
My point still stands: what is the point of asking why if you don't change the law when the why is irrelevant?What's the point of asking why if you don't change the law when the why becomes irrelevant?
Look at blood transfusions. Why was it forbidden? Because it could kill both of you since no one knew about needles or blood types and blood diseases. Can we do it safely now? Absolutely. So the why has become irrelevant and thus the law needs to be changed. But it never will. Hence why Jews live in such a primitive time compared to Christians.
Ah, what? Maybe you are thinking of Jehovah's Witnesses? Jews take blood. I took 2 full transfusions a few years ago. And JWs don't refuse for the reasons you suggest. they refuse because God ordered that we are not to eat blood, and they take that order to the extreme of not taking blood into the body in ANY way. You need to get your facts straight, Dude.
Also, no evidence exists that Moses asked god why. We know this because rabbi's have been debating it for centuries and Moses made no mention of reasons anywhere.
I'm sure there are more than a few outdated laws you have to follow.
As I expect you follow a few without even realising it. Someone sneezes, what do you say? A good atheist as you should say nothing. But, I'l bet you dollars to donuts you say "bless you." Not a divine law, granted, but I bet you follow it.
As I expect you follow a few without even realising it. Someone sneezes, what do you say? A good atheist as you should say nothing. But, I'l bet you dollars to donuts you say "bless you." Not a divine law, granted, but I bet you follow it.
But, I'l bet you dollars to donuts you say "bless you."Depends on which language is appropriate for me to use.
Then you best get me some Krispy Kreams because I do not say "bless you". I've long since gotten myself out of that habit.My point still stands: what is the point of asking why if you don't change the law when the why is irrelevant?What's the point of asking why if you don't change the law when the why becomes irrelevant?
Look at blood transfusions. Why was it forbidden? Because it could kill both of you since no one knew about needles or blood types and blood diseases. Can we do it safely now? Absolutely. So the why has become irrelevant and thus the law needs to be changed. But it never will. Hence why Jews live in such a primitive time compared to Christians.
Ah, what? Maybe you are thinking of Jehovah's Witnesses? Jews take blood. I took 2 full transfusions a few years ago. And JWs don't refuse for the reasons you suggest. they refuse because God ordered that we are not to eat blood, and they take that order to the extreme of not taking blood into the body in ANY way. You need to get your facts straight, Dude.
Also, no evidence exists that Moses asked god why. We know this because rabbi's have been debating it for centuries and Moses made no mention of reasons anywhere.
I'm sure there are more than a few outdated laws you have to follow.
As I expect you follow a few without even realising it. Someone sneezes, what do you say? A good atheist as you should say nothing. But, I'l bet you dollars to donuts you say "bless you." Not a divine law, granted, but I bet you follow it.
So you've allowed atheism to overcome even common courtesy. What a nasty, rude little boy. :)Tell me, what do you say when someone coughs?
And since Israel doesn't murder "Palestinians", but only takes their lives in self-fence, there can be no question who is at fault there.You would not believe, but MANY times. I would direct you to the website of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel.
http://elyon1.court.gov.il/eng/home/index.html
I would say about half the time of the cases I've reviewed, the Government and/or military have lost.
Not one of the cases you reviewed had to do with a wrongful death?
Actually, several of them did. I personally don't believe there is such a thing as a wrongful death when a soldier kills a "Palestinian" for throwing a potentially lethal rock or other projectile at him. But the Supreme Court does.
Is manslaughter not a type of murder charge?Why, it is. It's the lowest degree of murder. But still murder.
A wrongful death does NOT automatically imply murder. It may imply that, or it may imply a lesser offence, such as manslaughter, or excessive use of force. You obviusly know little of the law.
Is manslaughter not a type of murder charge?Why, it is. It's the lowest degree of murder. But still murder.
And your points being? I am free to disagree with the judiciary in any way I wish. I merely pointed out that Israel can't be accused of being big bad colonisers when their own juduciary, rightly or wrongly, allows "Palestinians" recourse in the system. Frankly, I don't think it should. "Palestinians" are not citizens. They should be treated as occupied until such time as they can be deported from Greater Israel.And the penalties of wrongful deaths are?
And your points being? I am free to disagree with the judiciary in any way I wish.
I merely pointed out that Israel can't be accused of being big bad colonisers when their own juduciary, rightly or wrongly, allows "Palestinians" recourse in the system.
Frankly, I don't think it should. "Palestinians" are not citizens. They should be treated as occupied until such time as they can be deported from Greater Israel.
And the penalties of wrongful deaths are?
And your points being? I am free to disagree with the judiciary in any way I wish.
That does not make your position justified.QuoteI merely pointed out that Israel can't be accused of being big bad colonisers when their own juduciary, rightly or wrongly, allows "Palestinians" recourse in the system.
Just because you give recourse to your victims does not make the victimization any less real.QuoteFrankly, I don't think it should. "Palestinians" are not citizens. They should be treated as occupied until such time as they can be deported from Greater Israel.
There are still proper and improper ways to treat people, and Israel far too frequently is on the wrong side of that line.
No please. This strawman should not continue!
And of course, the "Palestinians" are NEVER on the wrong side of that line when they launch rockets at civilians, dig tunnels with cement intended for schools and homes (said tunnels being used to kidnap and kill Israelis), use their own civilians as shields, etc. Shall I go on?
And of course our govt. is stupid enough to want to rebuild Gaza, when in fact, we should be applauding Israel for eliminating it as a threat.That's just because you are crazy though.
And Israel itself is too damned soft for its own good. They are willing to attempt to make peace with an inveterate enemy who STILL, in their founding charter, calls for their destruction.It is scary that you think one of the most militaristic nations on the planet is too soft.
There will be no peace so long as Hamas exists.Not with an attitude like that there won't.
The fact is, and you can argue this all you want, "Palestinians" are one step up from lemurs, our closest relatives in the lesser primate world, which live only in Madagascar, or chimpanzees, our closest relatives in the greater primate world. They are lucky that they can even enunciate well enough to talk.Ok, please tell that to the KKK or whoever you associate with.
Lets face it. Even other Arabs despise them. They are considered the pond scum of the Arab world. In fact, if it weren't for the fact that this site has Censors, I would use another adjective that is more descriptive, but I think I would get a swift ban, so I shall avoid doing so.I don't know why you keep using convivial bonding to lessen the blow of your awful bigotry. You are not fooling anyone that you are holding a reasonable position.
That aside, other Arabs are disgusted by them. The Saudis are repulsed by them. The only reason they have friends in the Arab world at all is because the Jews exist, and the Arabs hate the Jews more than they hate the "Palestinians". In general, I would say that the pure Arabs may hate us, but they respect us more than they do the "Palestinians", at least in terms of our honour and dignity as human beings.What's that? Oh right. Bigot.
The pure Arabs from Arabia know full well that "Palestinians" are a mixed group of mongrels, partly Arab, and partly Canaanite. The Canaanites, if you read your Hebrew Bible (the "Old Testament" to you non-Jews), were a group of people who lived in the ancient land of Canaan (modern-day Eretz Israel) prior to the coming of the Israelites, and had absolutely savage religious practices that included human sacrifice, temple prostitution (both female and male), and other extremely vile activities. Their nations were destroyed by the Israelites upon their entry to Israel under Joshua and succeeding military leaders.The bible says so? Oh well it must be true. Nuke them!
In fact, it is highly likely that "Palestinians" are descendants of Amalek,citation required who is recorded in the Bible (which is a decent history book if nothing else, for you atheists out there) as having mercilessly attacked the Israelites on more than one occasion. In return, God gave the Hebrews a commandment to destroy every Amalekite from the earth, which, if they could be isolated today, would still be an active commandment. However, because the "Palestinians" are not Amalekites per se, being descended in part from them, and also from others, the commandment cannot be enforced on them as such. Deportation is sufficient.Yes, we know you are an intolerant, cruel, vengeful and awful person. Do you think it is related to being on diability in the American Mid-West? I personally can imagine nothing more depressing.
But, back to my main point. Other Arabs know that "Palestinians" are descended largely from Canaanite trash, and then also from Arabs. But they are largely Canaanite. And the Jews, however hated they may be by Arabs, are at least monotheists with some sense of honour, unlike Canaanites.
So, lets NOT pull any punches. I don't like Arabs in any form. I've never disputed that. But, and this is a big but, at least the Arabs from Arabia have some level of dignity. The "Palestinian" descendant of Canaanite filth has none. They are fit only to be hewers of wood and drawers of water, as the Bible puts it. This reference is later in the Prophets, where the Canaanites are also listed as the sons of Esau, Jacob's brother.
So, in my opinion, "Palestinians" can either leave, or be servants. Their choice. I don't care which one they make, personally.
No please. This strawman should not continue!
And of course, the "Palestinians" are NEVER on the wrong side of that line when they launch rockets at civilians, dig tunnels with cement intended for schools and homes (said tunnels being used to kidnap and kill Israelis), use their own civilians as shields, etc. Shall I go on?
It is not a straw man to state the truth.QuoteAnd of course our govt. is stupid enough to want to rebuild Gaza, when in fact, we should be applauding Israel for eliminating it as a threat.That's just because you are crazy though.
That is an ad hominem No response.QuoteAnd Israel itself is too damned soft for its own good. They are willing to attempt to make peace with an inveterate enemy who STILL, in their founding charter, calls for their destruction.It is scary that you think one of the most militaristic nations on the planet is too soft.
Israel is still attempting to make peace with people who want to destroy them. That is soft.QuoteThere will be no peace so long as Hamas exists.Not with an attitude like that there won't.
Grow up.QuoteThe fact is, and you can argue this all you want, "Palestinians" are one step up from lemurs, our closest relatives in the lesser primate world, which live only in Madagascar, or chimpanzees, our closest relatives in the greater primate world. They are lucky that they can even enunciate well enough to talk.Ok, please tell that to the KKK or whoever you associate with.
Since I am a Jew, I doubt the KKK would be overly fond of me.QuoteLets face it. Even other Arabs despise them. They are considered the pond scum of the Arab world. In fact, if it weren't for the fact that this site has Censors, I would use another adjective that is more descriptive, but I think I would get a swift ban, so I shall avoid doing so.I don't know why you keep using convivial bonding to lessen the blow of your awful bigotry. You are not fooling anyone that you are holding a reasonable position.
Ah, whatever.QuoteThat aside, other Arabs are disgusted by them. The Saudis are repulsed by them. The only reason they have friends in the Arab world at all is because the Jews exist, and the Arabs hate the Jews more than they hate the "Palestinians". In general, I would say that the pure Arabs may hate us, but they respect us more than they do the "Palestinians", at least in terms of our honour and dignity as human beings.What's that? Oh right. Bigot.
Ad hominem.QuoteThe pure Arabs from Arabia know full well that "Palestinians" are a mixed group of mongrels, partly Arab, and partly Canaanite. The Canaanites, if you read your Hebrew Bible (the "Old Testament" to you non-Jews), were a group of people who lived in the ancient land of Canaan (modern-day Eretz Israel) prior to the coming of the Israelites, and had absolutely savage religious practices that included human sacrifice, temple prostitution (both female and male), and other extremely vile activities. Their nations were destroyed by the Israelites upon their entry to Israel under Joshua and succeeding military leaders.The bible says so? Oh well it must be true. Nuke them!
Like I said, the Bible is a decent book of history, if nothing else.QuoteIn fact, it is highly likely that "Palestinians" are descendants of Amalek,citation required who is recorded in the Bible (which is a decent history book if nothing else, for you atheists out there) as having mercilessly attacked the Israelites on more than one occasion. In return, God gave the Hebrews a commandment to destroy every Amalekite from the earth, which, if they could be isolated today, would still be an active commandment. However, because the "Palestinians" are not Amalekites per se, being descended in part from them, and also from others, the commandment cannot be enforced on them as such. Deportation is sufficient.Yes, we know you are an intolerant, cruel, vengeful and awful person. Do you think it is related to being on diability in the American Mid-West? I personally can imagine nothing more depressing.
But, back to my main point. Other Arabs know that "Palestinians" are descended largely from Canaanite trash, and then also from Arabs. But they are largely Canaanite. And the Jews, however hated they may be by Arabs, are at least monotheists with some sense of honour, unlike Canaanites.
So, lets NOT pull any punches. I don't like Arabs in any form. I've never disputed that. But, and this is a big but, at least the Arabs from Arabia have some level of dignity. The "Palestinian" descendant of Canaanite filth has none. They are fit only to be hewers of wood and drawers of water, as the Bible puts it. This reference is later in the Prophets, where the Canaanites are also listed as the sons of Esau, Jacob's brother.
So, in my opinion, "Palestinians" can either leave, or be servants. Their choice. I don't care which one they make, personally.
The last was also an ad hominem. You are just full of them today, aren't you. Schmuck.
Kettle, meet pot.cos there god doesn't real so herpy derp durr
Also, if your God can say its OK to wipe out a culture, why is it not OK for their God to do the same? Seems like a double standard.
Ah, not exatly. Abraham came from Ur originally. They lived in Canaan some time, and down to Egypt they went. Then out of Egypt, back to Canaan to conquer the Land. You really think you can give me a run for my money about biblical history? I would reconsider that if I we're you. You might end up looking very stupid.So his children and grand children were canninites. So basically all Jews.
A century of research by archaeologists and Egyptologists has arguably found no evidence that can be directly related to the Exodus narrative of an Egyptian captivity and the escape and travels through the wilderness, leading to the suggestion that Iron Age Israel—the kingdoms of Judah and Israel—has its origins in Canaan, not Egypt:[6][7] The culture of the earliest Israelite settlements is Canaanite, their cult-objects are those of the Canaanite god El, the pottery remains in the local Canaanite tradition, and the alphabet used is early Canaanite. Almost the sole marker distinguishing the "Israelite" villages from Canaanite sites is an absence of pig bones, although whether this can be taken as an ethnic marker or is due to other factors remains a matter of dispute.
Whether a conclusion has been reached or not is irrelevant. There is evidence suggesting early Jews were indigenous Canaanites. There is no evidence suggesting anything the Bible claims is true. Going with one because of personal predispositions is very retarted.
Anyone who insists on one, deliberate misspelling of a word he knows to be wrong is an idiot.What does it say about someone who refuses to acknowledge and go with a running gag?
What does it say about someone who refuses to acknowledge and go with a running gag?
It says that "running gags" have no place in intellectual conversation.??? You're looking for an intellectual conversation on a web site that contends that there is a word wide conspiracy to hide the fact that the earth is flat?
That you think a discussion necessitates a winner and a loser be designated seems oddly defensive.
Furthermore, your attitude would lead me to ask again, do you think you will be rewarded in any way for your behavior during your life?
Just to be sure I have this correctly: the measure of your intelligence is your willingness to follow the prescriptions of an ancient text merely because the authors claim to have been inspired by God? That's the thing that you think demonstrates your intellectual superiority over the rest of the people on this forum?
I mean, at least Christians and Muslims and whatnot are all acting as they do for rational incentives like eternal reward. Their logic is valid even if it isn't sound. Your rationale for obeying the prescriptions of the Torah appears to stop at "because it tells me to."
Again, that is a question I choose not to answer.
I just ask wondering if a nonfollower of his commandments received the same rewards.
Again, that is a question I choose not to answer.
Why, though? Do you believe that admitting you either do or don't expect a reward for your deeds to be a sin in and of itself? You keep telling me to look up things about other Jews, but I'm asking you, specifically. I don't care what other Jews think inside this thread.
I'm genuinely curious as to whether you adhere to a belief of any type of reward and that includes the aversion of punishment.
And, to be frank, I am not a performing animal here to satisfy your curiosity like an elephant in the circus might do. You want that, go to Barnum and Bailey. The purpose of this thread is to answer genuine questions about Jews and what they believe, how they pray, and how they live. Although I am prepared to use my life in certain ways as a pattern thereof, I choose not to in this instance when I know that the reason you ask the question is to draw me deeper into your perverted little dance with denial of God and all that is holy and pure. I shall NOT participate in your little game, nor help you maintain it.
I'm not going to encourage your escapades of making obnoxiously huge text (by not reading it). I'm just going to go ahead and assume you didn't answer the question and just started prattling on about some strawman. Might as well just change the subject.
How many Nobel prizes have you won?
Whether a conclusion has been reached or not is irrelevant. There is evidence suggesting early Jews were indigenous Canaanites. There is no evidence suggesting anything the Bible claims is true. Going with one because of personal predispositions is very retarted.
And there is cotradictory evidence saying they are not. Anyone who insists on one, deliberate misspelling of a word he knows to be wrong is an idiot. Two, anyone anyone who reads into evidence, especially contradictory evidence, a thing which isn't there is a schmuck. The fact that Israelite stuff looks similar to Canaanite stuff is because they borrowed ideas from their neighbours even though they shouldn't have. God punished them harshly as a result. But tell me: who is the tard here? The one who who can't spell 'retarded' and takes uncertain "scholarship" for truth , or the one who actually uses his brain? I realise you haven't got one of those, but still... And I gave you evidence from as far back as 1950 that helped prove the Exodus case. So...
Yes, I read that myself. And it really depends on what you choose to believe. Either you can accept the VERY limited archaeological work that has been done, and which I believe will eventually be reversed with further work on the subject. There is almost NO evidence either way. The "modern day liberal biblical scholars" seem to think that that is the last word on the matter. Note that the text says the following: I shall quote the entire thing, and mark in bold the aspects to which I point.
"A century of research by archaeologists and Egyptologists has ARGUABLY found no evidence that can be DIRECTLY related to the Exodus narrative of an Egyptian captivity and the escape and travels through the wilderness, leading to the SUGGESTION that Iron Age Israel—the kingdoms of Judah and Israel—has its origins in Canaan, not Egypt:[6][7] The culture of the earliest Israelite settlements is Canaanite, their cult-objects are those of the Canaanite god El, the pottery remains in the local Canaanite tradition, and the alphabet used is early Canaanite. Almost the sole marker distinguishing the "Israelite" villages from Canaanite sites is an absence of pig bones, although whether this can be taken as an ethnic marker or is due to other factors remains a matter of dispute."
Such words as "arguably" and "directly" and "suggestion" in no way demonstrate that you have a strong argument for a point of view!
Do observe the following, quoted from the Pocket Bible Handbook by Henry H. Halley, 18th Edition, 1948, Second Printing, 1950, p. 117.
"Chapter 5. Moses' First Demand on Pharaoh. Pharaoh was insolent. He ordered the taskmasters to lay heavier burdens on the Israelites, requiring them to make the same number of bricks, and yet gather their own straw, 10-19. ARCHAEOLOGICAL NOTE: The Bricks of Pithom. Naville, 1883, and Kyle 1908, found and Pithom , the lower courses of brick filled with good chopped straw; the middle courses with less straw, which was stubble plucked up by the root; and that the upper courses were brick of pure clay having no straw whatever. What an amazing confirmation of the Exodus account!"
Although I find the author's Evangelicalism distasteful, and his emotionalism in the last sentence even moreso, he does have a valid point to make. So, it is quite clear that there are some things that don't add up in the overall archaeological record. We DON"T have all the information, and what we do have contradicts itself. So, until we have all that we need, I choose to accept the Torah account. I'll take Moses over incomplete, contradicting secular records any day.
Suggesting that unless I satisfy your morbid sense of curiosity that I must be barbaric is simply an ad hominem and makes you look the fool. Furthermore, even assuming I DO hold such a belief (and I am not saying I do or do not), the holding thereof does not make me or the belief barbaric. Nor does the not holding of it make me or the contrary belief enlightened.
As far as being Chosen, I DO believe that Jews are the Chosen People, but that does NOT translate into Life After Death, which is a whole different argument. We were Chosen by God to bring ethical monotheism to the world. Whether we live on in some way after we die is another matter altogether.
There is no doubt that death exists. I have never heard any Jew suggest otherwise. Even those who believe in Olam haBa (Life in the World to Come) admit that. There is a distinctive change.We go from point to point. The first stop would be Sheol, where we are neither happy or sad, and where we remain until Judgement Day when we are admitted to Paradise. That is what most Jews believe, but certainly not all. Some believe in Reincarnational ideas. Some reject Olam haBa all together. Some have even yet other ideas. Me? I choose to keep my beliefs personal. But, I do believe that when a man dies, there is a distinctive change between what we are here, and anything that might occur or not occur afterward.There is a qualitative difference.
Humans are a nasty, brutish little species. We do horrid things to each other, and we call ourselves good. Before we can even BEGIN to talk about Olam haBa for ANY of us, we have a world to repair (Tikkun Olam). I don't even like discussing what happens after we die. Such a discussion of necessity detracts from pressing responsibilities here. Until we can learn how to get along without doing vicious and mean things to our friends here, let alone our non-friends (ie, everybody else, those we don't know, along with those we don't like), we've got no business even discussing reward and punishment.
After all? Why do we seek to please God? Is it because God is God, and deserves our love, or is it because we selfishly think that we deserve something from him?
God created us, and the world, and the universe, and all that is therein because he WANTED to. He certainly had no reason to have to. He doesn't need us. God would be perfectly just to snuff us all out with a breath from his metaphorical nostrils. As far as Paradise goes, if such there is, it would be perfectly just to deny it to all of us, even Moses. NONE of us deserve it, no, not one.
So what does this mean? It means that since we are here by God's own good grace, we are supposed to extend that good grace to as many others as we are able. Instead of doing mean and horrible things to one another, we need to find a way to treat our friends with some level of kindness and respect. Maybe then we can start worrying about reward and punishment. As Gandhi said of fighting the British: "Do we fight to change things, or do we fight to punish? I've found we're all such sinners we should leave punishment to God."
Granted, Jews don't put even that much emphasis on punishment. In fact, we put far less on it. I put virtually none at all. But ultimately, any Jew will probably give you similar answers, no matter what his answers might be to what happens to him at death are. The only difference between me and him is that I choose NOT to answer that question, because I distrust your motives in asking it, as well as for the fact that I believe the question to be irrelevant and to pale in importance with what is truly important, namely, what I pointed out above.[/size]
You keep dancing around the matter. Do you receive a reward for following God's commandments? Is it possible for a nonbeliever to receive a a similar reward without following his commandment, whatever commandments nonJews are required to follow?
Also, it's been found that one of the leading archaeologists trying to prove Exodus faked his proof and no one else has really come up with much proof since. You can argue that absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, but a lot of things point to it never occurring.
Suggesting that unless I satisfy your morbid sense of curiosity that I must be barbaric is simply an ad hominem and makes you look the fool. Furthermore, even assuming I DO hold such a belief (and I am not saying I do or do not), the holding thereof does not make me or the belief barbaric. Nor does the not holding of it make me or the contrary belief enlightened.
It is barbaric, though. "If I follow these laws, I receive unimaginable rewards after I die" is something someone is either extremely selfish or brainwashed to believe. It's not the result of someone who values their current (and only) life.
You of course don't know its the only and current life, you simply assume that.As far as being Chosen, I DO believe that Jews are the Chosen People, but that does NOT translate into Life After Death, which is a whole different argument. We were Chosen by God to bring ethical monotheism to the world. Whether we live on in some way after we die is another matter altogether.
Narcissism.
In your uninformed, irrelevant opinion.There is no doubt that death exists. I have never heard any Jew suggest otherwise. Even those who believe in Olam haBa (Life in the World to Come) admit that. There is a distinctive change.We go from point to point. The first stop would be Sheol, where we are neither happy or sad, and where we remain until Judgement Day when we are admitted to Paradise. That is what most Jews believe, but certainly not all. Some believe in Reincarnational ideas. Some reject Olam haBa all together. Some have even yet other ideas. Me? I choose to keep my beliefs personal. But, I do believe that when a man dies, there is a distinctive change between what we are here, and anything that might occur or not occur afterward.There is a qualitative difference.
Except for those people, death is a temporary annoyance. They don't consider that they will truly be dead/nonexistent. They simply view death as "I get to be happy and not deal with crappy ol' earth anymore." It is a terribly pessimistic view of life.
Again, in your uninformed, irrelevant opinion.Humans are a nasty, brutish little species. We do horrid things to each other, and we call ourselves good. Before we can even BEGIN to talk about Olam haBa for ANY of us, we have a world to repair (Tikkun Olam). I don't even like discussing what happens after we die. Such a discussion of necessity detracts from pressing responsibilities here. Until we can learn how to get along without doing vicious and mean things to our friends here, let alone our non-friends (ie, everybody else, those we don't know, along with those we don't like), we've got no business even discussing reward and punishment.
This is also a very pessimistic view of life. There are very few truly awful people in the world. They probably think they're chosen people, too.
Lets be blunt. There may not be too many truly awful, Hitler-like persons in the world. That means life kind of sucks, since not-too-awful persons can do some truly awful shit to people.After all? Why do we seek to please God? Is it because God is God, and deserves our love, or is it because we selfishly think that we deserve something from him?
God created us, and the world, and the universe, and all that is therein because he WANTED to. He certainly had no reason to have to. He doesn't need us. God would be perfectly just to snuff us all out with a breath from his metaphorical nostrils. As far as Paradise goes, if such there is, it would be perfectly just to deny it to all of us, even Moses. NONE of us deserve it, no, not one.
This is double plus Stockholm syndrome. If I kidnapped you and your family, you would be entirely dependent on my gifts to you. Food, water, clothing, etc. I bequeath anything you have to you. Imagine you turning around and saying I deserve your love but you deserve nothing from me. Sounds sort of psychotic, doesn't it?
The comparison is illogical in the extreme. Comparing a kidnapper with the Creator makes no sense. A child looks to his parent for love. This is a far cry from what a kidnapper demands from the kidnappee (to coin a word).So what does this mean? It means that since we are here by God's own good grace, we are supposed to extend that good grace to as many others as we are able. Instead of doing mean and horrible things to one another, we need to find a way to treat our friends with some level of kindness and respect. Maybe then we can start worrying about reward and punishment. As Gandhi said of fighting the British: "Do we fight to change things, or do we fight to punish? I've found we're all such sinners we should leave punishment to God."
You are so far away from Gandhi I'm surprised you can even read any of his statements without your brain having an aneurism.
That is just a stupid response. Especially since Gandhi, however admirable, was hardly a saint. He was on record as having a racist attitude toward Black Africans, and actually took non-violence so far as to recommend that Jews in the camps commit collective suicide.Granted, Jews don't put even that much emphasis on punishment. In fact, we put far less on it. I put virtually none at all. But ultimately, any Jew will probably give you similar answers, no matter what his answers might be to what happens to him at death are. The only difference between me and him is that I choose NOT to answer that question, because I distrust your motives in asking it, as well as for the fact that I believe the question to be irrelevant and to pale in importance with what is truly important, namely, what I pointed out above.[/size]
The lack of a reward can be considered a punishment. If I have three kids and only give one a gift, then I'm playing favorites, and by extent I am punishing two of them with a lack of gifts.
We saw God on Mt. Sinai. Its not that Moses claimed to be inspired. Its that we know that 2 million people, our ancestors, saw God, and heard him speak. And no, I am not about to get into that argument with you about that so don't even go there. It is in both our written and oral history, so there you are.
So what does this mean? It means that since we are here by God's own good grace, we are supposed to extend that good grace to as many others as we are able. Instead of doing mean and horrible things to one another, we need to find a way to treat our friends with some level of kindness and respect. Maybe then we can start worrying about reward and punishment. As Gandhi said of fighting the British: "Do we fight to change things, or do we fight to punish? I've found we're all such sinners we should leave punishment to God."
We saw God on Mt. Sinai. Its not that Moses claimed to be inspired. Its that we know that 2 million people, our ancestors, saw God, and heard him speak. And no, I am not about to get into that argument with you about that so don't even go there. It is in both our written and oral history, so there you are.
To be fair, "we" didn't see anything. You're not a member of the group of people who claimed to have seen God. Those people have been dead for some time now.
You say that you know that your ancestors saw God and heard him speak. How? Because the Torah says so? You seem to be taking for granted that because it is in your oral and written history that it must be true. I don't dispute that it's in your written and oral history. I dispute that you have any way at all to verify the truth of the claim of the author of the text.
Perhaps you are willing to gainsay the word of 2 million persons, but I am not.So what does this mean? It means that since we are here by God's own good grace, we are supposed to extend that good grace to as many others as we are able. Instead of doing mean and horrible things to one another, we need to find a way to treat our friends with some level of kindness and respect. Maybe then we can start worrying about reward and punishment. As Gandhi said of fighting the British: "Do we fight to change things, or do we fight to punish? I've found we're all such sinners we should leave punishment to God."
This is an odd thing to say for someone who routinely advocates the use of violence and force against a group of people he labels as subhumans. I guess you don't think Arabs are worthy of God's grace, love, kindness, or respect. How Godly of you.
I would be more than happy to extend them the hand of grace, love, kindness and respect if I didn't know that they would rip my hand off and eat it while I watched. But so far, that is what Arabs, particularly "Palestinians" have done EVERY time the State of Israel in particular, and Jews in general, have tried. Doing something the same way every time and expecting different results IS the definition of stupid. Jews are many things good and bad alike, but we are not stupid. I happen to like both of my hands, thank you.
We are Jews. We saw God on Mt. Sinai. Its not that Moses claimed to be inspired. Its that we know that 2 million people, our ancestors, saw God, and heard him speak.
20:16 And they said unto Moses: 'Speak thou with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak with us, lest we die.'How does 2 million people hear God yet also claim that if they hear God, they'll die?
I'm getting a pretty strong sense that you believe you'll be rewarded with an afterlife for doing menial things such as declining to eat bacon.
We are Jews. We saw God on Mt. Sinai. Its not that Moses claimed to be inspired. Its that we know that 2 million people, our ancestors, saw God, and heard him speak.Quote20:16 And they said unto Moses: 'Speak thou with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak with us, lest we die.'How does 2 million people hear God yet also claim that if they hear God, they'll die?
1. If you don't die from the first thing God says, why would you be afraid of hearing more? What, does God's voice do only kill you if you listen to it too long?
I am not so sure they would ACTUALLY die, but only that they THOUGHT they would.
2. Please highlight where God spoke to everyone. I see where God replied to Moses, but no mention that everyone heard it. God CAN speak to one person in a crowd and not have anyone else hear it you know.
"19:8 And all the people answered together, and said: 'All that the Lord hath spoken we will do.' And Moses reported the words of the people unto the Lord. 9 And the Lord said unto Moses: 'Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and may also believe thee for ever.' And Moses told the words of the people unto the Lord... 19:19 And when the voice of the horn waxed louder and louder, Moses spoke, and God answered him by a voice."
I think it is understood by both Jewish and Christian authorities that God first said that the people would hear him speak to Moses, and then he spoke to Moses, and the people heard him.
3. 19:20 And the Lord came down upon mount Sinai, to the top of the mount; and the Lord called Moses to the top of the mount; and Moses went up.
What, no mention of what God said when he spoke to Moses?
I'm not so sure that that was the relevant part. I think it was more relevant that he did speak. I mean, the Torah is FULL of what God said to Moses. Does it really matter what he said that particular instant?
Does it matter what the first words the Jews heard God speak is? Umm.... yeah. Kinda a lot actually.1. If you don't die from the first thing God says, why would you be afraid of hearing more? What, does God's voice do only kill you if you listen to it too long?I am not so sure they would ACTUALLY die, but only that they THOUGHT they would.
2. Please highlight where God spoke to everyone. I see where God replied to Moses, but no mention that everyone heard it. God CAN speak to one person in a crowd and not have anyone else hear it you know.Quote"19:8 And all the people answered together, and said: 'All that the Lord hath spoken we will do.' And Moses reported the words of the people unto the Lord. 9 And the Lord said unto Moses: 'Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and may also believe thee for ever.' And Moses told the words of the people unto the Lord... 19:19 And when the voice of the horn waxed louder and louder, Moses spoke, and God answered him by a voice."Saying what he will do then not having even a reaction to the words God said to the 2 million people (they didn't want to hear him speak) is rather odd.
I think it is understood by both Jewish and Christian authorities that God first said that the people would hear him speak to Moses, and then he spoke to Moses, and the people heard him.Quote3. 19:20 And the Lord came down upon mount Sinai, to the top of the mount; and the Lord called Moses to the top of the mount; and Moses went up.I'm not so sure that that was the relevant part. I think it was more relevant that he did speak. I mean, the Torah is FULL of what God said to Moses. Does it really matter what he said that particular instant?
What, no mention of what God said when he spoke to Moses?
The name is Ron Wyatt, I couldn't remember his name because it's useless information which can be looked up in 5 minutes.You keep dancing around the matter. Do you receive a reward for following God's commandments? Is it possible for a nonbeliever to receive a a similar reward without following his commandment, whatever commandments nonJews are required to follow?
Also, it's been found that one of the leading archaeologists trying to prove Exodus faked his proof and no one else has really come up with much proof since. You can argue that absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, but a lot of things point to it never occurring.
I've already indicated what Laws non-Jews are expected to follow, and that obedience to such renders them to be as righteous as any Jew. Of course, you don't know the name of the scientist.
Because he's a mindless drone to God. As he said: Because God said so.The name is Ron Wyatt, I couldn't remember his name because it's useless information which can be looked up in 5 minutes.You keep dancing around the matter. Do you receive a reward for following God's commandments? Is it possible for a nonbeliever to receive a a similar reward without following his commandment, whatever commandments nonJews are required to follow?
Also, it's been found that one of the leading archaeologists trying to prove Exodus faked his proof and no one else has really come up with much proof since. You can argue that absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, but a lot of things point to it never occurring.
I've already indicated what Laws non-Jews are expected to follow, and that obedience to such renders them to be as righteous as any Jew. Of course, you don't know the name of the scientist.
You mentioned that eating bacon won't determine someone's access to Paradise, then why follow that commandment if it's pointless?
Does it matter what the first words the Jews heard God speak is? Umm.... yeah. Kinda a lot actually.1. If you don't die from the first thing God says, why would you be afraid of hearing more? What, does God's voice do only kill you if you listen to it too long?I am not so sure they would ACTUALLY die, but only that they THOUGHT they would.
2. Please highlight where God spoke to everyone. I see where God replied to Moses, but no mention that everyone heard it. God CAN speak to one person in a crowd and not have anyone else hear it you know.Quote"19:8 And all the people answered together, and said: 'All that the Lord hath spoken we will do.' And Moses reported the words of the people unto the Lord. 9 And the Lord said unto Moses: 'Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and may also believe thee for ever.' And Moses told the words of the people unto the Lord... 19:19 And when the voice of the horn waxed louder and louder, Moses spoke, and God answered him by a voice."Saying what he will do then not having even a reaction to the words God said to the 2 million people (they didn't want to hear him speak) is rather odd.
I think it is understood by both Jewish and Christian authorities that God first said that the people would hear him speak to Moses, and then he spoke to Moses, and the people heard him.
Remember. God spoke TO Moses. The others heard the voice. But he SPOKE to Moses. They may not have heard what he actually said.Quote3. 19:20 And the Lord came down upon mount Sinai, to the top of the mount; and the Lord called Moses to the top of the mount; and Moses went up.I'm not so sure that that was the relevant part. I think it was more relevant that he did speak. I mean, the Torah is FULL of what God said to Moses. Does it really matter what he said that particular instant?
What, no mention of what God said when he spoke to Moses?
See above.
The name is Ron Wyatt, I couldn't remember his name because it's useless information which can be looked up in 5 minutes.You keep dancing around the matter. Do you receive a reward for following God's commandments? Is it possible for a nonbeliever to receive a a similar reward without following his commandment, whatever commandments nonJews are required to follow?
Also, it's been found that one of the leading archaeologists trying to prove Exodus faked his proof and no one else has really come up with much proof since. You can argue that absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, but a lot of things point to it never occurring.
I've already indicated what Laws non-Jews are expected to follow, and that obedience to such renders them to be as righteous as any Jew. Of course, you don't know the name of the scientist.
Well, the names of the men I quoted were not that, so, carry on.
You mentioned that eating bacon won't determine someone's access to Paradise, then why follow that commandment if it's pointless?
I never said it was pointless. I merely said that in and of itself, it is not enough to make or break one's eternal existence, if such there be.
An interesting article on the state of modern Expdus scholarship. Particularly Yaakov, pay attention to the orthodox scholar who says you would have to be crazy to accept the 2,000,000 Exodites number.
http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/doubtingexodus.htm
I have certainly heard the dispute over the number of people who left Egypt. I personally am uncertain what to think of the number. At present I use the figure "2 million" rather loosely, for any number up to 2 million, but I have resources on my computer that question the number as well. I am prepared to accept the number provisionally, until convinced otherwise.
An interesting article on the state of modern Expdus scholarship. Particularly Yaakov, pay attention to the orthodox scholar who says you would have to be crazy to accept the 2,000,000 Exodites number.
http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/doubtingexodus.htm
Aside from the basic question of the number of people, the rest of the article was bilge, the result of "modern day liberal biblical scholarship". Like most of that sort of thing, it has no validity whatsoever. Even the question of the number needs to be asked very cautiously. That is why I am still prepared to accept the 2 million number, unless convinced otherwise.
An interesting article on the state of modern Expdus scholarship. Particularly Yaakov, pay attention to the orthodox scholar who says you would have to be crazy to accept the 2,000,000 Exodites number.
http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/doubtingexodus.htm
Aside from the basic question of the number of people, the rest of the article was bilge, the result of "modern day liberal biblical scholarship". Like most of that sort of thing, it has no validity whatsoever. Even the question of the number needs to be asked very cautiously. That is why I am still prepared to accept the 2 million number, unless convinced otherwise.
An interesting article on the state of modern Expdus scholarship. Particularly Yaakov, pay attention to the orthodox scholar who says you would have to be crazy to accept the 2,000,000 Exodites number.
http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/doubtingexodus.htm
Aside from the basic question of the number of people, the rest of the article was bilge, the result of "modern day liberal biblical scholarship". Like most of that sort of thing, it has no validity whatsoever. Even the question of the number needs to be asked very cautiously. That is why I am still prepared to accept the 2 million number, unless convinced otherwise.
Care to elaborate? Also, learn to quote properly.
Remember. God spoke TO Moses. The others heard the voice. But he SPOKE to Moses. They may not have heard what he actually said.
However, you couldn't imitate the voice of God such that 2 million people could all hear it. That would be hard to do even today, let alone then.
Remember. God spoke TO Moses. The others heard the voice. But he SPOKE to Moses. They may not have heard what he actually said.
Hold on a sec... You said:However, you couldn't imitate the voice of God such that 2 million people could all hear it. That would be hard to do even today, let alone then.
So let me get this straight:
God spoke from a mountain and everyone heard him speak but only Moses could hear what he said?
You do know that God would have to speak more than just a whisper right? Or was Moses so far away from everyone that the loud, echoing thunder of God's Voice was unintelligable as words?
An interesting article on the state of modern Expdus scholarship. Particularly Yaakov, pay attention to the orthodox scholar who says you would have to be crazy to accept the 2,000,000 Exodites number.
http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/doubtingexodus.htm
Aside from the basic question of the number of people, the rest of the article was bilge, the result of "modern day liberal biblical scholarship". Like most of that sort of thing, it has no validity whatsoever. Even the question of the number needs to be asked very cautiously. That is why I am still prepared to accept the 2 million number, unless convinced otherwise.
Care to elaborate? Also, learn to quote properly.
How many times does one HAVE to elaborate? in 56 pages, I think I've elaborated enough. Modern day liberal so-called "biblical scholarship" attempts to treat the Bible as an ordinary book. It can't be done. The book itself makes certain truth claims about itself. Either those claims are true or they are false. It is that simple. If they are true, then Judaism is a religion that is inspired of God, divinely approved of, and guided rightly. If the truth claims are false, then why are we doing this? We happen to belong to one of the most hated groups on Earth. If the Bible is NOT true, then why are we risking our necks?
If the Bible is true, then the whole world should be Jewish and Noahide. For example, either Jesus is or is NOT the messiah. He can't be both. Either Mohammed is or is not a Prophet. He can't be both. I actually respect other religions that make claims to universalism. I don't agree with them, but at least they are honest.
Just because I think Jesus is NOT the messiah doesn't mean I have to be nasty to a Christian. I don't mind Christians. I am married to one. We don't often talk about religion, and we choose to respect each other's choice. We are not having children, so there are no worries about how to raise them.
But ultimately, it comes back to the Jewish Bible. Either the book's truth claims are right or they are wrong. They can't be analysed from a human perspective, because the book makes divine claims for itself. It is that simple. To compare, it would be like me, an historian, trying to evaluate the work of a mathematics professor. I am not equipped for the task, nor could I ever be. Its out of my paygrade. So there you are.
Remember. God spoke TO Moses. The others heard the voice. But he SPOKE to Moses. They may not have heard what he actually said.
Hold on a sec... You said:However, you couldn't imitate the voice of God such that 2 million people could all hear it. That would be hard to do even today, let alone then.
So let me get this straight:
God spoke from a mountain and everyone heard him speak but only Moses could hear what he said?
You do know that God would have to speak more than just a whisper right? Or was Moses so far away from everyone that the loud, echoing thunder of God's Voice was unintelligable as words?
I don't know. I am only able to know what the Torah tells me, since I was not personally in attendance on that day. Would that I could have been, but, oh well. Shit happens. Essentially, all we need to know is that God spoke to Moses, and the people heard his voice. What he said or why he said it is irrelevant to me, and should be to any rational person.
No, a rational person would start to question the validity of the book they're reading. This is a plot hole man and if it's factual, it shouldn't HAVE plot holes.Remember. God spoke TO Moses. The others heard the voice. But he SPOKE to Moses. They may not have heard what he actually said.
Hold on a sec... You said:However, you couldn't imitate the voice of God such that 2 million people could all hear it. That would be hard to do even today, let alone then.
So let me get this straight:
God spoke from a mountain and everyone heard him speak but only Moses could hear what he said?
You do know that God would have to speak more than just a whisper right? Or was Moses so far away from everyone that the loud, echoing thunder of God's Voice was unintelligable as words?
I don't know. I am only able to know what the Torah tells me, since I was not personally in attendance on that day. Would that I could have been, but, oh well. Shit happens. Essentially, all we need to know is that God spoke to Moses, and the people heard his voice. What he said or why he said it is irrelevant to me, and should be to any rational person.
To say it is beyond your pay grade is to have your conclusion as a premise.
1. The bible is either divinely inspired or it is not.
2. Because the book claims to be divinely inspired I do not have the expertise to tell otherwise.
C. The bible is divinely inspired.
This is basically what you are saying and it is utterly flawed. I can most definitely make some assessments about the divinity of the bible. Something supernatural should be obvious merely by its complete disconnection from the natural.
Something supernatural might not be obvious. For example, if one is a Christian (I am not), Jesus was supernatural, but he certainly did not appear to be for some 30 years of his life.Remember. God spoke TO Moses. The others heard the voice. But he SPOKE to Moses. They may not have heard what he actually said.
Hold on a sec... You said:However, you couldn't imitate the voice of God such that 2 million people could all hear it. That would be hard to do even today, let alone then.
So let me get this straight:
God spoke from a mountain and everyone heard him speak but only Moses could hear what he said?
You do know that God would have to speak more than just a whisper right? Or was Moses so far away from everyone that the loud, echoing thunder of God's Voice was unintelligable as words?
I don't know. I am only able to know what the Torah tells me, since I was not personally in attendance on that day. Would that I could have been, but, oh well. Shit happens. Essentially, all we need to know is that God spoke to Moses, and the people heard his voice. What he said or why he said it is irrelevant to me, and should be to any rational person.
So if God said: go forth and rape all the babies with razor blades, your position is that that would be irrelevant?
One with a brain realises that the creator does not recommend raping babies with razor blades, even though I'll admit the Bronze Age could be brutal, but still not that brutal.No, a rational person would start to question the validity of the book they're reading. This is a plot hole man and if it's factual, it shouldn't HAVE plot holes.Remember. God spoke TO Moses. The others heard the voice. But he SPOKE to Moses. They may not have heard what he actually said.
Hold on a sec... You said:However, you couldn't imitate the voice of God such that 2 million people could all hear it. That would be hard to do even today, let alone then.
So let me get this straight:
God spoke from a mountain and everyone heard him speak but only Moses could hear what he said?
You do know that God would have to speak more than just a whisper right? Or was Moses so far away from everyone that the loud, echoing thunder of God's Voice was unintelligable as words?
I don't know. I am only able to know what the Torah tells me, since I was not personally in attendance on that day. Would that I could have been, but, oh well. Shit happens. Essentially, all we need to know is that God spoke to Moses, and the people heard his voice. What he said or why he said it is irrelevant to me, and should be to any rational person.
That simply makes no sense. If God was speaking to Moses, there would be no reason for the 2 million people to hear what he said. Since the message was not intended for them all to hear, why would you assume they would all hear it. You and I are having a discussion in this thread. Do you therefore assume that EVERY SINGLE PERSON in this website is going to be privy to what we are saying to each other?
Jesus Christ you need to learn how to quote. Enter your response below thetag.
If they didn't hear what God said, how did they hear God speak?No, a rational person would start to question the validity of the book they're reading. This is a plot hole man and if it's factual, it shouldn't HAVE plot holes.
That simply makes no sense. If God was speaking to Moses, there would be no reason for the 2 million people to hear what he said. Since the message was not intended for them all to hear, why would you assume they would all hear it. You and I are having a discussion in this thread. Do you therefore assume that EVERY SINGLE PERSON in this website is going to be privy to what we are saying to each other?
Vindictus, lrn2nobbcJesus Christ you need to learn how to quote. Enter your response below the [/quote] tag.
Yes, that did get a little complicated. My apologies.
Jesus had an angel announce his birth from a virgin. Three magi followed a star on God's command to witness it. What about that could be mistaken for natural?
If they didn't hear what God said, how did they hear God speak?No, a rational person would start to question the validity of the book they're reading. This is a plot hole man and if it's factual, it shouldn't HAVE plot holes.
That simply makes no sense. If God was speaking to Moses, there would be no reason for the 2 million people to hear what he said. Since the message was not intended for them all to hear, why would you assume they would all hear it. You and I are having a discussion in this thread. Do you therefore assume that EVERY SINGLE PERSON in this website is going to be privy to what we are saying to each other?
Also:
Your analogy sucks. All 2 million people WERE THERE TO HEAR GOD! Not everyone on this website wants to hear what we have to say but guess what: they could. Every single one of them could visit this thread and see what we say.
You are literally proving that God did NOT speak to all 2 million Jews. You realize that right?
The Creator turned a city to salt along with its inhabitants and called for the genocide of all current and future Amalekites, babies included. He also, just to prove a point watched with interest as Abraham almost murdered his son then at the last minute, after Abe had all but done the deed, and no doubt felt the cruel irony of the act, says "kidding!"
I am not sure why you think him above terrible, reprehensible commandments, for I cannot see it myself.
Why is the voice of a deity limited to petty scientific laws of sound propagation?
Assuming Moses speaks to God, and God answers Moses, the answer is presumably intended for Moses, and not others. Ergo, while others may be intended to hear the voice, they may not be intended to hear what is said. And you appear to have ignored the rest of my post regarding the question of who spoke what language to whom.
Jesus had an angel announce his birth from a virgin. Three magi followed a star on God's command to witness it. What about that could be mistaken for natural?
Yes, but from the age of 12-30, he was a carpenter in his father's shop and lived such an uneventful life that no one even bothered to record it. The same appears to have been true of his life from age 8 days to 12 years.
The Creator turned a city to salt along with its inhabitants and called for the genocide of all current and future Amalekites, babies included. He also, just to prove a point watched with interest as Abraham almost murdered his son then at the last minute, after Abe had all but done the deed, and no doubt felt the cruel irony of the act, says "kidding!"
I am not sure why you think him above terrible, reprehensible commandments, for I cannot see it myself.
I don't see that turning Sodom and Gomorrah into salt were a bad idea myself.
They were guilty of the most wicked and vile behaviours known to man, then and now.Like genocide? Oh wait...
The commandment regarding the Amalekites cannot be performed today, as there are none, so that is irrelevant. The closest thing to them that we have are the "Palestinians" who are in part descended from them, but also have other Canaanite heritage (as they themselves proudly acknowledge), so they don't fall under the ban.
Regarding the issue of Abraham and Isaac, scholars and Rabbis much smarter than either of us have wrestled with that one for centuries. The best explanation that I have yet heard is that it was a test of Abraham's faith, and possibly even Isaac's. In fact, the end result of it was that human sacrifice was forbidden in Judaism completely, although there was one incidence where it did occur, namely, during the judgeship of Jephtha (sp?). But this was directly contrary to the will of God.
I hear people speak every day without hearing exactly what they say. In a crowd of 2 million people? Think about it! If I am on a busy street corner in any American Midwestern city of your choice (I'll pick Omaha, just because I don't live there, but I have been there), and I just stand there, and watch and listen to people, I will hear plenty of people speak. But in many, perhaps even most, cases, I won't hear exactly what they say to each other, or anything of what they say, for that matter.Hundreds of people talking at once is equivalent to God now?
Now, assuming the crowd of 2 million was dead fucking silent, and it probably was, that still doesn't imply that everybody heard what the Lord said. Some of them might have, and most probably would not have.Well no one wrote it down or spoke up about it.
However, you couldn't imitate the voice of God such that 2 million people could all hear it. That would be hard to do even today, let alone then.You have admitted that 2 million people heard him speak yet now you're backtracking and say they really didn't hear him speak, just some noise and that they COULDN'T hear him. You're moving your own goalpost and basically throwing my own argument at me. Which is hilarious.
And remember, MOSES was writing this shit down.1. No he wasn't.
No one else was. These were former slaves. I expect they didn't know how to read or write any language. In fact, one wonders what language they even spoke? Hebrew? Egyptian? A bastardised version of both? And what did God speak to Moses? Hebrew? Egyptian? I expect Hebrew. Could the people even UNDERSTAND what God said to Moses? Moses was a learned man, having been raised as a Prince of Egypt. The others? Not so much. The Levites probably had more knowledge than the others, but how much, as slaves?So they wouldn't know the voice of God from say... a bunch of loud noises. Got it.
So there are so many variables involved in this subject that you can hardly come up with a straightforward answer. And anyone who tries to just proves themselves to be a schmuck. And I say that knowing that it applies to either side of the argument.At least you're finally admitting you're a schmuck.
Assuming Moses speaks to God, and God answers Moses, the answer is presumably intended for Moses, and not others. Ergo, while others may be intended to hear the voice, they may not be intended to hear what is said. And you appear to have ignored the rest of my post regarding the question of who spoke what language to whom.
Okay, so, the evidence that god exists is that 2 million people presumably heard loud booming noises and one guy heard exactly what he needed to hear. Now, here we are today, with exactly zero people that have heard any such voice of god. Does it say anywhere that literally all of their descendents are chosen people? Because it sounds like those people were a lot more chosen than anyone today. No one alive today is even good enough to hear a loud booming noise.
This is not true. There are a number of gnostic and/or heretical gospels that tell of the early life of Jesus.Jesus had an angel announce his birth from a virgin. Three magi followed a star on God's command to witness it. What about that could be mistaken for natural?
Yes, but from the age of 12-30, he was a carpenter in his father's shop and lived such an uneventful life that no one even bothered to record it. The same appears to have been true of his life from age 8 days to 12 years.
Jesus had an angel announce his birth from a virgin. Three magi followed a star on God's command to witness it. What about that could be mistaken for natural?
Yes, but from the age of 12-30, he was a carpenter in his father's shop and lived such an uneventful life that no one even bothered to record it. The same appears to have been true of his life from age 8 days to 12 years.
Sure. But the point is that once he revealed his supernatural nature, there was no denying it.
To whom did he reveal this supernatural nature as a baby? He was in Bethlehem, and then went to Nazareth. No one there knew anything about who he was. Please note there WAS NO quote sign to follow with this portion of my post. My apologies for this.QuoteThe Creator turned a city to salt along with its inhabitants and called for the genocide of all current and future Amalekites, babies included. He also, just to prove a point watched with interest as Abraham almost murdered his son then at the last minute, after Abe had all but done the deed, and no doubt felt the cruel irony of the act, says "kidding!"
I am not sure why you think him above terrible, reprehensible commandments, for I cannot see it myself.
I don't see that turning Sodom and Gomorrah into salt were a bad idea myself.
Why am I not surprised.QuoteThey were guilty of the most wicked and vile behaviours known to man, then and now.Like genocide? Oh wait...Quote
Being ordered to divinely punish is not genocide.
The commandment regarding the Amalekites cannot be performed today, as there are none, so that is irrelevant. The closest thing to them that we have are the "Palestinians" who are in part descended from them, but also have other Canaanite heritage (as they themselves proudly acknowledge), so they don't fall under the ban.
That does not change the fact that on your view, God not only sentenced babies to death, who no doubt had not done a thing wrong, but asked his proxies to carry it out instead of doing it quickly and painlessly himself. What a terrible thing to do. This is your God.
IT WAS THE BRONZE AGE! What do you expect? That they sit around and smoke it up like hippies?QuoteRegarding the issue of Abraham and Isaac, scholars and Rabbis much smarter than either of us have wrestled with that one for centuries. The best explanation that I have yet heard is that it was a test of Abraham's faith, and possibly even Isaac's. In fact, the end result of it was that human sacrifice was forbidden in Judaism completely, although there was one incidence where it did occur, namely, during the judgeship of Jephtha (sp?). But this was directly contrary to the will of God.
If that is how God tested his subjects faith, then he is a psychopath. The Rabbi's obviously were not smart enough to come to the conclusion that Yahweh was beneath contempt morally. Instead, as irushwithscvs aptly pointed out, they are prisoners of the most perverse case of Stockholm syndrome ever. For further evidence of unspeakable horrors that God visited upon people who were guilty of nothing but loving him, see the Book of Job.
P.S. Thanks for cleaning up the quoting.
I hear people speak every day without hearing exactly what they say. In a crowd of 2 million people? Think about it! If I am on a busy street corner in any American Midwestern city of your choice (I'll pick Omaha, just because I don't live there, but I have been there), and I just stand there, and watch and listen to people, I will hear plenty of people speak. But in many, perhaps even most, cases, I won't hear exactly what they say to each other, or anything of what they say, for that matter.Hundreds of people talking at once is equivalent to God now?QuoteNow, assuming the crowd of 2 million was dead fucking silent, and it probably was, that still doesn't imply that everybody heard what the Lord said. Some of them might have, and most probably would not have.Well no one wrote it down or spoke up about it.
Also:QuoteHowever, you couldn't imitate the voice of God such that 2 million people could all hear it. That would be hard to do even today, let alone then.You have admitted that 2 million people heard him speak yet now you're backtracking and say they really didn't hear him speak, just some noise and that they COULDN'T hear him. You're moving your own goalpost and basically throwing my own argument at me. Which is hilarious.Quote1. No he wasn't.
Actually, that is not what I said at all. What I said is that they all heard him speak. They did NOT necessarily understand what they heard. Again, your failure to comprehend the English language is your problem, not mine. I recommend basic literacy courses.
And remember, MOSES was writing this shit down.
2. He wrote it down AFTER it happened.
3. He didn't write down the first words God spoke to his people? Do you not see a problem with that?QuoteSo they wouldn't know the voice of God from say... a bunch of loud noises. Got it.
MOSES SPOKE TO GOD. GOD THEN SPOKE TO MOSES. "19:19 And when the voice of the horn waxed louder and louder, Moses spoke, and God answered him by a voice." The words may not have been intended for anyone other than Moses himself. It may have been that the Hebrews were intended to hear the voice, but not what it said.
No one else was. These were former slaves. I expect they didn't know how to read or write any language. In fact, one wonders what language they even spoke? Hebrew? Egyptian? A bastardised version of both? And what did God speak to Moses? Hebrew? Egyptian? I expect Hebrew. Could the people even UNDERSTAND what God said to Moses? Moses was a learned man, having been raised as a Prince of Egypt. The others? Not so much. The Levites probably had more knowledge than the others, but how much, as slaves?QuoteAt least you're finally admitting you're a schmuck.
That is not what I said. One can recognise a voice but not know what it says. If I speak a bastardised French Creole and hear crisp Parisian French, I WILL hear a voice. But I may not understand what I am hearing. Do you not comprehend basic English when it is written? Perhaps your literacy needs to be re-evaluated?
So there are so many variables involved in this subject that you can hardly come up with a straightforward answer. And anyone who tries to just proves themselves to be a schmuck. And I say that knowing that it applies to either side of the argument.
This is not true. There are a number of gnostic and/or heretical gospels that tell of the early life of Jesus.Jesus had an angel announce his birth from a virgin. Three magi followed a star on God's command to witness it. What about that could be mistaken for natural?
Yes, but from the age of 12-30, he was a carpenter in his father's shop and lived such an uneventful life that no one even bothered to record it. The same appears to have been true of his life from age 8 days to 12 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Infancy_Gospels
I expect the creator of the universe and the originator of morality to not do heinous evil things. Don't you? If anyone has a choice, it is Yahweh.
I expect the creator of the universe and the originator of morality to not do heinous evil things. Don't you? If anyone has a choice, it is Yahweh.
In the Bronze Age, the Creator of the universe does what he needs to do to keep his Chosen People alive to reach this day. Given the savagery of the people whom they faced off with in battle, he allowed and even commanded them to do what was necessary to win. But there were still codes of honour that had to be maintained. You can read about them in the Jewish Bible. The Hebrews were always a step above other nations in that respect.
I have to go. I'll chat with you all tomorrow.
They can't be analysed from a human perspective, because the book makes divine claims for itself. It is that simple. To compare, it would be like me, an historian, trying to evaluate the work of a mathematics professor. I am not equipped for the task, nor could I ever be. Its out of my paygrade. So there you are.
In the Bronze Age, the Creator of the universe does what he needs to do to keep his Chosen People alive to reach this day.
I expect the creator of the universe and the originator of morality to not do heinous evil things. Don't you? If anyone has a choice, it is Yahweh.
In the Bronze Age, the Creator of the universe does what he needs to do to keep his Chosen People alive to reach this day. Given the savagery of the people whom they faced off with in battle, he allowed and even commanded them to do what was necessary to win. But there were still codes of honour that had to be maintained. You can read about them in the Jewish Bible. The Hebrews were always a step above other nations in that respect.
I have to go. I'll chat with you all tomorrow.
Well that is an awfully big assumption. Didn't you say:Quote from: Yonah ben Amittai link=topic=1183.msg47686#msg47686 date=1414108565They can't be analysed from a human perspective, because the book makes divine claims for itself. It is that simple. To compare, it would be like me, an historian, trying to evaluate the work of a mathematics professor. I am not equipped for the task, nor could I ever be. Its out of my paygrade. So there you are.
How could you possibly try and understand his actions? Fortunately I do not feel the same way, so I will. All I know is that a being who has ultimate power over life and death make the deliberate choice to lead his chosen people in to committing genocide rather than the million other ways that an omnipotent being could have solved it in which no one has to die. This sounds like a perverse extreme of how African warlords indoctrinate their child soldiers. Sounds like he is evil.
Again, given the choice, your God chose genocide over some peaceful supernatural solution.
The fact that Amalekites attacked Israel without cause or justification made them awful. But they were also just like their Canaanite brethren in terms of their practices. I was using the Aztecs as a comparison, not as an argument. If you don't know the difference, that sounds like a failure in your education.
You know, its like saying "The Islamic State is as bad as Hitler". One is not saying that ISIS has anything to do with the Nazis. That would be stupid. It is only to compare their mentality.
Waah fuckin' waah.
The fact that Amalekites attacked Israel without cause or justification made them awful. But they were also just like their Canaanite brethren in terms of their practices. I was using the Aztecs as a comparison, not as an argument. If you don't know the difference, that sounds like a failure in your education.
You know, its like saying "The Islamic State is as bad as Hitler". One is not saying that ISIS has anything to do with the Nazis. That would be stupid. It is only to compare their mentality.
Waah fuckin' waah.
Godwin's Law, you lose, as you like to say.
Anyway, can you cite a source other than the Torah to corroborate your claims?
The fact that Amalekites attacked Israel without cause or justification made them awful. But they were also just like their Canaanite brethren in terms of their practices. I was using the Aztecs as a comparison, not as an argument. If you don't know the difference, that sounds like a failure in your education.
You know, its like saying "The Islamic State is as bad as Hitler". One is not saying that ISIS has anything to do with the Nazis. That would be stupid. It is only to compare their mentality.
Waah fuckin' waah.
Godwin's Law, you lose, as you like to say.
Anyway, can you cite a source other than the Torah to corroborate your claims?
Actually, no, Godwin's Law doesn't apply. I could just have easily have said the following: "You know, its like saying "The Islamic State is as bad as the Mongols". One is not saying that ISIS has anything to do with the Mongols. That would be stupid. It is only to compare their mentality. Waah fuckin' waah."
Misusing Godwin's Law won't get you very far.
Godwin's law (or Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"[2][3]— that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism.
The fact that Amalekites attacked Israel without cause or justification made them awful. But they were also just like their Canaanite brethren in terms of their practices. I was using the Aztecs as a comparison, not as an argument. If you don't know the difference, that sounds like a failure in your education.
You know, its like saying "The Islamic State is as bad as Hitler". One is not saying that ISIS has anything to do with the Nazis. That would be stupid. It is only to compare their mentality.
Waah fuckin' waah.
Godwin's Law, you lose, as you like to say.
Anyway, can you cite a source other than the Torah to corroborate your claims?
Actually, no, Godwin's Law doesn't apply. I could just have easily have said the following: "You know, its like saying "The Islamic State is as bad as the Mongols". One is not saying that ISIS has anything to do with the Mongols. That would be stupid. It is only to compare their mentality. Waah fuckin' waah."
Misusing Godwin's Law won't get you very far.
I did not misuse it. Your comment was textbook Godwin's law:Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_lawGodwin's law (or Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"[2][3]— that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism.
You could have made another comparison, but you did not did you? You lose.
QUOTE: "Canaanite culture and religion
Edited by Robert A. Guisepi
The Israelite tribes during the period of the guidance and leadership of Moses and Joshua mainly had to contend with nomadic tribes; in their contacts with such groups, they absorbed some of the attitudes and motifs of the nomadic way of life, such as independence, a love of freedom to move about, and fear of or disdain for the way of life of settled, agricultural, and urban peoples.
The Canaanites, with whom the Israelites came into contact during the conquest by Joshua and the period of the Judges, were a sophisticated agricultural and urban people. The name Canaan means "Land of Purple" (a purple dye was extracted from a murex shellfish found near the shores of Palestine). The Canaanites, a people who absorbed and assimilated the features of many cultures of the ancient Near East for at least 500 years before the Israelites entered their area of control, were the people who, as far as is known, invented the form of writing that became the alphabet, which, through the Greeks and Romans, was passed on to many cultures influenced by their successors--namely, the nations and peoples of Western civilization.
The religion of the Canaanites was an agricultural religion, with pronounced fertility motifs. Their main gods were called the Baalim (Lords), and their consorts the Baalot (Ladies), or Asherah (singular), usually known by the personal plural name Ashtoret. The god of the city of Shechem, which city the Israelites had absorbed peacefully under Joshua, was called Baal-berith (Lord of the Covenant) or El-berith (God of the Covenant). Shechem became the first cultic center of the religious tribal confederacy (called an amphictyony by the Greeks) of the Israelites during the period of the judges. When Shechem was excavated in the early 1960s, the temple of Baal-berith was partially reconstructed; the sacred pillar (generally a phallic symbol or, often, a representation of the ashera, the female fertility symbol) was placed in its original position before the entrance of the temple.
The Baalim and the Baalot, gods and goddesses of the Earth, were believed to be the revitalizes of the forces of nature upon which agriculture depended. The revitalization process involved a sacred marriage (hieros gamos), replete with sexual symbolic and actual activities between men, representing the Baalim, and the sacred temple prostitutes (qedeshot), representing the Baalot. Cultic ceremonies involving sexual acts between male members of the agricultural communities and sacred prostitutes dedicated to the Baalim were focused on the Canaanite concept of sympathetic magic. As the Baalim (through the actions of selected men) both symbolically and actually impregnated the sacred prostitutes in order to reproduce in kind, so also, it was believed, the Baalim (as gods of the weather and the Earth) would send the rains (often identified with semen) to the Earth so that it might yield abundant harvests of grains and fruits. Canaanite myths incorporating such fertility myths are represented in the mythological texts of the ancient city of Ugarit (modern Ras Shamra) in northern Syria; though the high god El and his consort are important as the first pair of the pantheon, Baal and his sexually passionate sister-consort are significant in the creation of the world and the renewal of nature.
The religion of the Canaanite agriculturalists proved to be a strong attraction to the less sophisticated and nomadic-oriented Israelite tribes. Many Israelites succumbed to the allurements of the fertility-laden rituals and practices of the Canaanite religion, partly because it was new and different from the Yahwistic religion and, possibly, because of a tendency of a rigorous faith and ethic to weaken under the influence of sexual attractions. As the Canaanites and the Israelites began to live in closer contact with each other, the faith of Israel tended to absorb some of the concepts and practices of the Canaanite religion. Some Israelites began to name their children after the Baalim; even one of the judges, Gideon, was also known by the name Jerubbaal ("Let Baal Contend").
As the syncretistic tendencies became further entrenched in the Israelite faith, the people began to lose the concept of their exclusiveness and their mission to be a witness to the nations, thus becoming weakened in resolve internally and liable to the oppression of other peoples."
Source: http://history-world.org/canaanite_culture_and_religion.htm
That is just one, minor source. I could go further, but that will do for the present.
Note that in the original, I said that "ITS LIKE SAYING "The Islamic State is as bad as Hitler, etc." I'm not actually saying it. I'm saying "ITS LIKE SAYING IT". In reality, I compared the Aztecs to the Canaanites. So in point of fact, I did not use the Nazis at all. EPIC FAIL
A culture that indulges in wanton sexual ritual behaviour is highly likely to indulge in sexual depravity of every nature, and doesn't deserve to continue to exist. Ergo, elimination.
The fact that they resisted the Israelites' entry into the Land also justifies their elimination. Granted, anybody might resist, but such is life. Shit happens. Waah fuckin' waah.
If you will all refer to page ten of this thread, reply #187, you will witness a (presumably Youtube) spoof on ownership of the Land of Israel. Although intended to mock claims of Jewish ownership to the Land of Israel, I find it interesting that in fact, it actually confirms those claims. Observe the following:You don't know that.
1: Cavemen never claimed any ownership of the Land per se.
2: Neither did Egyptians. They simply ruled it.A distinction without a difference.
3: Neither did ancient Canaanites have any unique claim on the Land as such. It was simply where they happened to live, again, like cavemen.Prove it.
4: The Jews appear, and for the first time make a unique claim on the territory as their divine possession.Which no one cares about.
5:Along come Babylonians. They exile the Jews, but merely rule the place.Again, distinction without a difference.
6. Along come Persians. They actually allowed the Jews to return. The song does not explore that part of history. Why, I don't know.I own my possessions. Don't you?
7. The Romans never wanted to claim the land as anything other than a possession. NO sane Roman EVER wanted to be sent there. Only Romans in disfavour, or Romans climbing their way up had to endure what they considered a hellhole.
8: The Byzantines had the same mindset as the Romans. The early Arabs treated land no different than the rest of their territories.So they owned it. I am seeing a theme here.
9: In the song Jews appear a second time. This is interesting. I'll save this for later. Note, they are the only ones historically that ever claimed the land uniquely as their own.Again, why should anyone care?
10: Along come Muslims, I assume. But the Qur'an even says in about eight places that the Land of Israel belongs to the Jews.Not anymore!
12: Along come armored Jews, unless I miss my guess. That is the third time they appear.The genocidists return!
13: Arabs and Crusaders come along. Neither group ever wanted to live there. They just each considered the land holy for their own purposes.Prove that no one wanted to live there. What does that have to do with ownership anyway? People are free to use their possessions as they see fit.
14: Here come the Ottomans. They just wanted a Muslim Empire to stretch as far as it could, and cover the three Holy Places, of which Jerusalem was one.So they wanted it for divine reasons. Sounds just as legit as the Jewish claim.
15: Here come the British. They didn't want anything to do with this. They got handed a shit sandwich by the League of Nations and told to make it taste good on the way down, the poor bastards.Oh yeah, the Brits had a tough go of it.
16: The Jews show up for the FOURTH time. Again, they are the only group that ever really WANTED to call the place home. Everyone else who ever lived there did so because he had to.The Jews have to as well, God said it's their home.
17: And finally, the State of Israel shows up. Jews for the FIFTH time.Finally with a real arms supplier so that they can deal with all the pesky natives.
So Arabs show up three or four times. Jews show up four or five times, depending on how you count. Ottomans are NOT Arabs, remember. And ONLY the Jews ever have a unique claim to the Land of Israel that makes it theirs to live in. The Arabs, and everyone else that ever lived there, lived there because they had to, not usually because they wanted to. Even the Qur'an states that Israel is the Land of the Jew. So, the song itself, rather than being anti-Semitic, which is its intent, actually ends up proving the Jewish claim, and making its own author looking like a schmuck. Smooth move, Nina. Better luck next time?
If you will all refer to page ten of this thread, reply #187, you will witness a (presumably Youtube) spoof on ownership of the Land of Israel. Although intended to mock claims of Jewish ownership to the Land of Israel, I find it interesting that in fact, it actually confirms those claims. Observe the following:You don't know that.
1: Cavemen never claimed any ownership of the Land per se.
Cavemen were not likely to care, being more concerned with immediate needs of survival.Quote2: Neither did Egyptians. They simply ruled it.
A distinction without a difference.
But a distinction anyway.Quote3: Neither did ancient Canaanites have any unique claim on the Land as such. It was simply where they happened to live, again, like cavemen.
Prove it.
Unnecessary. God took care of that.Quote4: The Jews appear, and for the first time make a unique claim on the territory as their divine possession.
Which no one cares about.
Well, we are still here. They are not.Quote5:Along come Babylonians. They exile the Jews, but merely rule the place.
Again, distinction without a difference.
A distinction, nontheless.Quote6. Along come Persians. They actually allowed the Jews to return. The song does not explore that part of history. Why, I don't know.
7. The Romans never wanted to claim the land as anything other than a possession. NO sane Roman EVER wanted to be sent there. Only Romans in disfavour, or Romans climbing their way up had to endure what they considered a hellhole.
I own my possessions. Don't you?
Irrelevant.Quote8: The Byzantines had the same mindset as the Romans. The early Arabs treated land no different than the rest of their territories.
So they owned it. I am seeing a theme here.
Irrelevant.Quote9: In the song Jews appear a second time. This is interesting. I'll save this for later. Note, they are the only ones historically that ever claimed the land uniquely as their own.Again, why should anyone care?
We are still here.Quote10: Along come Muslims, I assume. But the Qur'an even says in about eight places that the Land of Israel belongs to the Jews.
Not anymore!
Yes, it does. You ought to read the thing.Quote12: Along come armored Jews, unless I miss my guess. That is the third time they appear.
The genocidists return!
Ad hominem.Quote13: Arabs and Crusaders come along. Neither group ever wanted to live there. They just each considered the land holy for their own purposes.
Prove that no one wanted to live there. What does that have to do with ownership anyway? People are free to use their possessions as they see fit.
Again, No sane person during the Crusades on either side went there to stay. They went to fight, and go home with honour. Did an American go to Japan in the "40's to stay?Quote14: Here come the Ottomans. They just wanted a Muslim Empire to stretch as far as it could, and cover the three Holy Places, of which Jerusalem was one.
So they wanted it for divine reasons. Sounds just as legit as the Jewish claim.
But again, not to live in.Quote15: Here come the British. They didn't want anything to do with this. They got handed a shit sandwich by the League of Nations and told to make it taste good on the way down, the poor bastards.
Oh yeah, the Brits had a tough go of it.
Whatever.Quote16: The Jews show up for the FOURTH time. Again, they are the only group that ever really WANTED to call the place home. Everyone else who ever lived there did so because he had to.
The Jews have to as well, God said it's their home.
But they want to.Quote17: And finally, the State of Israel shows up. Jews for the FIFTH time.Finally with a real arms supplier so that they can deal with all the pesky natives.
What natives. "Palestinians" are not natives. They are interlopers on land that is not theirs. They always considered themselves part of Syria.QuoteSo Arabs show up three or four times. Jews show up four or five times, depending on how you count. Ottomans are NOT Arabs, remember. And ONLY the Jews ever have a unique claim to the Land of Israel that makes it theirs to live in. The Arabs, and everyone else that ever lived there, lived there because they had to, not usually because they wanted to. Even the Qur'an states that Israel is the Land of the Jew. So, the song itself, rather than being anti-Semitic, which is its intent, actually ends up proving the Jewish claim, and making its own author looking like a schmuck. Smooth move, Nina. Better luck next time?
So the Jews show up five times, always looking to kick out people that had a prior claim. Got it. Thanks for the history lesson.
My point is that no one ever had prior claims, or wanted to. Waah fuckin' waah.
Note that in the original, I said that "ITS LIKE SAYING "The Islamic State is as bad as Hitler, etc." I'm not actually saying it. I'm saying "ITS LIKE SAYING IT". In reality, I compared the Aztecs to the Canaanites. So in point of fact, I did not use the Nazis at all. EPIC FAIL
What ever makes you feel better.
No comment.QuoteA culture that indulges in wanton sexual ritual behaviour is highly likely to indulge in sexual depravity of every nature, and doesn't deserve to continue to exist. Ergo, elimination.
By that logic, you think Thailand should have genocide visited upon it? Because they use penises in ways that you don't agree with? And you think you are rational?
I am perfectly rational. I understand that there are alternative lifestyles in the world. But what the Canaanites pulled was beyond that. Aside from the fact that they also had Molech worship, such as human sacrifice, and other delightful things. This is confirmed by research outside of Scripture. And no, I am NOT going to go digging for sources. You can easily look this up just as I can. Go pay a visit to your public library.QuoteThe fact that they resisted the Israelites' entry into the Land also justifies their elimination. Granted, anybody might resist, but such is life. Shit happens. Waah fuckin' waah.
How dare the Canaanites dare defend their home! Did God give them warning that they should quietly leave the only home they have ever known?
Cavemen were not likely to care, being more concerned with immediate needs of survival.
But a distinction anyway.
Unnecessary. God took care of that.
Well, we are still here. They are not.
A distinction, nontheless.
Irrelevant.
Irrelevant.
We are still here.
Yes, it does. You ought to read the thing.
Ad hominem.
Again, No sane person during the Crusades on either side went there to stay. They went to fight, and go home with honour. Did an American go to Japan in the "40's to stay?
But again, not to live in.
Whatever.
But they want to.
What natives. "Palestinians" are not natives.
They are interlopers on land that is not theirs. They always considered themselves part of Syria.
My point is that no one ever had prior claims, or wanted to. Waah fuckin' waah.
I am perfectly rational. I understand that there are alternative lifestyles in the world. But what the Canaanites pulled was beyond that. Aside from the fact that they also had Molech worship, such as human sacrifice, and other delightful things. This is confirmed by research outside of Scripture. And no, I am NOT going to go digging for sources. You can easily look this up just as I can. Go pay a visit to your public library.
It was time for God's judgement, and no one gets out of that. I'm sorry, but shit happens. In fact, if the United States keeps going on her wayward path, I expect we will also face divine wrath and judgement, and I likewise expect that it won't be pretty. And guess what? IT WON'T BE PRETTY. SHIT HAPPENS. WAAH FUCKIN' WAAH.
It is possible that the reason such awful groups as ISIS exist is bring us back to righteous observance of God's Holy Word. Guns alone won't defeat these bastards. Only righteous living and proper fear of God will.
Then guns will do the rest. We need to purify ourselves, and then go exterminate the fuckers. But we can't do that unless we are pure first. You don't like that, I expect. Tough shit. Sounds like a personal problem to me. Deal with it.
Cavemen were not likely to care, being more concerned with immediate needs of survival.
Still making things up that you don't know?Quote
Stupid response.
But a distinction anyway.
Do you know what the phrase even means?Quote
Your response serves no purpose.
Unnecessary. God took care of that.
The Jews did, by committing genocide.Quote
Ah, whatever.
Well, we are still here. They are not.
And no one cares about your claim.Quote
We do, and we have enforced our claim. You don't like it, deal with it. No one cares what you think. Israel is here to stay.
A distinction, nontheless.
Look up what the phrase means. Seriously.Quote
A stupid response.
Irrelevant.
We are talking about ownership aren't we? Seems pretty germane actually.Quote
Not really.
Irrelevant.
Only if you want to live in denial.Quote
Ah, whatever that means.
We are still here.
And still making up stories about God. *yawn*Quote
Another stupid response.
Yes, it does. You ought to read the thing.
Not what I meant, but it does not matter.Quote
Ad hominem.
I was not making an argument, just pointing how terrible the history of the Jews is.Quote
Given that EVERY single group on Earth has at one point exterminated somebody, I don't feel too bad. At least the Jews did it to people who essentially asked for it.
Again, No sane person during the Crusades on either side went there to stay. They went to fight, and go home with honour. Did an American go to Japan in the "40's to stay?
Again, what does that have to do with the fact of ownership?Quote
Your point?
But again, not to live in.
Again, what does that have to do with the fact of ownership?Quote
Your point?
Whatever.
Whatever whatever.Quote
But they want to.
But they have to.Quote
Irrelevant.
What natives. "Palestinians" are not natives.
Neither are Jews. The Canaanites were more native than the Jews.Quote
Ordered out, or eliminated by command of God. Problem solved. You don't like it? Waah fuckin' waah.
They are interlopers on land that is not theirs. They always considered themselves part of Syria.
Wait, don't you think Palestinians are descended from the native Canaanites?Quote
In part. and from Arabs. And the Canaanites didn't belong there after God ordered the Jews to drive them out or eliminate them, so...
My point is that no one ever had prior claims, or wanted to. Waah fuckin' waah.
I think the Canaanites do.
Not after God ordered their expulsion or extermination. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH Fuckin' Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.QuoteI am perfectly rational. I understand that there are alternative lifestyles in the world. But what the Canaanites pulled was beyond that. Aside from the fact that they also had Molech worship, such as human sacrifice, and other delightful things. This is confirmed by research outside of Scripture. And no, I am NOT going to go digging for sources. You can easily look this up just as I can. Go pay a visit to your public library.
If you can't prove it, that is fine. Just withdraw your claim and stop trying to justify the murder of babies.
A stupid response. You are full of them today.QuoteIt was time for God's judgement, and no one gets out of that. I'm sorry, but shit happens. In fact, if the United States keeps going on her wayward path, I expect we will also face divine wrath and judgement, and I likewise expect that it won't be pretty. And guess what? IT WON'T BE PRETTY. SHIT HAPPENS. WAAH FUCKIN' WAAH.
It sounds just like the Holocaust.
Whatever.QuoteIt is possible that the reason such awful groups as ISIS exist is bring us back to righteous observance of God's Holy Word. Guns alone won't defeat these bastards. Only righteous living and proper fear of God will.
What a loving god that we must needs fear him to live well.
And what a fool you are for not realising that humans should not act the fool, and deny the will of Creator, and violate even the basic Laws of Noah. Humanity has violated every shred of decency left to us. God WILL get his. He is a God of mercy, but one of Justice also. Those of you who fail to acknowledge that are the fools. I suggest growing up.QuoteThen guns will do the rest. We need to purify ourselves, and then go exterminate the fuckers. But we can't do that unless we are pure first. You don't like that, I expect. Tough shit. Sounds like a personal problem to me. Deal with it.
Why can't you murder unless you are pure? That does not make much sense. You are right though that I don't like wanton extermination. If you want to call that a personal problem, I am happy to find a psychiatrist and let them decide who has issues, you or me.
Actually, that is not what I said at all. What I said is that they all heard him speak. They did NOT necessarily understand what they heard. Again, your failure to comprehend the English language is your problem, not mine. I recommend basic literacy courses.If you heard a norwegian speak, you'd have no idea what was said in your language, but you'd know what the words were. Or at least the sounds. And since Moses was writing all this AFTER it happened AND with God telling him to write it, the omission of the actual words are fairly considerable. There is no reason to omit them.
MOSES SPOKE TO GOD. GOD THEN SPOKE TO MOSES. "19:19 And when the voice of the horn waxed louder and louder, Moses spoke, and God answered him by a voice." The words may not have been intended for anyone other than Moses himself. It may have been that the Hebrews were intended to hear the voice, but not what it said.Sam spoke to his Dog. Dog then spoke to Sam.
That is not what I said. One can recognise a voice but not know what it says. If I speak a bastardised French Creole and hear crisp Parisian French, I WILL hear a voice. But I may not understand what I am hearing. Do you not comprehend basic English when it is written? Perhaps your literacy needs to be re-evaluated?1. Who cares about understanding. If God said "Urala sa kuuurash!" I'd write it the fuck down, wouldn't you? And since Moses was writing this after God said it, there shouldn't be any problem in putting what was said.
I am not admitting to being a schmuck at all. I am simply saying that anyone who says that variables don't exist is a schmuck. I have admitted that variables do exist. You are the one that says they don't. Ergo...... .what variables? You haven't spoken about ANY variables and have, in fact, regarded your work of text as factual. Unchanging. Not a variable. And any time I introduce complications you literally don't care.
Actually, that is not what I said at all. What I said is that they all heard him speak. They did NOT necessarily understand what they heard. Again, your failure to comprehend the English language is your problem, not mine. I recommend basic literacy courses.If you heard a norwegian speak, you'd have no idea what was said in your language, but you'd know what the words were. Or at least the sounds. And since Moses was writing all this AFTER it happened AND with God telling him to write it, the omission of the actual words are fairly considerable. There is no reason to omit them.
How do you know God told him to write what he said to him on that occasion?QuoteMOSES SPOKE TO GOD. GOD THEN SPOKE TO MOSES. "19:19 And when the voice of the horn waxed louder and louder, Moses spoke, and God answered him by a voice." The words may not have been intended for anyone other than Moses himself. It may have been that the Hebrews were intended to hear the voice, but not what it said.Sam spoke to his Dog. Dog then spoke to Sam.
See what I did there?
That is just a thoroughly stupid response, since God can speak, but dogs cannot.QuoteThat is not what I said. One can recognise a voice but not know what it says. If I speak a bastardised French Creole and hear crisp Parisian French, I WILL hear a voice. But I may not understand what I am hearing. Do you not comprehend basic English when it is written? Perhaps your literacy needs to be re-evaluated?1. Who cares about understanding. If God said "Urala sa kuuurash!" I'd write it the fuck down, wouldn't you? And since Moses was writing this after God said it, there shouldn't be any problem in putting what was said.
Why would Moses write it down. Maybe it concerned no one other than God and Moses himself.QuoteI am not admitting to being a schmuck at all. I am simply saying that anyone who says that variables don't exist is a schmuck. I have admitted that variables do exist. You are the one that says they don't. Ergo...... .what variables? You haven't spoken about ANY variables and have, in fact, regarded your work of text as factual. Unchanging. Not a variable. And any time I introduce complications you literally don't care.
He told him to write everything else. Seems like a really weird thing to omit.How do you know God told him to write what he said to him on that occasion?Actually, that is not what I said at all. What I said is that they all heard him speak. They did NOT necessarily understand what they heard. Again, your failure to comprehend the English language is your problem, not mine. I recommend basic literacy courses.If you heard a norwegian speak, you'd have no idea what was said in your language, but you'd know what the words were. Or at least the sounds. And since Moses was writing all this AFTER it happened AND with God telling him to write it, the omission of the actual words are fairly considerable. There is no reason to omit them.
QuoteThat is just a thoroughly stupid response, since God can speak, but dogs cannot.QuoteMOSES SPOKE TO GOD. GOD THEN SPOKE TO MOSES. "19:19 And when the voice of the horn waxed louder and louder, Moses spoke, and God answered him by a voice." The words may not have been intended for anyone other than Moses himself. It may have been that the Hebrews were intended to hear the voice, but not what it said.Sam spoke to his Dog. Dog then spoke to Sam.
See what I did there?
Why would Moses write it down. Maybe it concerned no one other than God and Moses himself.So the first words God spoke that the people of Israel heard were never recorded? How odd.
The variables about which I am speaking are not calling the text into question. They simply are acknowledging that questions of language, ie, who was speaking what language to whom, who was answering in what language, who heard a voice clearly, who heard it indistinctly, etc, are definitely present, and you are failing to acknowledge that. That makes you, in my mind at least, a schmuck.Oh I'm not failing at that. I'm failing to understand why the all powerful God who was SPEAKING FROM A MOUNTAIN TOP would have a voice that Moses could understand clearly but the people standing mere feet away could not. Especially when God was trying to prove himself for Moses's sake. You'd think he would have just made his voice (which did not require physics BTW) to be heard and understood by everyone.
l2quotepls
Because it's the written history of your people and the single most important event in their history?QuoteHe told him to write everything else. Seems like a really weird thing to omit.Did he? How do you know?
That Dogs speak.QuoteYes they can. Haven't you ever heard a dog Bark? The command most commonly used to incite a single bark is: Speak.What is your point?
Boy it's a good thing the scribe of this entire history is also the only person who who heard it. You seem to keep avoiding that.QuoteSo the first words God spoke that the people of Israel heard were never recorded? How odd.He said that Moses would speak to him, and he would respond to Moses, and the people would hear his voice. He said nothing about them hearing what he said. I've quoted the passage several times. Reread it, again.
In fact, I'm seeing a very firm lack of anything God actually said to the 2 million Jews. He said a lot to Moses but none to them.
Wait... YOU, of all people, are telling me that NOW the details are important? I'm sensing a pattern here...QuoteOh I'm not failing at that. I'm failing to understand why the all powerful God who was SPEAKING FROM A MOUNTAIN TOP would have a voice that Moses could understand clearly but the people standing mere feet away could not. Especially when God was trying to prove himself for Moses's sake. You'd think he would have just made his voice (which did not require physics BTW) to be heard and understood by everyone.As I said, there are variables. Was God speaking in Hebrew? Was Moses? What were the Hebrews themselves speaking? Probably a bastardised Hebrew-Egyptian. Even the ones who DID hear it probably had no clue what was said. And even if they did, they likely had no way of writing it, since Moses was probably the only one who knew HOW to write, being the only one with any real education at all. You need to stop and think before opening your yap.
The more "evidence" you show me, the more this sounds like a sham.
"You heard the voice of God right? That mubling, rumbling sound? That was him talking to me. "
Because it's the written history of your people and the single most important event in their history?QuoteHe told him to write everything else. Seems like a really weird thing to omit.Did he? How do you know?
I'll agree that hearing his voice, and seeing him, is the most important event in our history, but not necessarily hearing what he said.QuoteThat Dogs speak.QuoteYes they can. Haven't you ever heard a dog Bark? The command most commonly used to incite a single bark is: Speak.What is your point?
And that is relevant how?QuoteBoy it's a good thing the scribe of this entire history is also the only person who who heard it. You seem to keep avoiding that.QuoteSo the first words God spoke that the people of Israel heard were never recorded? How odd.He said that Moses would speak to him, and he would respond to Moses, and the people would hear his voice. He said nothing about them hearing what he said. I've quoted the passage several times. Reread it, again.
In fact, I'm seeing a very firm lack of anything God actually said to the 2 million Jews. He said a lot to Moses but none to them.
Your point being?QuoteWait... YOU, of all people, are telling me that NOW the details are important? I'm sensing a pattern here...QuoteOh I'm not failing at that. I'm failing to understand why the all powerful God who was SPEAKING FROM A MOUNTAIN TOP would have a voice that Moses could understand clearly but the people standing mere feet away could not. Especially when God was trying to prove himself for Moses's sake. You'd think he would have just made his voice (which did not require physics BTW) to be heard and understood by everyone.As I said, there are variables. Was God speaking in Hebrew? Was Moses? What were the Hebrews themselves speaking? Probably a bastardised Hebrew-Egyptian. Even the ones who DID hear it probably had no clue what was said. And even if they did, they likely had no way of writing it, since Moses was probably the only one who knew HOW to write, being the only one with any real education at all. You need to stop and think before opening your yap.
The more "evidence" you show me, the more this sounds like a sham.
"You heard the voice of God right? That mubling, rumbling sound? That was him talking to me. "
So a couple of things.
1. Since Moses was the only one to write anything down AND the only one who understood God, it's irrelevant what everyone lese wrote. THEY didn't get their words in.
2. Writing is irrelevant. See: The Oral Torah. You know, that 4,000 year old verbal history that would have required no writing skills to add to (like adding in the sounds God made).
The Oral Torah was given to Moses on the Mountain Top. Along with that Written Torah. Do you not comprehend the words that are coming from my keyboard?
You really need to stop and think about what you're saying and what you've previously said.
Man, you seriously need psychological guidance, and possibly meds.
Are you using a computer with a keyboard and mouse? Then it's fine. Shit, it's even easy enough to handle on touch devices, it just takes longer.
I think we have made it clear that we expect people being commanded by the very source of morality to behave much much better than is shown. If there was evidence against God then this is it. It's this conundrum that forces apologists to make up ridiculous theories like "divine command theory". You are crazy for excusing it.
So wait, God's message is irrelevant and the only important thing is that he was seen and heard? Doesn't that make the Torah irrelevant then?
I think we have made it clear that we expect people being commanded by the very source of morality to behave much much better than is shown. If there was evidence against God then this is it. It's this conundrum that forces apologists to make up ridiculous theories like "divine command theory". You are crazy for excusing it.
Like I said, if you want your head on a pike, you are welcome to it. But had you lived then, you would have done EXACTLY as they they did. And don't tell me you wouldn't have, or I'll laugh in your face.
I'll agree that hearing his voice, and seeing him, is the most important event in our history, but not necessarily hearing what he said.
And that is relevant how?You claimed they don't. I proved you wrong. My analogy works.
Your point being?That Moses could have put what God said into either of the two things he wrote down but didn't. In fact, he could have very very easily put them in. Doesn't it seem odd to you that he didn't? It would be like if NASA decided not to broadcast the moon landing and instead just announced "We're on the moon and walking around."
The Oral Torah was given to Moses on the Mountain Top. Along with that Written Torah. Do you not comprehend the words that are coming from my keyboard?No, the Oral Torah was dictated to Moses on the Mountain Top. But my point is that if the Oral Torah, which is passed by word of mouth, can survive for 4,000 years, why didn't the first words God said to the Jews also survive? Even if no one understood it, don't you think every single Jew there remembered the first word God spoke for the rest of their lives? Or are the actual words of God so uninteresting unless Moses delivers them?
This is a logical fallacy but I'm going to say it anyway:
Man, you seriously need psychological guidance, and possibly meds.
I think we have made it clear that we expect people being commanded by the very source of morality to behave much much better than is shown. If there was evidence against God then this is it. It's this conundrum that forces apologists to make up ridiculous theories like "divine command theory". You are crazy for excusing it.
Like I said, if you want your head on a pike, you are welcome to it. But had you lived then, you would have done EXACTLY as they they did. And don't tell me you wouldn't have, or I'll laugh in your face.
If this is purely a Brinze Age issue, what changed in God that made him decide genocide should not be commanded anymore? What makes you think he won't command it again?
I'll agree that hearing his voice, and seeing him, is the most important event in our history, but not necessarily hearing what he said.QuoteAnd that is relevant how?You claimed they don't. I proved you wrong. My analogy works.QuoteThat Moses could have put what God said into either of the two things he wrote down but didn't. In fact, he could have very very easily put them in. Doesn't it seem odd to you that he didn't? It would be like if NASA decided not to broadcast the moon landing and instead just announced "We're on the moon and walking around."
You didn't prove anything, but if that makes you feel better, ok.
Your point being?Quote
Not particularly. Given that Torah means "Instruction", and what God said on that occasion was probably not "Instruction" or "Teaching" in any way, why would he?
The Oral Torah was given to Moses on the Mountain Top. Along with that Written Torah. Do you not comprehend the words that are coming from my keyboard?
No, the Oral Torah was dictated to Moses on the Mountain Top. But my point is that if the Oral Torah, which is passed by word of mouth, can survive for 4,000 years, why didn't the first words God said to the Jews also survive? Even if no one understood it, don't you think every single Jew there remembered the first word God spoke for the rest of their lives? Or are the actual words of God so uninteresting unless Moses delivers them?
If something is not understood, and you don't know how to write in the first place, how are you going to write it down? You are full of brilliance today.Quote
Man, you seriously need psychological guidance, and possibly meds.
This is a logical fallacy but I'm going to say it anyway:
So far no one here is agreeing with you. Not even the other Jews of the forum.
There are no other Jews in the forum, at least not religious ones. So, your point?
Your arguments have constantly been challenged and no one seems to be disagreeing with the challenge. We also point out your double standards when you try to make your case. Yet despite this you are completely incapable of doubting anything you say and have gone so far as to insult me for following without question but then praise yourself for following without question. (or an answer, if you did have a question)
Doesn't that make you wonder if you are really as correct as you think? Doesn't that make you question why you're so devoted to a book that has such glaring questions?
It only has glaring questions if you have less than about a 5th grade education.
As I said before, God himself could not change your mind. This is most commonly called brainwashing and often requires psychological guidance.
As I have said before, I shall say again. The Jews as a people have been around, and will be around, long before and long after you and your ilk have come and gone from the stage of history and been forgotten. Who is the the brainwashed one? The one who thinks he is the master of all he surveys because Richard Dawkins told him he was, or the one who admits that there is a power greater than himself to which he should submit in humility?
Are you really sure I need it? Because I'm not the one who accepts a 4,000 year old story as fact when it's missing some very key details. I'm not the one accepting "God wants us to figure it out ourselves" when we question the rules. I'm also not the one who claims to have an answer (like about eating pork) but then ignores the fact that the answer is irrelevant in today's modern age and considers it "icky" simply because your holy book says so.
We've been over this. Aside from the health concerns, which are still valid, there is also simply the matter of discipline. Doing it by virtue of the fact that God has asked us to. If you cannot understand that, then how intelligent can you be? Of course, you are an atheist, and therefore deem yourself and your petty wants to be the center of the world. Who is the selfish one?
I think we have made it clear that we expect people being commanded by the very source of morality to behave much much better than is shown. If there was evidence against God then this is it. It's this conundrum that forces apologists to make up ridiculous theories like "divine command theory". You are crazy for excusing it.
Like I said, if you want your head on a pike, you are welcome to it. But had you lived then, you would have done EXACTLY as they they did. And don't tell me you wouldn't have, or I'll laugh in your face.
If this is purely a Brinze Age issue, what changed in God that made him decide genocide should not be commanded anymore? What makes you think he won't command it again?
Read the Hebrew Bible. The book goes from a very narrow understanding of God to a very universal understanding of him. The idea of a universal deity commanding a genocide is incomprehensible. I recommend particularly Isaiah, and the later Prophets.
Why does god insist on playing a big game of telephone? A high school psychology student can tell you that is the best way to give everyone the wrong message. If god wanted everyone to know something, would it really be that much of a bother just to tell everyone himself? Seems sort of convenient one man gets to dictate what god said and no one else can verify it.
In a time where more and more people are walking away from organized religion, and are becoming more cynical towards the spiritual beliefs based on ancient religions, how do you think Judaism and Jewish traditions will survive the next 100 years (assuming the human race makes it another century)? Also, do you think that the spiritual beliefs are just as important as cultural traditions, or does one trump the other?
In a time where more and more people are walking away from organized religion, and are becoming more cynical towards the spiritual beliefs based on ancient religions, how do you think Judaism and Jewish traditions will survive the next 100 years (assuming the human race makes it another century)? Also, do you think that the spiritual beliefs are just as important as cultural traditions, or does one trump the other?
Where in the world are you speaking of? In Western nations, yes, people are turning from organised religion. But in the rest of the world, it is growing by leaps and bounds. I don't know what part of the planet you live in, but it is clearly NOT the global South, unless its Australia or New Zealand.
Roman Catholicism and the Anglican Church (the Church of England) in Africa are HUGE! 70% of Anglicans live in Africa, for example, rather than in say, England or the US, or white countries where you would think it would be obvious (Canada, Australia, or New Zealand). And it is growing there like crazy, as is the Lutheran Church, and the Roman Catholic Church.
Islam, as much as I despise it, is in NO danger of dying out. If anything, the radical forms of it are experiencing growth.
Judaism tends to remain static. About half of all Jews are cultural Jews, and the other half are ethno-religious Jews, such as myself. I see no signs of Judaism dying out, though.
Certainly being a Jew is partially cultural. That can't be disputed. Judaism is a civilisation as much as it is a religion. In fact, Judaism is a civilisation before it is anything else. The Religion is a part (perhaps the largest part, but still a part) of the the broader civilisation. The civilisation is made up of the cultural, ethnic, linguistic, historic, and of course, religious aspects of what it means to be a Jew.
So, I think that Civilisation is the best way to describe being a Jew, and that Religion is the largest component of said Civilisation. For further information on this, I encourage you to read Judaism as a Civilization, by Mordecai M. Kaplan, the master work on the subject. Although published originally in 1934, it has remained in print, and continues to be the "go-to" book on the topic. I can't recommend it enough. It is brilliant.
I thought they mostly practiced Voodooism in Africa?
If something is not understood, and you don't know how to write in the first place, how are you going to write it down? You are full of brilliance today.....
There are no other Jews in the forum, at least not religious ones. So, your point?http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1928.0 (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1928.0)
It only has glaring questions if you have less than about a 5th grade education.And yet you fail to answer them.
As I have said before, I shall say again. The Jews as a people have been around, and will be around, long before and long after you and your ilk have come and gone from the stage of history and been forgotten. Who is the the brainwashed one? The one who thinks he is the master of all he surveys because Richard Dawkins told him he was, or the one who admits that there is a power greater than himself to which he should submit in humility?Uhhh.... you DO know the definition of brainwashing right?
We've been over this. Aside from the health concerns, which are still valid, there is also simply the matter of discipline. Doing it by virtue of the fact that God has asked us to. If you cannot understand that, then how intelligent can you be? Of course, you are an atheist, and therefore deem yourself and your petty wants to be the center of the world. Who is the selfish one?God didn't ask you to. Moses brought a scroll he wrote that said what to do. You have no proof God actually told you to do these things. In fact, considering God's track record, if Moses wrote the exact opposite of what God said, you'd still get the written and oral torah given to you because God wouldn't do anything about it.
I thought they mostly practiced Voodooism in Africa?
I thought voodoo was Haitian in origin, but it looks like it has its roots in Africa.
If something is not understood, and you don't know how to write in the first place, how are you going to write it down? You are full of brilliance today.....
So you're telling me that the Oral Torah is never passed verbally and is always passed by writing?
Actually, no. I am telling you that the Oral Torah was finally written down in the Talmud LONG after it had passed for about 3000 years orally. But, God's words to Moses which were likely not even said in a language that could be understood by the Hebrews who were former slaves without an education were not Torah.QuoteThere are no other Jews in the forum, at least not religious ones. So, your point?http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1928.0 (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1928.0)
There are 4. Grow up and learn to read.
There are three, in addition to myself. Two have already told me they are not religious. The fourth has not said whether he agrees with me or not, and in fact, has said nothing at all. You are the schmuck, not me.QuoteIt only has glaring questions if you have less than about a 5th grade education.And yet you fail to answer them.
I've answered them fine. You are just dense.QuoteAs I have said before, I shall say again. The Jews as a people have been around, and will be around, long before and long after you and your ilk have come and gone from the stage of history and been forgotten. Who is the the brainwashed one? The one who thinks he is the master of all he surveys because Richard Dawkins told him he was, or the one who admits that there is a power greater than himself to which he should submit in humility?Uhhh.... you DO know the definition of brainwashing right?
(PS. Our "ilk" was around before Dawkins existed)
Your ilk is is fairly new. Lets face it, atheism is a fairly new invention.QuoteWe've been over this. Aside from the health concerns, which are still valid, there is also simply the matter of discipline. Doing it by virtue of the fact that God has asked us to. If you cannot understand that, then how intelligent can you be? Of course, you are an atheist, and therefore deem yourself and your petty wants to be the center of the world. Who is the selfish one?God didn't ask you to. Moses brought a scroll he wrote that said what to do. You have no proof God actually told you to do these things. In fact, considering God's track record, if Moses wrote the exact opposite of what God said, you'd still get the written and oral torah given to you because God wouldn't do anything about it.
Well, since Moses and his brother were able to do some rather interesting things in Egypt, I am inclined to trust them. And since my ancestors did hear God (even if they were unsure of what he said), and they did see him, I take Moses' word for it.
As for my "petty wants". No, they are not the center of the world. Why would you assume that? I think you're projecting. After all, Jews are morally and culturally superior to everyone else right?
I never said that, except to Gary Greene, and I do believe that referring to him specifically, we are. But as for the rest of the world, I never made that claim. I do believe that we were chosen to bring monotheism to the world, and to be a chosen Priesthood to the world. Read Zechariah 8:23 (and the whole chapter for context) for further information about that).
Also:
According to Yakkov, I am currently more powerful than God. I can tell BILLIONS of people something all at once. God can only talk to one person at a time.
Why did he choose to talk to just one guy?
Why did he choose to talk to just one guy?
We've been over that. But, that was the Torah. Throughout or history from Abraham to Malachi, he spoke to far more than just one guy. But with Moses, lets face it: How do you give the Law to 2 million people when it is the length of the first five books of the Hebrew Bible?
Have you read the Torah (the Pentateuch)? Have you even picked up a copy to determine the length of it? Do you think that God was going to recite the whole thing to all 2 million Hebrews sitting there, and expect them to remember it, when they couldn't even write to take notes? Moses was the only one who could write, presumably. God, talk about a college course and a half! For a bunch of slaves that had virtually no education at all, you expect God to sit them all down for forty days and recite the entire Law to them?
I can give the law in easy to follow ways that require no text to over 2 million people.Why did he choose to talk to just one guy?
We've been over that. But, that was the Torah. Throughout or history from Abraham to Malachi, he spoke to far more than just one guy. But with Moses, lets face it: How do you give the Law to 2 million people when it is the length of the first five books of the Hebrew Bible?
You didn't invent Youtube either, Dave.I'm not claiming to have created existence and be an all powerful being.
Why did he choose to talk to just one guy?
We've been over that. But, that was the Torah. Throughout or history from Abraham to Malachi, he spoke to far more than just one guy. But with Moses, lets face it: How do you give the Law to 2 million people when it is the length of the first five books of the Hebrew Bible?
Certainly an insurmountable task for the omnipotent being who created the entire universe.
Have you read the Torah (the Pentateuch)? Have you even picked up a copy to determine the length of it? Do you think that God was going to recite the whole thing to all 2 million Hebrews sitting there, and expect them to remember it, when they couldn't even write to take notes? Moses was the only one who could write, presumably. God, talk about a college course and a half! For a bunch of slaves that had virtually no education at all, you expect God to sit them all down for forty days and recite the entire Law to them?
Why is god limited to speaking to them at all? An omnipotent being could instill its wishes upon someone without speaking. Even worse, you make it sound like god thought they were all too stupid to talk to. That's pretty low, and something I don't think the old testament god represents, even if he were real, I doubt he would think that. Besides, that sort of logic basically amounts to "anyone that god hasn't talked to is simply too stupid to talk to at all." That would include the entire population of earth, save some few people who either god really did talk to or are just insane.
I can give the law in easy to follow ways that require no text to over 2 million people.Why did he choose to talk to just one guy?
We've been over that. But, that was the Torah. Throughout or history from Abraham to Malachi, he spoke to far more than just one guy. But with Moses, lets face it: How do you give the Law to 2 million people when it is the length of the first five books of the Hebrew Bible?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgAai51hOM0
See? Youtube. No text required, illustrated diagrams, and I can put it in any language I want.
God, however, couldn't invent Youtube. Hence, I am more powerful than him. (And so is anyone with an internet connection)
Why couldn't God just explain the laws in such a way that there would be no questions to begin with? He is God after all, the almighty being who can wish living creatures into existence with no more than a thought.
We've been over this. God keeps things within the realm of the understandable for people at the time.
Its not a question of maturity. Its a question of ability. Moses had the ability. The others didn't. Incidentally, neither did Joseph Smith, with a fifth grade education, if he was lucky. And remember, Moses did NOT have the slave mentality, unlike the others. He had been raised in the Pharaoh's court.
Nor am I suggested that God is limited to anything. I am suggested that he might have found it a good idea not to pull a mindfuck on people.
Its not a question of maturity. Its a question of ability. Moses had the ability. The others didn't. Incidentally, neither did Joseph Smith, with a fifth grade education, if he was lucky. And remember, Moses did NOT have the slave mentality, unlike the others. He had been raised in the Pharaoh's court.
Nor am I suggested that God is limited to anything. I am suggested that he might have found it a good idea not to pull a mindfuck on people.
But the only real difference between Moses and Joseph Smith is that you, personally, choose to believe Moses but not Joseph Smith. The current Mormon population alone is proof one man can trick an awful lot of people. Scientology shows this as well. It seems your only defense of this is that you can put your nose in the air and say that your god is better than theirs. Who are you to honestly say their prophet is any less prophetic than yours?
Except that Tolkien himself subscribed to the Bible, as a devout Latin Mass going Roman Catholic, even after they started celebrating in the vernacular. He would sit, and loudly respond in Latin, given that he hated the vernacular so much. He was always an EXTREMELY hard-core Roman Catholic, his entire life. In fact, he belonged to a literary group that included CS Lewis and several others, all Anglicans and Roman Catholics, all devout, all fantasy writers. It was called the Inklings, as they all had an inkling of what the perfect England would be like. And it always included belief in God.
You people are a hoot. You make comments like that, not realising that by saying things of that nature, you are simply making asses of yourselves. Trust me, these men were far more devout then you will ever comprehend. They would have laughed, and in fact did laugh, at atheism whenever the subject came up. They thought it was a joke, and a bad one at that.
GRINNING. Not at all. I simply state a fact. You make an Appeal to Authority, which is a logical fallacy in and of itself, and then you choose the wrong authority?! Not too bright. Tolkien would have laughed at you if you had tried to quote him to support your position. And he might have punched you in the nose. Or as least sued your sorry ass self.
QUOTE OF RAMA SET: "I agree it is incomprehensible. How do you reconcile that God did make such a command and that you yourself believes that the command is still in effect, and that it is only the difficulty in showing Palestinians to be Amalekites that saves them from extermination? Indeed you showed that you were willing to order extermination of them for merely claiming to be natives to Israel. Are you from the Bronze Age?"
Because of the universal nature of God, God is also the God of the "Palestinians". Therefore, although the commandment has not been abolished, I am inclined to believe personally that God would be happier with a controlled deportation rather than extermination. And further, I think the reason there ARE no more Amalekites is simply because God does not WANT his people exterminating ANYONE. As you have all correctly pointed out, unlike in the Bronze Age, we understand that there are better ways to deal with problems then wholesale elimination of a people, however distasteful a people they may be.
Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
QUOTE OF RAMA SET: "I agree it is incomprehensible. How do you reconcile that God did make such a command and that you yourself believes that the command is still in effect, and that it is only the difficulty in showing Palestinians to be Amalekites that saves them from extermination? Indeed you showed that you were willing to order extermination of them for merely claiming to be natives to Israel. Are you from the Bronze Age?"
Because of the universal nature of God, God is also the God of the "Palestinians". Therefore, although the commandment has not been abolished, I am inclined to believe personally that God would be happier with a controlled deportation rather than extermination. And further, I think the reason there ARE no more Amalekites is simply because God does not WANT his people exterminating ANYONE. As you have all correctly pointed out, unlike in the Bronze Age, we understand that there are better ways to deal with problems then wholesale elimination of a people, however distasteful a people they may be.
Except I am not talking about what we understand, I am talking about God's commandment. It was pretty unequivoical:Quote from: Samuel 15:2-10Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
So yes, while I agree that there are obviously better ways to deal with Palestinians, the point is that your God is so barbaric and hateful that he, as the source of all morality, sentences all Amalek babies to be slain only because of an accident of birth. It is undeniable that your God is utterly immoral and evil.
QUOTE OF RAMA SET: "I agree it is incomprehensible. How do you reconcile that God did make such a command and that you yourself believes that the command is still in effect, and that it is only the difficulty in showing Palestinians to be Amalekites that saves them from extermination? Indeed you showed that you were willing to order extermination of them for merely claiming to be natives to Israel. Are you from the Bronze Age?"
Because of the universal nature of God, God is also the God of the "Palestinians". Therefore, although the commandment has not been abolished, I am inclined to believe personally that God would be happier with a controlled deportation rather than extermination. And further, I think the reason there ARE no more Amalekites is simply because God does not WANT his people exterminating ANYONE. As you have all correctly pointed out, unlike in the Bronze Age, we understand that there are better ways to deal with problems then wholesale elimination of a people, however distasteful a people they may be.
Except I am not talking about what we understand, I am talking about God's commandment. It was pretty unequivoical:Quote from: Samuel 15:2-10Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
So yes, while I agree that there are obviously better ways to deal with Palestinians, the point is that your God is so barbaric and hateful that he, as the source of all morality, sentences all Amalek babies to be slain only because of an accident of birth. It is undeniable that your God is utterly immoral and evil.
However, I would contrast that with two things. 1, the fact that Amalekites no longer exist. This is an act of the same God that commanded their very destruction. He found a far better way to do it than genocide. Rather, he bred them out of existence. 2, I think he did this because of the text that you read later in the Hebrew Scriptures. Again I refer you to Isaiah and the Minor Prophets. Nation shall not rise up against nation, and neither shall mankind again know war. And they shall beat their swords in the plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks. And later in the the text (Malachi, I think, unless its Micah, I am running off memory here), Justice, justice ye shall pursue!
The God of the Hebrew Bible was able to ultimately save the Amalekites through peacefully breeding them out of existence to the point where fighting them would be impossible. Sounds pretty smart to me. Therefore, he at the same time doesn't break his promise to the Israelites. His commandments are eternal, even that one, but in that case, it can't be exercised, so the brutality is avoided as well. Two birds with one stone, eh?
Of course, that's a matter of personal opinion, and about 1 billion 15 million persons alive TODAY seem to disagree with you, as did he. And that doesn't include all the people who lived and died BEFORE the ones currently living. You are more and more of schmuck every time you you open your yap. But continue, please. I enjoy being amused. I don't know of anyone who is willing to die for believing in Tolkien's admittedly interesting work. I know a lot of people who would be willing to die for their Faith, Jewish or Christian.So that's the qualifier for a religion?
Surely God could have given the others the abililty to understand as well, and not just Moses. I mean, he's God. R-right??
Of course, that's a matter of personal opinion, and about 1 billion 15 million persons alive TODAY seem to disagree with you, as did he. And that doesn't include all the people who lived and died BEFORE the ones currently living. You are more and more of schmuck every time you you open your yap. But continue, please. I enjoy being amused. I don't know of anyone who is willing to die for believing in Tolkien's admittedly interesting work. I know a lot of people who would be willing to die for their Faith, Jewish or Christian.So that's the qualifier for a religion?
"A lot of people have faith in something, so it must be true"
God is not powerful enough to answer over 2 million questions at once. Got it.Surely God could have given the others the abililty to understand as well, and not just Moses. I mean, he's God. R-right??
I suppose. But it would have been a bit complicated to give 2 million people the chance to ask questions. I mean, Moses himself probably had a shit-ton of those, don't you think?
God is not powerful enough to answer over 2 million questions at once. Got it.Surely God could have given the others the abililty to understand as well, and not just Moses. I mean, he's God. R-right??
I suppose. But it would have been a bit complicated to give 2 million people the chance to ask questions. I mean, Moses himself probably had a shit-ton of those, don't you think?
Quite so.God is not powerful enough to answer over 2 million questions at once. Got it.Surely God could have given the others the abililty to understand as well, and not just Moses. I mean, he's God. R-right??
I suppose. But it would have been a bit complicated to give 2 million people the chance to ask questions. I mean, Moses himself probably had a shit-ton of those, don't you think?
I hope people learn to start praying just one at a time so God does not get overwhelmed.
God is not powerful enough to answer over 2 million questions at once. Got it.Surely God could have given the others the abililty to understand as well, and not just Moses. I mean, he's God. R-right??
I suppose. But it would have been a bit complicated to give 2 million people the chance to ask questions. I mean, Moses himself probably had a shit-ton of those, don't you think?
When you read the bible, its almost as if god keeps forgetting he is omnipotent. Weird.
Is there any meaningful difference between the jewish God and Hitler? Both demanded absolute deference, both were more than happy to order the extinction of multiple races through genocide and eugenics, and both felt that their people deserved land which did not belong to them.
until I see Muslims in the Middle East start sending armies to fight ISIS
A MUSLIM, 1, spoke out against. My, that's mighty white of him! I don't see them doing anything to stop it though. Until I see every Muslim in the United States lining up at recruiting stations to enter the military, and volunteering to go over there, until I see Muslims in the Middle East start sending armies to fight ISIS, until I start seeing Muslims in the Middle East starting to support Israel in its fight against Hamas (ISIS Lite) and Hezbollah, I don't buy the bullshit.
I oppose genocide myself.
I'm only saying that if we had lived in the Bronze Age, we would have thought differently, and you are no different than me. And don't pretend for a moment that you are. Quit the pie in the sky "Cumbaya" shit. Be real.
Quoteuntil I see Muslims in the Middle East start sending armies to fight ISIS
You know that most Iraqis figting IS are Muslims, right? As are the Jordanians, Arabs, Saudis, Kurds, Bahrainians...
A MUSLIM, 1, spoke out against. My, that's mighty white of him! I don't see them doing anything to stop it though. Until I see every Muslim in the United States lining up at recruiting stations to enter the military, and volunteering to go over there, until I see Muslims in the Middle East start sending armies to fight ISIS, until I start seeing Muslims in the Middle East starting to support Israel in its fight against Hamas (ISIS Lite) and Hezbollah, I don't buy the bullshit.
Well all it takes is one counter example to prove your judgement incorrect. As pointed out, there are plenty of Muslims fighting against ISIS, as if fighting in a war is the only way to oppose something.QuoteI oppose genocide myself.
Than you are disobeying your repugnant God, end of story.QuoteI'm only saying that if we had lived in the Bronze Age, we would have thought differently, and you are no different than me. And don't pretend for a moment that you are. Quit the pie in the sky "Cumbaya" shit. Be real.
"Be real".
"Quit the pie in the sky 'Cumbaya' shit."
Is this your universities version of debating?
The fact of the matter is, that this is just an assertion that you cannot back up and means absolutely nothing to the debate. Well done.
By the way, your God kills babies. lol!
By the way, your God kills babies. lol!It's not bad as long as God does it.
Is there any meaningful difference between the jewish God and Hitler? Both demanded absolute deference, both were more than happy to order the extinction of multiple races through genocide and eugenics, and both felt that their people deserved land which did not belong to them.
Since Austria belonged to Bismark way back when, long before Hitler was even thought of, your last point is no point at all. Remember that after WWI, there was virtually nobody left in Europe. Anyone who came knew the land was theirs. If they chose to take it, they knew the land was theirs.
Anyway, here's the real question: who's more genocidal/racist: Yaakov or Yahweh?
I have no sympathy for a people who committed human sacrifice. I have no sympathy for a people who were so wicked God himself deemed their destruction necessary. I don't understand why he deemed it so. It seems harsh. But shit happens, man. If it had not been them, they would have done it to us. So, given a choice, I'll take the former. That is what you losers are forgetting. If it had not been them, it would have been us. Given the two choices, what would you have done? There was NO third option. Think about it. Waah fuckin' Waah.
You keep describing the things god does in the perspective of a human. I think you yourself are having trouble comprehending the sheer ability of a omnipotent being to do literally anything. Anything an omnipotent being does or causes to happen is because the being wanted that specific thing to happen. If millions died ala flooding, god wanted that to happen. It wasn't a "well I guess I have to do this because you made me do it."
The reason the god in the bible doesn't sound very omnipotent is because the bible is written by humans who made up solutions that make sense to a human.
I have no sympathy for a people who committed human sacrifice. I have no sympathy for a people who were so wicked God himself deemed their destruction necessary. I don't understand why he deemed it so. It seems harsh. But shit happens, man. If it had not been them, they would have done it to us. So, given a choice, I'll take the former. That is what you losers are forgetting. If it had not been them, it would have been us. Given the two choices, what would you have done? There was NO third option. Think about it. Waah fuckin' Waah.
You still have not shown that Amalekites committed human sacrifice. Your pre-emptive genocide is barbaric. So much for your temple of solomon.
God doesn't will anything bad to occur. Millions die in flooding because we live in a fallen world. Get over it.
God doesn't will anything bad to occur. Millions die in flooding because we live in a fallen world. Get over it.
God wills everything bad that occurs. If your life is painful, it is because god wanted it that way. At least, that's how it would be, if god existed.
I look like a "fool" because after several pages you finally got around to providing evidence? Now, can you provide evidence from a source other than the bible considering the obvious and weighty bias your book holds for Canaanites? From what the sources on the wiki pages say, there is only a "possibility of human sacrifice." Nothing definite in the archaeological record.
You could have found that evidence yourself. If you are so incompetent as to not be able to use a computer as to make me do your research for you, then you are the fool. And the Wikipedia entry says nothing about possibilities. It simply says that there were associations with child sacrifice. Sounds pretty definite to me. Reread the entry.
I will point out now, that I am not using the lazy tactic you use of saying "It was the bronze age, you would have done it too!" But I must say that on your view, how is human sacrifice any worse than the wholesale slaughter of infants who have not committed any sort of crime other than being born?
Not my problem, ultimately. That is simply the way things were handled. I might not like it, but that is the reality of things. Welcome to the real world, and not your "Cumbaya" fantasy land, which isn't even true today.
The Temple of Solomon was just a little dig at your propensity for claiming how much more civilized the Jews were than anyone else in the Bronze Age. Something that does not seem to be borne out by your own historical record.
Given that the Temple of Solomon was 500 years later than Moses, and the Hebrews had gone from being a roving band of pastoral nomads to a settled Kingdom of power and influence, yes, they were FAR more civilised by then than just about anyone in Europe or Sub-Saharan Africa. So, again, you are advised to close your yap. You are starting to look like an ass-hat.
Moloch, also known as Molech, Molekh, Molok, Molek, Molock, Moloc, Melech, Milcom, or Molcom (representing Semitic מלך m-l-k, a Semitic root meaning "king") is the name of an ancient Ammonite god.
I recommend a few philosophy courses. You evidently haven't had too many. If your view of the universe is the simplistic, its no wonder you are operating on such a grade school level along with the other schmucks in here. My God.
While I'm at it, I'll just throw this out there. The reason that God came only to Moses is because man cannot usually see God's face and live. Moses was an exception to that. Why, I am not certain, although the reason might lie in his purity has a person. So that is another reason for not coming personally to all 2 million people at once. Perhaps not killing them all was something God deemed important?
Moloch, also known as Molech, Molekh, Molok, Molek, Molock, Moloc, Melech, Milcom, or Molcom (representing Semitic מלך m-l-k, a Semitic root meaning "king") is the name of an ancient Ammonite god.
Oh yeah, they had a show about him, Molcom in the Middle, right?
Moloch in the Middle. Good one on you. That was funny.
But more seriously, please cut out the hostility. You can have a discussion like this without telling people they're ass-hats, idiots, fools, what have you.
I don't know how much of this thread you've actually read, but certain people (and they know who they are) have been displaying incredible amounts of obtuseness. At first I thought it was a failure to comprehend. Then I realised it was deliberate, and therefore a true fault, and as a result, sin, for which they will probably be adjudged guilty on the Day of Judgement, though it not my place to say that definitively. I am unsure if it is a deliberate attempt to be obtuse, or if it is indeed outright stupidity, but it is deliberate.
I recommend a few philosophy courses. You evidently haven't had too many. If your view of the universe is the simplistic, its no wonder you are operating on such a grade school level along with the other schmucks in here. My God.
You're just so much more advanced you can't explain how advanced you are. I thought that was my forum niche, not yours.While I'm at it, I'll just throw this out there. The reason that God came only to Moses is because man cannot usually see God's face and live. Moses was an exception to that. Why, I am not certain, although the reason might lie in his purity has a person. So that is another reason for not coming personally to all 2 million people at once. Perhaps not killing them all was something God deemed important?
Once again you don't get that anything that an omnipotent being wants to happen, happens. If looking at god kills you, then god wanted that to be the way it is. Are you saying there is some magical set of laws that god has to obey? That doesn't sound very god-like to me.
for example, could God make a married bachelor?[/size]
that is simply untrue. God doesn't have to obey anything. But to violate his own laws would be to make himself not God. for example, could God make a married bachelor?
We've been over this. God keeps things within the realm of the understandable for people at the time.So let me get this straight:
for example, could God make a married bachelor?[/size]
That's a nonsensical question, since the words "married bachelor" mean nothing when put together. It would be just as meaningful to ask if God could make a "UHuhfuhweiwpkwmdljf".
that is simply untrue. God doesn't have to obey anything. But to violate his own laws would be to make himself not God. for example, could God make a married bachelor?
Please stop making your text bigger. Also, yes, god can violate his own laws. If a law exists that god cannot break, then god ceases to be god and becomes a very, very powerful human analogue (which is basically what the bible portrays, anyway). Additionally, see what PP2 stated.
Can God make a dick so big not even he can suck it?No, but religious folk can.
Can God make a dick so big not even he can suck it?No, but religious folk can.
(http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/481/115/4cd.gif)Can God make a dick so big not even he can suck it?No, but religious folk can.
Ok, so we have two cocksuckers in the group. We can leave them in the corner to do their thing. Enjoy that big cock, you two!
The question of whether or not God could create a rock too heavy for him to lift is a bit more interesting. Is omnipotence necessarily a permanent condition? I don't think so. I think God could relieve himself of his powers, if we wanted. Or he could simply create one obstacle that he could not overcome, as in the rock example, and he would still be nearly omnipotent, but not quite.
The question of whether or not God could create a rock too heavy for him to lift is a bit more interesting. Is omnipotence necessarily a permanent condition? I don't think so. I think God could relieve himself of his powers, if we wanted. Or he could simply create one obstacle that he could not overcome, as in the rock example, and he would still be nearly omnipotent, but not quite.
The question of whether or not God could create a rock too heavy for him to lift is a bit more interesting. Is omnipotence necessarily a permanent condition? I don't think so. I think God could relieve himself of his powers, if we wanted. Or he could simply create one obstacle that he could not overcome, as in the rock example, and he would still be nearly omnipotent, but not quite.
What if God did indeed create a rock too large for him to control, but the rock was actually the universe which explains why he seems mostly absent from it?
*keanu reeves*
I don't understand how God simply making his presence known to modern humans would turn us all into robots. Care to elaborate on this point?
https://newmatilda.com/2014/10/28/melissa-parke-breaks-labor-ranks-back-bds-campaign-against-israel
tl;dr sole Labor MP criticizes Israel and expresses support for http://www.bdsmovement.net/. Gets called anti-semitic.
Is she right or wrong?
She sounds like a whiny little bitch.
I don't understand how God simply making his presence known to modern humans would turn us all into robots. Care to elaborate on this point?Well, it would certainly deny our free will, at least to a point. If God were literally standing over us as the Divine Taskmaster, forcing us to obey, would that not be a loss of free will?
I don't understand how God simply making his presence known to modern humans would turn us all into robots. Care to elaborate on this point?Well, it would certainly deny our free will, at least to a point. If God were literally standing over us as the Divine Taskmaster, forcing us to obey, would that not be a loss of free will?
We more than likely do not have free will whether there is a god or not, so that is moot, but it is important to note that there is a big difference between "making your presence known" and being a "Divine Taskmaster[sic], forcing us to obey".
I'm pretty sure god is already portrayed as a divine taskmaster, regardless. You're rewarded for obeying and punished for getting out of line.
As I have indicated before, not all Jews even believe in an Afterlife. So your point is a non-point, except perhaps for the one on top of your head.
I don't understand how God simply making his presence known to modern humans would turn us all into robots. Care to elaborate on this point?Well, it would certainly deny our free will, at least to a point. If God were literally standing over us as the Divine Taskmaster, forcing us to obey, would that not be a loss of free will?
We more than likely do not have free will whether there is a god or not, so that is moot, but it is important to note that there is a big difference between "making your presence known" and being a "Divine Taskmaster[sic], forcing us to obey".
I don't know how you come up with the idea that we more than likely do not have free will, but ok.
Some of us, of course, would argue that God makes his presence known in many ways, practically every day.
Have you ever watched the cycle of life from birth to maturity in a bird's nest? Or observed a caterpillar become a butterfly? You see, to those of us who believe that there is no way this all occurred by accident, these are examples of God's presence.
One could take it further. Ever have miracles happen to you personally? Ever live when you should not have? I know I have. Ever survive against all odds, when you know damned well you should have paid the piper?
These are signs that God is with us. Now, you are going to argue with me, and that is fine. Go ahead. Remember, the reason God does not make himself directly known to Jews today is because the prophecy departed from Israel after Malachi. As far as other nations and peoples, I neither know nor care whether he has made himself known to them or not.
But, whether he has or not, remember that Jews were chosen of God to be a Royal Priesthood set apart unto the nations. We are a priesthood people, chosen to bring monotheism to the world. So, even if other nations have had revelations from God, they have not been along the level that we have had.
We are especially dedicated to being the intercessors between God and man. I encourage you all to read Zechariah chapter 8 for more references on this.
As I have indicated before, not all Jews even believe in an Afterlife. So your point is a non-point, except perhaps for the one on top of your head.
I don't care what you want. She's an anti-Semitic, uninformed, useless "Palestinian"-bought political whore. And the website you listed on the so-called bdsmovement is even more indication of stupid is as stupid does. Since "Palestinians" are not citizens of Israel, they do not have the rights of citizens, making any comparisons to apartheid disingenuous at best. And I LOVE the genocide accusation. 47 years and they have multiplied by four times! Wow! Jews must really suck at genocide!
So in conclusion, she's an ass-hat. Nothing more need be said.
I don't understand how God simply making his presence known to modern humans would turn us all into robots. Care to elaborate on this point?
Well, it would certainly deny our free will, at least to a point. If God were literally standing over us as the Divine Taskmaster, forcing us to obey, would that not be a loss of free will?
If Jews were meant to bring monotheism to the world, why did Christians do it a million times better while Jews don't even want others to join?
Also, yes Jews suck at genocide. You couldn't even wipe out one group of people during the bronze age. They vanished from evolution. Jews are slower than evolution.
As I have indicated before, not all Jews even believe in an Afterlife. So your point is a non-point, except perhaps for the one on top of your head.
Is this some kind of point? Is there an afterlife or not?
I don't understand how God simply making his presence known to modern humans would turn us all into robots. Care to elaborate on this point?Well, it would certainly deny our free will, at least to a point. If God were literally standing over us as the Divine Taskmaster, forcing us to obey, would that not be a loss of free will?
We more than likely do not have free will whether there is a god or not, so that is moot, but it is important to note that there is a big difference between "making your presence known" and being a "Divine Taskmaster[sic], forcing us to obey".
I don't know how you come up with the idea that we more than likely do not have free will, but ok.
Neuroscientific studies, mostly through fMRI have shown that our perception of making a choice is mostly artificial and that we make decisions well before we think we do, often whole seconds in advance. There is some interesting reading around this.
I suspect there is some severe misreading of data going on. We still have A LOT of study to do yet before we truly comprehend the human brain, and even more before we comprehend the connection between brain and mind. So until that work is done, I'll take these tests with a grain of salt.QuoteSome of us, of course, would argue that God makes his presence known in many ways, practically every day.
Have you ever watched the cycle of life from birth to maturity in a bird's nest? Or observed a caterpillar become a butterfly? You see, to those of us who believe that there is no way this all occurred by accident, these are examples of God's presence.
Right, we call you folks Creationists and wonder why you ignore all the evidence for evolution.
I never said I was a creationist. It would take an ASS to ASS-ume that.QuoteOne could take it further. Ever have miracles happen to you personally? Ever live when you should not have? I know I have. Ever survive against all odds, when you know damned well you should have paid the piper?
I am extremely suspicious of your ability to discern when you "should have paid the piper". You likely have massive cognitive gaps between what happened and what was likely to happen. I mean, can you tell me what the actual odds of you living were? Is it more or less likely than say, winning the lottery? Because that happens extremely regularly and I am willing to wager that incidences likely to cause human fatality happen much more frquently, only increasing the odds that something unlikely happens. It would be a miracle if nothing unlikely ever happened, moreso than something unlikely happening.QuoteThese are signs that God is with us. Now, you are going to argue with me, and that is fine. Go ahead. Remember, the reason God does not make himself directly known to Jews today is because the prophecy departed from Israel after Malachi. As far as other nations and peoples, I neither know nor care whether he has made himself known to them or not.
What are the signs apart from what you have mentioned previously in this post?QuoteBut, whether he has or not, remember that Jews were chosen of God to be a Royal Priesthood set apart unto the nations. We are a priesthood people, chosen to bring monotheism to the world. So, even if other nations have had revelations from God, they have not been along the level that we have had.
Ooook. Other than thinking that is a pretty narcissistic and solipsistic comment, I am not sure what to make of it. You know that every religion claims to have the privileged relationship with their God, so in that respect you are as special as every other religious sect.
That comment is simply irrelevant.QuoteWe are especially dedicated to being the intercessors between God and man. I encourage you all to read Zechariah chapter 8 for more references on this.
I hope that works out for you. If there is a God, I could care less if he chose you to intercede on my behalf.
Also irrelevant.If you have knowledge of a horrific event about to take place and do nothing about it doesn't that make you partially responsible for its occurrence, particularly if it is within your power to stop it? Wouldn't that make God partially responsible for a lot of atrocities due to his omnipotence and omnipresence?
An interesting thought, no doubt. But again, I think you run into the problem of denial of free will. But Duck, I think you have at least hit on something that is worthy of thought, unlike the rest of the babblers in here. I'm a bit more impressed by you than by the rest. Good work.I don't understand how God simply making his presence known to modern humans would turn us all into robots. Care to elaborate on this point?
Well, it would certainly deny our free will, at least to a point. If God were literally standing over us as the Divine Taskmaster, forcing us to obey, would that not be a loss of free will?
It's true, Moses had no free will.
I don't think that was quite the situation. But, it is interesting that you put it in that way. Before the Burning Bush, Moses did protest to God that he could not do what God asked of him because he was "slow of speech and slow of tongue". God basically told him to shut up, and that he would send Aaron his brother along to help. So, I suppose it really depends on how you take all that. Calvin would have said that we had no free will. Luther would have equivocated a bit. But Jews have never doubted that man has free will.
You assume that neuroscientists are misreading their data? Why is that? Is it the published papers that make you think that or is it that it doesn't mesh with your worldview?
I am suggesting they are misreading data because anyone in that field, a very new one, might be. It is of VERY recent introduction in science, and is getting its feet wet still. It still has a LONG way to go before it can claim to have even the accuracy of psychiatry, which itself is still very inexact.
It is not a very big assumption to call you a creationist. You are probably an Old Earth Creationist. Anyone who believes God created the cosmos is a creationist by definition. Thanks for calling me an ass for no reason though.
Actually, I do believe in micro-evolution, at least to a point. So, yes, you are an ass-hat for assuming (there is that word again) that I would not. I don't believe that we all evolved from primordial slime, but I do believe that within species, things do evolve. That doesn't mean I was once a monkey. But that does means that Homo sapiens sapiens are not the only ones to be in the family Homo. I'm no genius with the scientific aspects of things, and never claimed to be, but I am not a Creationist in the pajorative sense that you are using the word. And no, believing in a deity does not automatically make one a creationist.
My comments you deemed as irrelevant only seem that way because I was addressing your bizarre diatribe about how special Hews are. It's awkward talking to people when they spout off like that.
Again, I recommend reading the 8th Chapter of Zechariah.
Neuroscience is a different field than psychiatry so I would not compare the exactitude of the two sciences. I have heard the difference described as neuroscience examining a film projector and psychiatry examining the image.
Exactly. But my point is still well made. Neither science is very far advanced at present time. Neuroscience and psychiatry both cannot (yet) comprehend where the mind ends and the brain begins. Until they can...
I am not sure how you can deny macro evolution and believe micro evolution. Macro evolution is just micro occurring for so many generations that it build up to a large change. FYI, we did not evolve from monkeys. Look up Nearest Common Ancestor.
I am well aware that we did not evolve from monkeys, thank you. I wasn't sure if you were. I am pleased to know that at least you have that much in the way of brains.
It's especially awkward when you justify your specialness by an ancient book written by barbarians.
That was simply a stupid thing to say. Given that the Bible has inspired men throughout the centuries to far greater things than you or I will ever accomplish in life, and given that your beloved UN uses it for quotations on the walls, methinks that you make an ass of yourself. I shan't deny that especially early in the text, there is some pretty barbaric stuff in there, but as I have said numerous times (I realise you have trouble reading, evidently), by the time you reach toward the end of the text, God has become a universal God of all people, and the Jews have come to realise that and speak of him in those terms. Anyone who can't see the glory of the Psalms, or the wisdom of the Proverbs, of the sobriety of Ecclesiastes, is simply a fool. Grow up.
Neither science is very far advanced at present time. Neuroscience and psychiatry both cannot (yet) comprehend where the mind ends and the brain begins. Until they can..
I am well aware that we did not evolve from monkeys, thank you. I wasn't sure if you were. I am pleased to know that at least you have that much in the way of brains.
I can cite hundreds of examples in the bible where god punishes people for not doing what he told them to do. If that isn't a taskmaster in your mind, then what is?
Neither science is very far advanced at present time. Neuroscience and psychiatry both cannot (yet) comprehend where the mind ends and the brain begins. Until they can..
The mind and the brain are the same thing (and are in fact synonyms). What exactly are you getting at?
Actually, though they are used that way in English familiar speech, take a philosophy of mind course, and you will learn that the mind is the thing, the soul, if you will. The brain is the physical object that in some way houses the mind.I am well aware that we did not evolve from monkeys, thank you. I wasn't sure if you were. I am pleased to know that at least you have that much in the way of brains.
This is due to a misunderstanding of evolution. Through evolution we share a common ancestor with monkeys, we did not evolve from monkeys.
Also, you never answered my question:I can cite hundreds of examples in the bible where god punishes people for not doing what he told them to do. If that isn't a taskmaster in your mind, then what is?
And you at least have hit upon a point. God DOES indeed punish people for disobedience to the divine will in Scripture. I'm not so sure that makes him a taskmaster in the eternal sense, but it certainly does in the human sense of things. As to how to reconcile that with free will, well, that is a damn good question, and at present, I haven't got an answer for you. I'll have to consider that one a bit.
Actually, though they are used that way in English familiar speech, take a philosophy of mind course, and you will learn that the mind is the thing, the soul, if you will. The brain is the physical object that in some way houses the mind.
Actually, though they are used that way in English familiar speech, take a philosophy of mind course, and you will learn that the mind is the thing, the soul, if you will. The brain is the physical object that in some way houses the mind.
You weren't talking about abstract philosophies, but about neuroscience and psychology. You referred to "where the brain end and mind begins" and the answer is that they are the same thing. One doesn't begin in a separate place than the other.
Neuroscience is a different field than psychiatry so I would not compare the exactitude of the two sciences. I have heard the difference described as neuroscience examining a film projector and psychiatry examining the image.
Exactly. But my point is still well made. Neither science is very far advanced at present time. Neuroscience and psychiatry both cannot (yet) comprehend where the mind ends and the brain begins. Until they can...
You sound like you don't know much about the state of neuroscience. While it is a new science, they know that certain areas of the brain are activated when making a decision and that this can be seen to occur up to 6 seconds before a subject believes they have made a decision.QuoteI am not sure how you can deny macro evolution and believe micro evolution. Macro evolution is just micro occurring for so many generations that it build up to a large change. FYI, we did not evolve from monkeys. Look up Nearest Common Ancestor.
I am well aware that we did not evolve from monkeys, thank you. I wasn't sure if you were. I am pleased to know that at least you have that much in the way of brains.
Are you trying to get your alt banned as well? How can you deny macro evolution when it is nothing more than the cumulation of micro evolutionary changes? FYI, supporting the micro and denying the macro is a classic Creationist stance. You have more in common than you think!QuoteIt's especially awkward when you justify your specialness by an ancient book written by barbarians.
That was simply a stupid thing to say. Given that the Bible has inspired men throughout the centuries to far greater things than you or I will ever accomplish in life, and given that your beloved UN uses it for quotations on the walls, methinks that you make an ass of yourself. I shan't deny that especially early in the text, there is some pretty barbaric stuff in there, but as I have said numerous times (I realise you have trouble reading, evidently), by the time you reach toward the end of the text, God has become a universal God of all people, and the Jews have come to realise that and speak of him in those terms. Anyone who can't see the glory of the Psalms, or the wisdom of the Proverbs, of the sobriety of Ecclesiastes, is simply a fool. Grow up.
. Please make it easier for people to respond to your diatribes.
I don't think you can separate the two. Philosophy and science DO interconnect.
The brain and the mind are NOT the same thing. Descartes, the great mathematician and philosopher would have disagreed with you as well.
Neuroscience is a different field than psychiatry so I would not compare the exactitude of the two sciences. I have heard the difference described as neuroscience examining a film projector and psychiatry examining the image.
Exactly. But my point is still well made. Neither science is very far advanced at present time. Neuroscience and psychiatry both cannot (yet) comprehend where the mind ends and the brain begins. Until they can...
I am not sure how you can deny macro evolution and believe micro evolution. Macro evolution is just micro occurring for so many generations that it build up to a large change. FYI, we did not evolve from monkeys. Look up Nearest Common Ancestor.
I am well aware that we did not evolve from monkeys, thank you. I wasn't sure if you were. I am pleased to know that at least you have that much in the way of brains.
It's especially awkward when you justify your specialness by an ancient book written by barbarians.
That was simply a stupid thing to say. Given that the Bible has inspired men throughout the centuries to far greater things than you or I will ever accomplish in life, and given that your beloved UN uses it for quotations on the walls, methinks that you make an ass of yourself. I shan't deny that especially early in the text, there is some pretty barbaric stuff in there, but as I have said numerous times (I realise you have trouble reading, evidently), by the time you reach toward the end of the text, God has become a universal God of all people, and the Jews have come to realise that and speak of him in those terms. Anyone who can't see the glory of the Psalms, or the wisdom of the Proverbs, of the sobriety of Ecclesiastes, is simply a fool. Grow up.
I don't think you can separate the two. Philosophy and science DO interconnect.
Not really. Philosophy is all about "why?" and science is all about "how?" The simply matter that they don't interconnect is the reason that (despite what some think) you can easily hold a religious preference and a career in science.The brain and the mind are NOT the same thing. Descartes, the great mathematician and philosopher would have disagreed with you as well.
Descartes wouldn't be able to tell me what a neuron is. I doubt his opinion is relevant to the subject.
PS If you can underline everything you can easily parse your quotes. It is pretty much the same process. When you want to close the quotes on the section you wish to respond to you write and when you wish to continue quoting someone's text you write [ quote]. Please make it easier for people to respond to your diatribes.
Descartes was a shmuck. There is no evidence to suggest that any neural process is a product of anything other than purely physical interactions.
I don't think you can separate the two. Philosophy and science DO interconnect.
Not really. Philosophy is all about "why?" and science is all about "how?" The simply matter that they don't interconnect is the reason that (despite what some think) you can easily hold a religious preference and a career in science.The brain and the mind are NOT the same thing. Descartes, the great mathematician and philosopher would have disagreed with you as well.
Descartes wouldn't be able to tell me what a neuron is. I doubt his opinion is relevant to the subject.
This is evidenced by the fact that we can completely interrupt cognitive processes by damaging specific parts of the brain. There is no doubt that whatever consciousness is, it is a process of the brain.
It IS a process of the brain. That much is obvious. But exactly what PART of the brain?
Which came first: the flood that wiped out all but a dozen (sic) [there were eight] humans and a boat load of animals or Moses getting the Torah?
It IS a process of the brain. That much is obvious. But exactly what PART of the brain?
Well the easiest answer is that all parts of the brain have at least some impact on all neural processes. Some areas do deal more with certain processes than others (e.g. the hippocampus and memory) but in general damaging any part of the brain is a no-no. It becomes difficult to narrow parts of the brain down because the brain isn't organized into neat little compartments like your computer. The electrical, chemical, and physical connections of the billions of neurons make for a rather complex subject to study. The processes are so complex that we can't simulate neurons in a virtual environment. There is currently some progress in simulating the brain of a worm (which has something in the range of 50 neurons) and that is still having trouble. The progress never stops, though, and it is only a matter of time to when neurologists can completely simulate a neuron environment and accurately predict what drives various processes.
If all 8 people repopulated the Earth, doesn't that mean that everyone is descended from them? Including Jews and the Alemakites (sp?). And Moses?Which came first: the flood that wiped out all but a dozen (sic) [there were eight] humans and a boat load of animals or Moses getting the Torah?
Well, the Flood did in terms of time, of course. Moses himself could not receive the Torah until he was himself alive, and he was alive AFTER the Flood. But you ask an interesting question that the Rabbis dealt with in interesting ways. How exactly did Moses get the Torah? Some believe the standard facile answer. He wrote it as it occurred, except for the last eight verses, which he may have written foretelling his own death, or Joshua wrote those.
However, the Rabbis suggested how the Torah came into being itself. "According to a Midrash, the Torah was created prior to the creation of the world, and was used as the blueprint for Creation."[3] source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah
So in terms of MOSES getting the Torah, the Flood came first. But in terms of which came first, the Flood or the Torah, the Torah did.
Now, Rama Set, repeating yourself simply isn't nice.
If all 8 people repopulated the Earth, doesn't that mean that everyone is descended from them? Including Jews and the Alemakites (sp?). And Moses?Which came first: the flood that wiped out all but a dozen (sic) [there were eight] humans and a boat load of animals or Moses getting the Torah?
Well, the Flood did in terms of time, of course. Moses himself could not receive the Torah until he was himself alive, and he was alive AFTER the Flood. But you ask an interesting question that the Rabbis dealt with in interesting ways. How exactly did Moses get the Torah? Some believe the standard facile answer. He wrote it as it occurred, except for the last eight verses, which he may have written foretelling his own death, or Joshua wrote those.
However, the Rabbis suggested how the Torah came into being itself. "According to a Midrash, the Torah was created prior to the creation of the world, and was used as the blueprint for Creation."[3] source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah
So in terms of MOSES getting the Torah, the Flood came first. But in terms of which came first, the Flood or the Torah, the Torah did.
And you mentioned the Noahites laws. Did they come about before the Torah too?
Now, Rama Set, repeating yourself simply isn't nice.
I re asked a question because you dodged it before, so I will ask it again:
How can you believe in micro-evolution but not macro-evolution which is merely an extension of the micro-evolutionary process?
1. How long between Noah's flood and the genocide command? Roughly?
2. When did God give the Noah laws to people? (The ones non-jews follow)
Most significantly, Maimonides contends that the Jewish nation can never launch a war with any nation (uniquely including Amalek and the seven Canaanite nations together) without first offering "a call to peace,"(keri'a l'shalom). If in this call to peace, the seven Noahide laws are accepted and peace is made, then no war is required (Hilkhot Melachim 6:1).
I re asked a question because you dodged it before, so I will ask it again:
How can you believe in micro-evolution but not macro-evolution which is merely an extension of the micro-evolutionary process?
It depends on how you are using the word "microevolution'. Allow me to elaborate. I do not believe that a cat can become a dog. But I do believe that a lower species of cat can become a higher, more intelligent species of cat. Because I don't classify myself as a creationist, but only as a traditional Jew, I realise that the story of Creation can be understood in numerous ways.
I certainly believe that God created the universe. I think that denial of that is just plain stupid.
But no, I am not for these Fundamentalist ideas that go in for a literal reading of Genesis.
Now, if you want my own reading of Genesis, consider the following. The Sun, the Moon, and the Stars were not created until the Fourth Day. So, given that to be the case, the length of a day could not be necessarily calculated to 24 hour periods without the sun, now could it? The length of the first four days could have been any length at all! This allows for all kinds of things to happen in terms of the scientific, the rise and fall of dinosaurs, etc. if Earth were on a clock, Humans would occupy that clock at 11.59 pm of that clock after the 23.58 hrs had been spent by the rest of Earth's history. So, might the Garden of Eden story be true? It might. Or there might be other explanations of Genesis that would be equally valid. I am open to conversation on the matter.
By the way, if you want to call me an Old Earth Creationist, that is your business. It is my business to deny such a title. So, to each his own.
Most significantly, Maimonides contends that the Jewish nation can never launch a war with any nation (uniquely including Amalek and the seven Canaanite nations together) without first offering "a call to peace,"(keri'a l'shalom). If in this call to peace, the seven Noahide laws are accepted and peace is made, then no war is required (Hilkhot Melachim 6:1).
That's a pretty big misnomer. This isn't asking for peace, it is asking for surrender.
I re asked a question because you dodged it before, so I will ask it again:
How can you believe in micro-evolution but not macro-evolution which is merely an extension of the micro-evolutionary process?
It depends on how you are using the word "microevolution'. Allow me to elaborate. I do not believe that a cat can become a dog. But I do believe that a lower species of cat can become a higher, more intelligent species of cat. Because I don't classify myself as a creationist, but only as a traditional Jew, I realise that the story of Creation can be understood in numerous ways.
Do you believe that the changes in micro evolution can accumulate over time? Say, a cat's nose becomes longer, its legs and tail shorter, it takes on a taste for ants because of its ecology and they develop progressively longer tongues to eat ants from their ant hills?
I certainly believe that God created the universe. I think that denial of that is just plain stupid.
Why stupid? Is anyone who disagrees with you automatically stupid?
But no, I am not for these Fundamentalist ideas that go in for a literal reading of Genesis.
Now, if you want my own reading of Genesis, consider the following. The Sun, the Moon, and the Stars were not created until the Fourth Day. So, given that to be the case, the length of a day could not be necessarily calculated to 24 hour periods without the sun, now could it? The length of the first four days could have been any length at all! This allows for all kinds of things to happen in terms of the scientific, the rise and fall of dinosaurs, etc. if Earth were on a clock, Humans would occupy that clock at 11.59 pm of that clock after the 23.58 hrs had been spent by the rest of Earth's history. So, might the Garden of Eden story be true? It might. Or there might be other explanations of Genesis that would be equally valid. I am open to conversation on the matter.
By the way, if you want to call me an Old Earth Creationist, that is your business. It is my business to deny such a title. So, to each his own.
I am inclined to agree, but your ideas about God are. And every uninformed, dipshit thing you have said about Judaism is. You brown nose Richard Dawkins so well its not surprising that you're an anti-Semitic little Nazi of a man.
I read them and... Basic morality means servitude to God? Because the whole idol and blasphomy thing kinda turns me off.Most significantly, Maimonides contends that the Jewish nation can never launch a war with any nation (uniquely including Amalek and the seven Canaanite nations together) without first offering "a call to peace,"(keri'a l'shalom). If in this call to peace, the seven Noahide laws are accepted and peace is made, then no war is required (Hilkhot Melachim 6:1).
That's a pretty big misnomer. This isn't asking for peace, it is asking for surrender.
It is hardly asking for surrender to expect people to live by basic laws of civility. if you can't even manage to do that, then you don't deserve to exist, to be quite blunt. Look up the Noahide Laws in Wikipedia. They don't ask for much.
It is hardly asking for surrender to expect people to live by basic laws of civility. if you can't even manage to do that, then you don't deserve to exist, to be quite blunt. Look up the Noahide Laws in Wikipedia. They don't ask for much.
1.The prohibition of idolatry.
2.The prohibition of murder.
3.The prohibition of theft.
4.The prohibition of sexual immorality.
5.The prohibition of blasphemy.
6.The prohibition of eating flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive
7.The requirement of maintaining courts to provide legal recourse.
.
No, I don't believe that cats can turn into anteaters, if that is your suggestion.
No. But anyone who thinks the Earth got here by random chance strikes me as a bit stupid, and anyone who thinks the Earth got here by NON-randomness, and yet without a creator, strikes me as incredibly stupid.
I think we get a little storm-tossed in all our names for people. Call me whatever you want to call me. Do I believe that the Earth is 6000 years old? No.
Is it crazy to say Hitler was just misunderstood?
Quote1.The prohibition of idolatry.QuoteNo worshipping your own gods, surrender or die.
I'm not sure you're completely understanding that. It calls for monotheism. It does NOT specifically call for worshipping the God of Judaism. Although that would be ideal, Christians would qualify as being monotheistic, as would Muslims, and possibly some Hindus.Quote2.The prohibition of murder.
3.The prohibition of theft.QuoteI find it difficult to imagine the civilisations they were subjugating didn't have these already.
You may be right on that point.Quote4.The prohibition of sexual immorality.QuoteAh, the endless question about what this means. Does it just mean cheating? Sex ouside of marriage? Sex other than for procreation? Interracial/tribal/religion sex? Homosexuality? Female as the dominant partner?
Have sex how and when we tell you, surrender or die.
Given that the Hebrew Scriptures do not in any way forbid homosexuality, that point is irrelevant. We can discuss that point more thoroughly later.Quote5.The prohibition of blasphemy.
See 1Quote6.The prohibition of eating flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive
7.The requirement of maintaining courts to provide legal recourse.
.
Fair enough.
No, I don't believe that cats can turn into anteaters, if that is your suggestion.QuoteSpecifically then, what sorts of changes are possible in your interpretation of micro-evolution?
I am inclined to believe that animals within their species and subspecies can evolve. A cat can evolve into a different, more intelligent cat. But no, a cat cannot become a different type of species. As far as birds and dinosaurs, I have heard that there is some relationship there. I would need to know more before I could comment.QuoteNo. But anyone who thinks the Earth got here by random chance strikes me as a bit stupid, and anyone who thinks the Earth got here by NON-randomness, and yet without a creator, strikes me as incredibly stupid.QuoteI got that, I wanted to know why?
Because either is essentially impossible. As a former bookie I know that the chances of either occurring aren't something that any bookie would even consider laying odds on.QuoteI think we get a little storm-tossed in all our names for people. Call me whatever you want to call me. Do I believe that the Earth is 6000 years old? No.
Old Earth Creationists do not believe that.
Are jews allowed to drink alcohol and get drunk?
Is it crazy to say Hitler was just misunderstood?
Is it crazy to say Hitler was just misunderstood?
No. Hitler did nothing wrong.
Well, not really. Tel Aviv has a very busy gay nightlife, from what I am given to understand, and one of the largest gay pride parades in countries under Western influence.
And the Orthodox are being dragged into reality. Their exemption from military service is being reconsidered as we speak. It is likely that within five years or less, they will be obligated to serve in the military like every other Jew is, and as the Druze are (at the request of their own community's leadership). And more and more pressure is being put on the Israeli State to recognise non-Orthodox strains of Judaism as well. It hasn't happened yet, but I think it will, within about 10 years. And IMNSHO, it can't happen soon enough.
Recommendation: Before opening your yap, get your data straight.
I'm not sure you're completely understanding that. It calls for monotheism. It does NOT specifically call for worshipping the God of Judaism. Although that would be ideal, Christians would qualify as being monotheistic, as would Muslims, and possibly some Hindus.
Given that the Hebrew Scriptures do not in any way forbid homosexuality, that point is irrelevant. We can discuss that point more thoroughly later.
[Blasphemy Law]
See 1
I am inclined to believe that animals within their species and subspecies can evolve. A cat can evolve into a different, more intelligent cat. But no, a cat cannot become a different type of species. As far as birds and dinosaurs, I have heard that there is some relationship there. I would need to know more before I could comment.
Stop trying to play mental gymnastics.
Well, not really. Tel Aviv has a very busy gay nightlife, from what I am given to understand, and one of the largest gay pride parades in countries under Western influence.
And the Orthodox are being dragged into reality. Their exemption from military service is being reconsidered as we speak. It is likely that within five years or less, they will be obligated to serve in the military like every other Jew is, and as the Druze are (at the request of their own community's leadership). And more and more pressure is being put on the Israeli State to recognise non-Orthodox strains of Judaism as well. It hasn't happened yet, but I think it will, within about 10 years. And IMNSHO, it can't happen soon enough.
Recommendation: Before opening your yap, get your data straight.
I meant the religious mainstream. Regardless, your contention that "...the Hebrew Scriptures do not in any way forbid homosexuality, that point is irrelevant." is demonstrably false. So much for your attempted high ground on getting data straight, you can't do that within the religion you supposedly follow so fervently. Furthermore, there are more than one form of so-called sexual immorality that could be imposed upon a people that are not particularly immoral. I would say that imposition of this Noahide law would be a call to surrender after all.
I'm not sure you're completely understanding that. It calls for monotheism. It does NOT specifically call for worshipping the God of Judaism. Although that would be ideal, Christians would qualify as being monotheistic, as would Muslims, and possibly some Hindus.QuoteIt doesn't call for monotheism, it says specifically "no idolatry" which means no worship of idols [that are not the jewish god]. It basically means only atheists are reasonably following this law. A Christian, for example, worships Christ before God (because in Christianity Christ is literally God) so that would actually be idolatry under Judaism.
You would think so. But, Jewish theologians have generally accorded Christianity a place among the monotheisms of the world.Given that the Hebrew Scriptures do not in any way forbid homosexuality, that point is irrelevant. We can discuss that point more thoroughly later.QuoteThen what exactly does it define as "sexual immorality"? That's an awfully vague thing to make a law about.
Sexual immorality can be defined by a lot of things. If you want a full definition, I would try a good dictionary on Jewish halacha. Of course, the best source is the Jewish Scripture, obviously.[Blasphemy Law]
See 1QuoteYou're still demanding people not make fun of your religion or you'll kill them. That isn't even remotely what peace is.
Most civilised beings try not to insult any religions. I understand, of course, that atheists are generally less than civilised.I am inclined to believe that animals within their species and subspecies can evolve. A cat can evolve into a different, more intelligent cat. But no, a cat cannot become a different type of species. As far as birds and dinosaurs, I have heard that there is some relationship there. I would need to know more before I could comment.QuoteThis doesn't make any sense. You're saying you believe evolution and then following it up with saying you don't believe evolution. The mechanics aren't different between the evolution of a species and the overall change of one species to the next. You either accept the evidence that life can evolve or you don't. Stop trying to play mental gymnastics, it hurts more than it helps.
I am inclined to disagree with you, and the statement about mental gymnastics approaches the ad hominem. It simply indicates a puerile nature in yourself.Stop trying to play mental gymnastics.
Well that was generous.
Also indicative of a puerile nature in yourself.
You would think so. But, Jewish theologians have generally accorded Christianity a place among the monotheisms of the world.
Most civilised beings try not to insult any religions. I understand, of course, that atheists are generally less than civilised.
I am inclined to disagree with you, and the statement about mental gymnastics approaches the ad hominem. It simply indicates a puerile nature in yourself.
You would think so. But, Jewish theologians have generally accorded Christianity a place among the monotheisms of the world.QuoteWhere are you getting that we're discussing monotheism? Idolatry has nothing to do with how many gods a religion has.
Judaism and Islam, the predominant monotheisms, also forbid idolatry. Christianity does to a point as well, and it is a monotheism as well, albeit a bit strange with that Trinity business.Most civilised beings try not to insult any religions. I understand, of course, that atheists are generally less than civilised.QuoteHaha, okay, at least you admit freedom of speech is not a freedom Judaism believes in.
I admit nothing the sort. I merely acknowledge that it is uncivilised to insult a person's religion. Atheists are the only people who generally do that. They tend toward the uncivilised.I am inclined to disagree with you, and the statement about mental gymnastics approaches the ad hominem. It simply indicates a puerile nature in yourself.QuoteOkay. You simply say "I disagree" and then insult me. At least I explained why you're wrong before I insulted you. May I also suggest you take a biology course at some point in your lifetime.
I have taken a couple. Your point?
Time for bed. See you tomorrow.
Judaism and Islam, the predominant monotheisms, also forbid idolatry. Christianity does to a point as well, and it is a monotheism as well, albeit a bit strange with that Trinity business.
I admit nothing the sort. I merely acknowledge that it is uncivilised to insult a person's religion. Atheists are the only people who generally do that. They tend toward the uncivilised.
I have taken a couple. Your point?
Well, not really. Tel Aviv has a very busy gay nightlife, from what I am given to understand, and one of the largest gay pride parades in countries under Western influence.
And the Orthodox are being dragged into reality. Their exemption from military service is being reconsidered as we speak. It is likely that within five years or less, they will be obligated to serve in the military like every other Jew is, and as the Druze are (at the request of their own community's leadership). And more and more pressure is being put on the Israeli State to recognise non-Orthodox strains of Judaism as well. It hasn't happened yet, but I think it will, within about 10 years. And IMNSHO, it can't happen soon enough.
Recommendation: Before opening your yap, get your data straight.
I meant the religious mainstream. Regardless, your contention that "...the Hebrew Scriptures do not in any way forbid homosexuality, that point is irrelevant." is demonstrably false. So much for your attempted high ground on getting data straight, you can't do that within the religion you supposedly follow so fervently. Furthermore, there are more than one form of so-called sexual immorality that could be imposed upon a people that are not particularly immoral. I would say that imposition of this Noahide law would be a call to surrender after all.
If it is demonstrably false, you have to demonstrate that it is false. The Orthodox have failed to do that. I admit, my views on the subject are at present deemed "liberal'. But I don't think they will be for long. And in terms of Judaism imposing much of anything in that respect, I don't think that anyone would have to worry, for the simple reason that Jews engage in pilpul just for the sake of it. You know the old joke. When you have four Jews in a room, you have five opinions. So, no, I wouldn't think there would be a call for surrender at all.
I admit nothing the sort. I merely acknowledge that it is uncivilised to insult a person's religion. Atheists are the only people who generally do that. They tend toward the uncivilised.
Judaism and Islam, the predominant monotheisms, also forbid idolatry. Christianity does to a point as well, and it is a monotheism as well, albeit a bit strange with that Trinity business.QuoteExcept they all forbid idolatry before their god. And no, their god is not your god. To a Muslim, the Jewish and Christian gods are false idols. To a Christian, both Muslims and Jews worship a false idol. And yes, to Jews (except you, apparently) Muslims and Christians worship false idols.
THIS IS FUN. Actually, Most Muslims and Jews and Christians tend to acknowledge that each is worshipping essentially the same Deity. Arabic speaking Christians, for example, use the word "Allah' to refer to the First Person of the Trinity, "God the Father". Arabic speaking Jews have been known to use the term to refer to Adonai the Lord, since we do not use the Personal Name of God. So, thank you for making yourself look like a schmuck.I admit nothing the sort. I merely acknowledge that it is uncivilised to insult a person's religion. Atheists are the only people who generally do that. They tend toward the uncivilised.QuoteSo you agree that a law against blasphemy is dumb, then? I feel like I'm arguing with an agnostic more than a Jew, you never outright state anything.
I didn't say that either. In fact, I think the only people uncivilised enough to commit deliberate blasphemy are the atheists.I have taken a couple. Your point?
I'll make it simple. Do you believe DNA mutates? Yes/No.
Well, not really. Tel Aviv has a very busy gay nightlife, from what I am given to understand, and one of the largest gay pride parades in countries under Western influence.
And the Orthodox are being dragged into reality. Their exemption from military service is being reconsidered as we speak. It is likely that within five years or less, they will be obligated to serve in the military like every other Jew is, and as the Druze are (at the request of their own community's leadership). And more and more pressure is being put on the Israeli State to recognise non-Orthodox strains of Judaism as well. It hasn't happened yet, but I think it will, within about 10 years. And IMNSHO, it can't happen soon enough.
Recommendation: Before opening your yap, get your data straight.
I meant the religious mainstream. Regardless, your contention that "...the Hebrew Scriptures do not in any way forbid homosexuality, that point is irrelevant." is demonstrably false. So much for your attempted high ground on getting data straight, you can't do that within the religion you supposedly follow so fervently. Furthermore, there are more than one form of so-called sexual immorality that could be imposed upon a people that are not particularly immoral. I would say that imposition of this Noahide law would be a call to surrender after all.
If it is demonstrably false, you have to demonstrate that it is false. The Orthodox have failed to do that. I admit, my views on the subject are at present deemed "liberal'. But I don't think they will be for long. And in terms of Judaism imposing much of anything in that respect, I don't think that anyone would have to worry, for the simple reason that Jews engage in pilpul just for the sake of it. You know the old joke. When you have four Jews in a room, you have five opinions. So, no, I wouldn't think there would be a call for surrender at all.QuoteEverything I have read, except your own objection, says that the passage in Leviticus is a ban on homosexual sex. This is bolstered by the Oral Law stating that two men shall not engage in sodomy, no matter in a temple or not. The basis of your objection is a bizarre syntax of the sentence whereby the descriptor "abomination" refers to no explicit notion in the sentence, but some shoe-horned caveat that you weakly introduced in your post. In fact, the manner of sex which is banned is homosexual sex! So I have the interpretation of the majority of Jewish thought on my side, and have only your muddled objection barring it.
I think, in this case, you are wrong.
You are of course welcome to think as you wish. And yes, from the Orthodox perspective you are correct. But, the Conservatives and the Reform have both changed their position, and the Orthodox are beginning to consider the matter. I've already said that at present, my views are considered "liberal". I don't dispute that. But I expect that within five to ten years, they will become standard thought within Judaism (and within mainline Christianity as well). In fact, within mainline Protestant Christianity, the Episcopal Church already blesses gay unions, and I expect others to follow. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America already allows the ordination of non-celibate gay ministers (as does the Episcopal Church).I admit nothing the sort. I merely acknowledge that it is uncivilised to insult a person's religion. Atheists are the only people who generally do that. They tend toward the uncivilised.QuoteSo are you an atheist then? There are probably a dozen dozen quotes that could be pulled from this thread where you insult Islam. I imagine this is not the only place you do that either.
I never insult Islam in terms of its theology or its basic beliefs, many of which I happen to agree with. Their beliefs about God happen to be far closer to our own than anybody else's on the planet, pretty much. I insult its tendency to want to blow shit up, and its tendency to want to make everybody be good little Muslims or live as second-class citizens. There is a difference. Schmuck.
Regardless of the last minutiae of detail in the 'no idols/blasphemy/sexual immorality' rules, the fact that you demand that a people accept Jewish interpretation of these rules or be destroyed is a demand for surrender, not peace.
The people of ISIS could argue that they're peaceful by that logic:
"Hey, we're not going to hurt you if you convert to our narrow interpretation of Islam and don't attack us."
Nah, they're cunts to their own followers as well.
You are of course welcome to think as you wish.
And yes, from the Orthodox perspective you are correct. But, the Conservatives and the Reform have both changed their position, and the Orthodox are beginning to consider the matter.
I've already said that at present, my views are considered "liberal". I don't dispute that. But I expect that within five to ten years, they will become standard thought within Judaism (and within mainline Christianity as well). In fact, within mainline Protestant Christianity, the Episcopal Church already blesses gay unions, and I expect others to follow. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America already allows the ordination of non-celibate gay ministers (as does the Episcopal Church).
Oh Yaakov: Evolution has never stated a cat can become a dog. Such a change is magic, not evolution.Don't confuse him.
However, the Dormaalocyon latouri is the common ancestor to the cat and dog. So technically that species could become a cat or a dog. (though it would take many species in between to do it)
Oh Yaakov: Evolution has never stated a cat can become a dog. Such a change is magic, not evolution.Yes it has. Scientists call that convergent evolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution).
Oh Yaakov: Evolution has never stated a cat can become a dog. Such a change is magic, not evolution.Yes it has. Scientists call that convergent evolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution).
No, if a cat and dog indulge in convergent evolution, cats will become dogs. They will be indistinguishable. I'm not saying that happens with cats and dogs, only that evolution theorists do have a fall back for such a ludicrous claim.Oh Yaakov: Evolution has never stated a cat can become a dog. Such a change is magic, not evolution.Yes it has. Scientists call that convergent evolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution).
Convergent evolution describes why so many different creatures have arrived at similar features. Not why a cat can become a dog.
No, if a cat and dog indulge in convergent evolution, cats will become dogs. They will be indistinguishable. I'm not saying that happens with cats and dogs, only that evolution theorists do have a fall back for such a ludicrous claim.Oh Yaakov: Evolution has never stated a cat can become a dog. Such a change is magic, not evolution.Yes it has. Scientists call that convergent evolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution).
Convergent evolution describes why so many different creatures have arrived at similar features. Not why a cat can become a dog.
Convergent evolution describes the independent evolution of similar features in species of different lineages.
Anyone have any tips on how to turn my dog into a cat or vice versa?
Anyone have any tips on how to turn my dog into a cat or vice versa?
You just use convergent evolution. Aren't you paying attention?
By convergent evolution hasn't this already occurred? Cats and dogs both have heightened senses of smell and hearing.
You are of course welcome to think as you wish.
It has nothing to do with what I think, it what the Torah says.QuoteAnd yes, from the Orthodox perspective you are correct. But, the Conservatives and the Reform have both changed their position, and the Orthodox are beginning to consider the matter.QuotePeople can shoehorn the passage all they want, it does not change the fact that the Torah has a ban on homosexual sex and it is supported by the Oral Law.
To be direct, the Torah as directly understood usually forbade sex out of marriage, and since no provision was made for gay marriage, that meant effectively that gay sex wasn't permitted. BUT, and again, that is the key word, you will note that there is no forbidding of women lying with women. If God was forbidding gay sex, wouldn't it have been easier to just say "don't be gay"? I am not arguing how the text was interpreted. I agree that historically, gay sex has been forbidden in Judaism. This is not what is being disputed. What is being disputed is whether GOD forbade it or not. It is my position that the proper interpretation of the text is that he did not. This is also the interpretation of the Conservative (from now on called USCJ) and Reform (from now on called URJ) Movements. The Orthodox are even beginning to ask whether their traditional interpretation of the text is in line with what God intended. In Christianity, the Episcopal Church (from now on called ECUSA) and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (from now on called ELCA) have come to the same conclusion as USCJ and URJ.
The reason Christianity is indeed relevant is simple: Christianity in the United States is 86% of the population. And the mainline churches, of which ECUSA and ELCA have been among the most influential, have all been bouncing ideas off the liberal streams of Judaism since the founding of said movements within Judaism. URJ is considered "Mainline" as far as Judaism goes, in this country. USCJ is essentially also "Mainline". Most Jews in the USA that choose to affiliate with a synagogue or temple do so in one
of these two movements. Orthodoxy accounts for only 10% of American Jews who affiliate. So the Mainline Protestants and the Mainline Judaisms have been bedfellows (even if they haven't wanted to admit it) for the last 150 years or so.QuoteI've already said that at present, my views are considered "liberal". I don't dispute that. But I expect that within five to ten years, they will become standard thought within Judaism (and within mainline Christianity as well). In fact, within mainline Protestant Christianity, the Episcopal Church already blesses gay unions, and I expect others to follow. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America already allows the ordination of non-celibate gay ministers (as does the Episcopal Church).
Irrelevant.
Wouldn't another way to look at the whole "man laying with a man but no mention of women" be that they were largely overlooked at that time. How many women does God speak to in the Bible? I can't think of any off the top of my head, he is always speaking to men. If men are his target audience then it makes sense he wouldn't really mention anything about women. Are there any restrictive laws specifically about woman as there are with men and their beard?
Wouldn't another way to look at the whole "man laying with a man but no mention of women" be that they were largely overlooked at that time. How many women does God speak to in the Bible? I can't think of any off the top of my head, he is always speaking to men. If men are his target audience then it makes sense he wouldn't really mention anything about women. Are there any restrictive laws specifically about woman as there are with men and their beard?
Or...
Lesbians are hot.
So where were we? Any further thoughts on previously posted material? Any questions on new topics relating to Judaism in general, serious inquiries only, please?Why does God give Jews so many rules and everyone else so few?
So let me make sure I understand you:
When God see's humans sinning, he wipes them out. When that doesn't work he takes some of them and gives them a "special" place. When THAT doesn't work he gives them very detailed rules on things like what to eat and how. This made them "Special".
So let me make sure I understand you:
When God see's humans sinning, he wipes them out. When that doesn't work he takes some of them and gives them a "special" place. When THAT doesn't work he gives them very detailed rules on things like what to eat and how. This made them "Special".
Then they started arguing about their "special place" and war broke out. Millions were slaughtered. And more are being killed even as we speak.
You forgot that part.
So let me make sure I understand you:
When God see's humans sinning, he wipes them out. When that doesn't work he takes some of them and gives them a "special" place. When THAT doesn't work he gives them very detailed rules on things like what to eat and how. This made them "Special".
Then they started arguing about their "special place" and war broke out. Millions were slaughtered. And more are being killed even as we speak.
You forgot that part.
No, someone else got the about a promise of Land wrong, and thought it applied to them.
So let me make sure I understand you:
When God see's humans sinning, he wipes them out. When that doesn't work he takes some of them and gives them a "special" place. When THAT doesn't work he gives them very detailed rules on things like what to eat and how. This made them "Special".
Then they started arguing about their "special place" and war broke out. Millions were slaughtered. And more are being killed even as we speak.
You forgot that part.
No, someone else got the about a promise of Land wrong, and thought it applied to them.
So? It's still boils down to God initially causing the problem. I guess God didn't understand his creations as well as he thought, because he should have known that giving a special group of people a "special place" would cause strife and turmoil. What a dumbass God was.
No, i don't think God was a dumbass. I think he expects us to find ways out of sticky little "situations".
He didn't cause it. He gave the land to the Jews. The fact that there is a group too dense to see that is not his fault. He also blessed Ishmael. The fact that Ishmael doesn't get it right cannot be held against God.
He didn't cause it. He gave the land to the Jews. The fact that there is a group too dense to see that is not his fault. He also blessed Ishmael. The fact that Ishmael doesn't get it right cannot be held against God.
He caused it by exclusively giving land to the Jews instead of to everyone, or to no one.
That's called favoritism and it's usually viewed as a negative thing. Why would God practice favoritism? Shouldn't he view all his creations as equal? Why would God have such a negative character trait? Could it be that he doesn't actually exist??
He didn't cause it. He gave the land to the Jews. The fact that there is a group too dense to see that is not his fault. He also blessed Ishmael. The fact that Ishmael doesn't get it right cannot be held against God.
He caused it by exclusively giving land to the Jews instead of to everyone, or to no one.
That's called favoritism and it's usually viewed as a negative thing. Why would God practice favoritism? Shouldn't he view all his creations as equal? Why would God have such a negative character trait? Could it be that he doesn't actually exist??
Good question! The reason God gave land to the Jews is because we are a nation set apart for God's service. We are the pristhood, the holy kingdom between God and man. I don't know if that is understandable to anyone other than a Jew.
The damage caused from that cannot be led to God's door.
The damage caused from that cannot be led to God's door.
It can be when he willingly gave special treatment to a group of people knowing that the outcome would be disastrous. Why is God exempt from blame? ???
The damage caused from that cannot be led to God's door.
It can be when he willingly gave special treatment to a group of people knowing that the outcome would be disastrous. Why is God exempt from blame? ???
Primarily for one simple reason; He is God. WHATEVER he decides, for whatever reason, is just by definition, since he creates the definitions.
The damage caused from that cannot be led to God's door.
It can be when he willingly gave special treatment to a group of people knowing that the outcome would be disastrous. Why is God exempt from blame? ???
Primarily for one simple reason; He is God. WHATEVER he decides, for whatever reason, is just by definition, since he creates the definitions.
Yeah, he created everything. We know.
He also created favoritism. Then created death and war... which are usually considered bad things. Do you agree that God willingly created war?
He also created favoritism. Then created death and war... which are usually considered bad things. Do you agree that God willingly created war?
No, humans created those things. God's treatment of the Jews is not favourtism. It is the creation of a people to serve the world.
Must eat and walk dog. Be back later.
Of course he is. I expect he did know. But that does not change the fact that God had to choose a perfect nation to light the way for others. The damage caused from that cannot be led to God's door. "I shall bless those who bless thee, and curse those who curse thee."They are doing a very poor job at it. Also, why land that was already occupied? Why not empty land? Would have solved A lot of problems.
He also created favoritism. Then created death and war... which are usually considered bad things. Do you agree that God willingly created war?
No, humans created those things. God's treatment of the Jews is not favourtism. It is the creation of a people to serve the world.
God created humans. God created those things by proxy.
Must eat and walk dog. Be back later.
How can you walk your dog after eating it?
Man, Jews are weird.
Why are you ignoring God's path and living in the US instead of Israel?
Of course he is. I expect he did know. But that does not change the fact that God had to choose a perfect nation to light the way for others. The damage caused from that cannot be led to God's door. "I shall bless those who bless thee, and curse those who curse thee."They are doing a very poor job at it. Also, why land that was already occupied? Why not empty land? Would have solved A lot of problems.
Except God wanted JEWS to do it, not children of the jewish faith. And really, Christianity is a sin to Jews isn't it? Worshiping a false idol (Jesus)? Also, the Roman Empire is basically the sole reason it's spread as far as it did. So you really should be thanking the Romans for wiping out all the pesky druids, greeks, Vikings, and whatever other pagan religions were destroyed by them in their holy crusade.Of course he is. I expect he did know. But that does not change the fact that God had to choose a perfect nation to light the way for others. The damage caused from that cannot be led to God's door. "I shall bless those who bless thee, and curse those who curse thee."They are doing a very poor job at it. Also, why land that was already occupied? Why not empty land? Would have solved A lot of problems.
I'd say we have done a pretty good job of bringing monotheism to the world, since Christianity and Islam are both here because of us.
As far as land that was already occupied (by the Canaanites), that was so God could make an example out of people.This literally makes no sense. From the perspective of everyone else (the people who would learn the lesson) it was no different than any other conquering army. What lesson did the dead people learn? And what lesson did the living people who heard about it learn? That an army can take over land? If God wanted to make an example out of people, he'd have wiped them out with his divine power.
I recommend reading the Torah before asking further questions on this. As far as modern Israel is concerned, the fact that modern Arabo-Canaanites who call themselves "Palestinians" happen to be there is not our fault. They must be removed, peacefully if possible, forcibly if necessary.Yes it is. The Jews failed in their Godly task to wipe out all Canaanites. Had they succeeded, there would be no such thing as a "Arabo-Canaanite".
Also, the Roman Empire is basically the sole reason it's spread as far as it did. So you really should be thanking the Romans for wiping out all the pesky druids, greeks, Vikings, and whatever other pagan religions were destroyed by them in their holy crusade.If all those people had been wiped out, Dave, I wouldn't be here. I'm not a greasy Italian.
Of course he is. I expect he did know. But that does not change the fact that God had to choose a perfect nation to light the way for others. The damage caused from that cannot be led to God's door. "I shall bless those who bless thee, and curse those who curse thee."They are doing a very poor job at it. Also, why land that was already occupied? Why not empty land? Would have solved A lot of problems.
I'd say we have done a pretty good job of bringing monotheism to the world, since Christianity and Islam are both here because of us.QuoteExcept God wanted JEWS to do it, not children of the jewish faith. And really, Christianity is a sin to Jews isn't it? Worshiping a false idol (Jesus)? Also, the Roman Empire is basically the sole reason it's spread as far as it did. So you really should be thanking the Romans for wiping out all the pesky druids, greeks, Vikings, and whatever other pagan religions were destroyed by them in their holy crusade.
And I really hope you aren't suggesting that Jews created Islam because that would make your hatred of it quite ironic since the two faiths are so very similar, aside from an updated rule book.
Well, one would think that Christianity would be considered as such, but, oddly enough, it has been accorded (by most Jewish scholars) a place at the table of monotheisms. I'm not exactly sure why, but it has.
Regarding Islam, I don't hate its theology, which is essentially not much different than ours. I despise its tendency to want to blow shit up, and its sense of wanting to make the rest of the world second class citizens. Beyond that, however, I have no objection to it.
As far as Romans go, well, you are right at least to a point. Their military force did take Christianity further than it would otherwise have gone, just as Islam was carried by the sword further than it would otherwise have got.QuoteAs far as land that was already occupied (by the Canaanites), that was so God could make an example out of people.QuoteThis literally makes no sense. From the perspective of everyone else (the people who would learn the lesson) it was no different than any other conquering army. What lesson did the dead people learn? And what lesson did the living people who heard about it learn? That an army can take over land? If God wanted to make an example out of people, he'd have wiped them out with his divine power.
The neighbours of the Canaanites got to learn the power of the Jewish God over their own gods. And I think were advised that their own filthy practices must stop. Whether they heeded the advice, I don't know.QuoteI recommend reading the Torah before asking further questions on this. As far as modern Israel is concerned, the fact that modern Arabo-Canaanites who call themselves "Palestinians" happen to be there is not our fault. They must be removed, peacefully if possible, forcibly if necessary.QuoteYes it is. The Jews failed in their Godly task to wipe out all Canaanites. Had they succeeded, there would be no such thing as a "Arabo-Canaanite".
Yes there would. They would just be pure Arabs in that case.
Also, the Roman Empire is basically the sole reason it's spread as far as it did. So you really should be thanking the Romans for wiping out all the pesky druids, greeks, Vikings, and whatever other pagan religions were destroyed by them in their holy crusade.If all those people had been wiped out, Dave, I wouldn't be here. I'm not a greasy Italian.
You're not a Druid either. The culture and religion was wiped out but not all the people. Just the ones who fought back.Also, the Roman Empire is basically the sole reason it's spread as far as it did. So you really should be thanking the Romans for wiping out all the pesky druids, greeks, Vikings, and whatever other pagan religions were destroyed by them in their holy crusade.If all those people had been wiped out, Dave, I wouldn't be here. I'm not a greasy Italian.
Ummm.... You have gone on record on this forum time and again of having claimed that Muslims were sub-human and their religion full of hatred and violence. How can you say that and NOT hate the theology? That's like hating blacks but liking the Black Panther's goals.Except God wanted JEWS to do it, not children of the jewish faith. And really, Christianity is a sin to Jews isn't it? Worshiping a false idol (Jesus)? Also, the Roman Empire is basically the sole reason it's spread as far as it did. So you really should be thanking the Romans for wiping out all the pesky druids, greeks, Vikings, and whatever other pagan religions were destroyed by them in their holy crusade.Of course he is. I expect he did know. But that does not change the fact that God had to choose a perfect nation to light the way for others. The damage caused from that cannot be led to God's door. "I shall bless those who bless thee, and curse those who curse thee."They are doing a very poor job at it. Also, why land that was already occupied? Why not empty land? Would have solved A lot of problems.
I'd say we have done a pretty good job of bringing monotheism to the world, since Christianity and Islam are both here because of us.
And I really hope you aren't suggesting that Jews created Islam because that would make your hatred of it quite ironic since the two faiths are so very similar, aside from an updated rule book.
Well, one would think that Christianity would be considered as such, but, oddly enough, it has been accorded (by most Jewish scholars) a place at the table of monotheisms. I'm not exactly sure why, but it has.
Regarding Islam, I don't hate its theology, which is essentially not much different than ours. I despise its tendency to want to blow shit up, and its sense of wanting to make the rest of the world second class citizens. Beyond that, however, I have no objection to it.
As far as Romans go, well, you are right at least to a point. Their military force did take Christianity further than it would otherwise have gone, just as Islam was carried by the sword further than it would otherwise have got.Which the Jews have totally failed to do. Again, Jews did nothing to promote Monotheism. At best you can claim they stumbled into a lie (Jesus is God), got rid of nearly all the rules of the Jews (only Noah laws now) and everyone loved it. Well, those who weren't being tortured or converted anyway.
No it didn't. They weren't being attacked so their gods didn't have to do anything. The Jews did not attack them and thus there was no challenge between the Gods of their neighbors and the Jewish God.QuoteQuoteAs far as land that was already occupied (by the Canaanites), that was so God could make an example out of people.This literally makes no sense. From the perspective of everyone else (the people who would learn the lesson) it was no different than any other conquering army. What lesson did the dead people learn? And what lesson did the living people who heard about it learn? That an army can take over land? If God wanted to make an example out of people, he'd have wiped them out with his divine power.
The neighbours of the Canaanites got to learn the power of the Jewish God over their own gods. And I think were advised that their own filthy practices must stop. Whether they heeded the advice, I don't know.
QuoteQuoteI recommend reading the Torah before asking further questions on this. As far as modern Israel is concerned, the fact that modern Arabo-Canaanites who call themselves "Palestinians" happen to be there is not our fault. They must be removed, peacefully if possible, forcibly if necessary.Yes it is. The Jews failed in their Godly task to wipe out all Canaanites. Had they succeeded, there would be no such thing as a "Arabo-Canaanite".
Yes there would. They would just be pure Arabs in that case.
Why do you think God is more than just an invention of primitive minds to explain things they themselves could not explain?
You're not a Druid either. The culture and religion was wiped out but not all the people. Just the ones who fought back.Also, the Roman Empire is basically the sole reason it's spread as far as it did. So you really should be thanking the Romans for wiping out all the pesky druids, greeks, Vikings, and whatever other pagan religions were destroyed by them in their holy crusade.If all those people had been wiped out, Dave, I wouldn't be here. I'm not a greasy Italian.Except God wanted JEWS to do it, not children of the jewish faith. And really, Christianity is a sin to Jews isn't it? Worshiping a false idol (Jesus)? Also, the Roman Empire is basically the sole reason it's spread as far as it did. So you really should be thanking the Romans for wiping out all the pesky druids, greeks, Vikings, and whatever other pagan religions were destroyed by them in their holy crusade.Of course he is. I expect he did know. But that does not change the fact that God had to choose a perfect nation to light the way for others. The damage caused from that cannot be led to God's door. "I shall bless those who bless thee, and curse those who curse thee."They are doing a very poor job at it. Also, why land that was already occupied? Why not empty land? Would have solved A lot of problems.
I'd say we have done a pretty good job of bringing monotheism to the world, since Christianity and Islam are both here because of us.
And I really hope you aren't suggesting that Jews created Islam because that would make your hatred of it quite ironic since the two faiths are so very similar, aside from an updated rule book.
Well, one would think that Christianity would be considered as such, but, oddly enough, it has been accorded (by most Jewish scholars) a place at the table of monotheisms. I'm not exactly sure why, but it has.
Regarding Islam, I don't hate its theology, which is essentially not much different than ours. I despise its tendency to want to blow shit up, and its sense of wanting to make the rest of the world second class citizens. Beyond that, however, I have no objection to it.QuoteUmmm.... You have gone on record on this forum time and again of having claimed that Muslims were sub-human and their religion full of hatred and violence. How can you say that and NOT hate the theology? That's like hating blacks but liking the Black Panther's goals.
I repeat. It is their tendency to blow shit up, and treat others as second class that I despise.QuoteAs far as Romans go, well, you are right at least to a point. Their military force did take Christianity further than it would otherwise have gone, just as Islam was carried by the sword further than it would otherwise have got.QuoteWhich the Jews have totally failed to do. Again, Jews did nothing to promote Monotheism. At best you can claim they stumbled into a lie (Jesus is God), got rid of nearly all the rules of the Jews (only Noah laws now) and everyone loved it. Well, those who weren't being tortured or converted anyway.
It depends on how you look at conversion of the world to monotheism. We do not, and have never, required the world, to think like us. Judaism is the religion of the Jew. The Christian and the Muslim and the Zoroastrian can have their monotheisms that are different than ours and yet pleasing to God in their own ways. I don't personally understand how worship of Jesus of can be acceptable, but our Rabbis have acknowledged that it can be, so therefore it can be. I'll figure that one out later.QuoteQuoteQuoteAs far as land that was already occupied (by the Canaanites), that was so God could make an example out of people.This literally makes no sense. From the perspective of everyone else (the people who would learn the lesson) it was no different than any other conquering army. What lesson did the dead people learn? And what lesson did the living people who heard about it learn? That an army can take over land? If God wanted to make an example out of people, he'd have wiped them out with his divine power.
The neighbours of the Canaanites got to learn the power of the Jewish God over their own gods. And I think were advised that their own filthy practices must stop. Whether they heeded the advice, I don't know.QuoteNo it didn't. They weren't being attacked so their gods didn't have to do anything. The Jews did not attack them and thus there was no challenge between the Gods of their neighbors and the Jewish God.
And if you REALLY want to claim that it does, then you really need to explain how Hitler's God was more powerful than the Jewish God but less powerful than the American God. Come to think of it, the Roman Gods too. And the Egyptian Gods (It took a man to save the slaves). You continue to paint the Jewish God as really weak.
Well, since Hitler failed to kill all the Jews, and ended up shooting himself... And since the Roman Gods ended up submitting to Christianity... and since the Egyptian Gods ended up submitting the Hebrew God...QuoteQuoteQuoteI recommend reading the Torah before asking further questions on this. As far as modern Israel is concerned, the fact that modern Arabo-Canaanites who call themselves "Palestinians" happen to be there is not our fault. They must be removed, peacefully if possible, forcibly if necessary.Yes it is. The Jews failed in their Godly task to wipe out all Canaanites. Had they succeeded, there would be no such thing as a "Arabo-Canaanite".
Yes there would. They would just be pure Arabs in that case.
....
I don't think you understand what you just said. You just said that Canaanites would exist if they had all been wiped out but they'd be called just Arabs. So either Arabs and canaanites are the same thing or you really have no clue what you're talking about and you're just trying to argue against me to keep yourself from feeling like a schmuck.
Why do you think God is more than just an invention of primitive minds to explain things they themselves could not explain?
Entrenched beliefs, little or no understanding of science/physics, the nice feeling it gives, cultural/societal pressure and group think, lack of critical thinking skills, religion as a tool for acceptance/belonging. The list goes on and on..
Early scientists had little to no understanding of science hence them being early in the timeline. They understood all the science available but they did not know what they did not know you know?
Most early scientists were clergy because early church members were so devout that they believed the Bible to be the penultimate truth. What can science possibly do to damage the truth? It wasn't until recently that religion became fundamentally anti-science because scientists began uncovering a truth that opposes their religion.
Now, I am no scientist, but it is my personal belief that when the Bible is interpreted correctly, and when science likewise is interpreted correctly, there can be no conflict between the two. Take your own positions. Neither they, nor you, are my problem.
Now, I am no scientist, but it is my personal belief that when the Bible is interpreted correctly, and when science likewise is interpreted correctly, there can be no conflict between the two. Take your own positions. Neither they, nor you, are my problem.
Now, I am no scientist, but it is my personal belief that when the Bible is interpreted correctly, and when science likewise is interpreted correctly, there can be no conflict between the two. Take your own positions. Neither they, nor you, are my problem.QuoteSo you're basically saying that the following accepted scientific theories are wrong: evolution, the big bang, the age of the Earth, etc.
No, I am actually inclined to accept all of them.QuoteInstead you choose to belive (sic) what is written in the bible. If this is true then you must believe in the following things:
- The firmament (a roof above the Earth which is obviously not there, Genesis)
God made the waters and divided the waters from the waters, ie, he made the sky. Just because Moses called it a roof doesn't it mean it was a roof in the literal sense. I see no problem with simply acknowledging that it is the roof in the sense that it is above us. I am hardly going to limit myself to a primitive Hebrew (and general Mesopotamian) understanding of the cosmos, any more than I am to an atheist one.Quote- The moon is luminous and it's own light source (Genesis)
Actually, I see no reason why the moon has to be is own light source. The Bible merely said that God created two great lights. He did NOT say how they were to be lit.Quote- The Earth was created before the Sun (which contradicts the nebular hypothesis of stellar formation, also Genesis)
This point gets interesting. It requires more study.QuoteThere are many others, but you see the point.
Please back up the following three points with evidence that is not "the bible".
Now, I am no scientist, but it is my personal belief that when the Bible is interpreted correctly, and when science likewise is interpreted correctly, there can be no conflict between the two. Take your own positions. Neither they, nor you, are my problem.
Ridiculous. The ancient zealots that wrote your book had no grasp of even the most basic modern scientific theories, so you can't expect them to to write something even remotely accurate, no matter how it's interpreted. Science is not 'interpreted' in the same sense your mystical book is. The fact that you can interpret something like that makes your entire belief system dubious.
And the fact that your zealots invent words like 'meme' (an invention of Richard Dawkins, and even defined by him) put them in the same class of mystical as our zealots. The big difference is that ours actually look at the world beyond themselves and see the world for what it is, namely, the creation of something bigger than they are. Your zealots think they are the master of all they survey, and that nothing can possibly be greater than them. Who is the pompous one?
And the fact that your zealots invent words like 'meme' (an invention of Richard Dawkins, and even defined by him) put them in the same class of mystical as our zealots. The big difference is that ours actually look at the world beyond themselves and see the world for what it is, namely, the creation of something bigger than they are. Your zealots think they are the master of all they survey, and that nothing can possibly be greater than them. Who is the pompous one?
Please provide evidence for the Firmament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament).
If the Bible is correct about everything written within it, then surely this must be true and surely there must be evidence proving its existence. Please provide this evidence, then we will discuss the next topic.
And the fact that your zealots invent words like 'meme' (an invention of Richard Dawkins, and even defined by him) put them in the same class of mystical as our zealots. The big difference is that ours actually look at the world beyond themselves and see the world for what it is, namely, the creation of something bigger than they are. Your zealots think they are the master of all they survey, and that nothing can possibly be greater than them. Who is the pompous one?
Please provide evidence for the Firmament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament).
If the Bible is correct about everything written within it, then surely this must be true and surely there must be evidence proving its existence. Please provide this evidence, then we will discuss the next topic.
Don't be dense. I said in your past retardedness concerning the firmament that there was no literal roof in the sky. That is a common viewpoint among ancient Hebrew/Mesopotamian concepts of the universe. The message being conveyed there was that God created the waters, and then separated the waters from the waters. He called the separation between the two "Sky". Moses called it a firmament because that was the limit of his landbound interpretive capabilities. Had he been a pilot, he'd have known differently, now wouldn't he have? He didn't need to know otherwise, so he called it a roof. I have no problem looking at the sky at thinking of it as a roof in the non-literal sense. You get too high, you leave the atmosphere. The atmosphere IS a roof that keeps the oxygen in, and the vacuum of space out. End of problem.
And the fact that your zealots invent words like 'meme' (an invention of Richard Dawkins, and even defined by him) put them in the same class of mystical as our zealots. The big difference is that ours actually look at the world beyond themselves and see the world for what it is, namely, the creation of something bigger than they are. Your zealots think they are the master of all they survey, and that nothing can possibly be greater than them. Who is the pompous one?
Please provide evidence for the Firmament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament).
If the Bible is correct about everything written within it, then surely this must be true and surely there must be evidence proving its existence. Please provide this evidence, then we will discuss the next topic.
Don't be dense. I said in your past retardedness concerning the firmament that there was no literal roof in the sky. That is a common viewpoint among ancient Hebrew/Mesopotamian concepts of the universe. The message being conveyed there was that God created the waters, and then separated the waters from the waters. He called the separation between the two "Sky". Moses called it a firmament because that was the limit of his landbound interpretive capabilities. Had he been a pilot, he'd have known differently, now wouldn't he have? He didn't need to know otherwise, so he called it a roof. I have no problem looking at the sky at thinking of it as a roof in the non-literal sense. You get too high, you leave the atmosphere. The atmosphere IS a roof that keeps the oxygen in, and the vacuum of space out. End of problem.
So you're basically saying the Bible's wrong and that Moses was a fucking idiot? Ok.
"The firmament was a great solid dome which, according to the pseudepedigraphic 2nd or 3rd century book of 3 Baruch, might be pierced by tower and gimlet."
They seem pretty dead set on making it seem like a solid dome. But you're saying it's just the atmosphere. You are saying they're wrong, right?
2 and 3 Baruch are not in the Bible. And no, I am not saying Moses was an idiot, although you are. Moses called it a firmament because that is what it was. It may not have been hard, which you'll notice, he never said it was, but it was still a firmament. It was a separation between the waters and the waters.
And the fact that your zealots invent words like 'meme' (an invention of Richard Dawkins, and even defined by him) put them in the same class of mystical as our zealots. The big difference is that ours actually look at the world beyond themselves and see the world for what it is, namely, the creation of something bigger than they are. Your zealots think they are the master of all they survey, and that nothing can possibly be greater than them. Who is the pompous one?
Does the Moon produce its own light?No. The tiny creatures on it do and they bloom across its surface in crescent shaped waves.
And the fact that your zealots invent words like 'meme' (an invention of Richard Dawkins, and even defined by him) put them in the same class of mystical as our zealots. The big difference is that ours actually look at the world beyond themselves and see the world for what it is, namely, the creation of something bigger than they are. Your zealots think they are the master of all they survey, and that nothing can possibly be greater than them. Who is the pompous one?
For someone who loves bringing up Dawkins, you're pretty shit when it comes to understanding his position. You'd be hard pressed to find a single atheist/agnostic that thinks they're the master of the Universe and they have all the answers. That's a view inherent in many religious philosophies, so it's humorous to see you project it on to those opposed to such things.
"It's firmament but it's not a firmament"
I understand your denial. We'll move on to the next topic. Does the Moon produce its own light?
A stupid question. The Bible never said the Moon produced light. God, you are batting a thousand for being obtuse, aren't you?
A stupid question. The Bible never said the Moon produced light. God, you are batting a thousand for being obtuse, aren't you?
"Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days, in the day that the LORD bindeth up the breach of his people, and healeth the stroke of their wound." Isaiah 30:26
Please pay attention, Jaakov. This seems to imply that the moon produces its own light similar to how the sun produces light. Now this is just flat out wrong, as the Moon is a natural satellite and the Sun is a fucking star.
A stupid question. The Bible never said the Moon produced light. God, you are batting a thousand for being obtuse, aren't you?
"Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days, in the day that the LORD bindeth up the breach of his people, and healeth the stroke of their wound." Isaiah 30:26
Please pay attention, Jaakov. This seems to imply that the moon produces its own light similar to how the sun produces light. Now this is just flat out wrong, as the Moon is a natural satellite and the Sun is a fucking star.
That verse in no way insinuates that the Moon produces her own light. It simply indicates that in some manner, the Moon shall shine as brightly as the Sun does. Your point?
How does it insinuate that? You are the fucking obtuse one here, not me.
Does the Moon produce its own light?No. The tiny creatures on it do and they bloom across its surface in crescent shaped waves.
How does it insinuate that? You are the fucking obtuse one here, not me.
Do you need to reread the post? Because if so: do that. I don't care about your dodgy interpretation. It seems like it's insinuating that it produces its own light. How could the bible be so wrong about this?
And the fact that your zealots invent words like 'meme' (an invention of Richard Dawkins, and even defined by him) put them in the same class of mystical as our zealots. The big difference is that ours actually look at the world beyond themselves and see the world for what it is, namely, the creation of something bigger than they are. Your zealots think they are the master of all they survey, and that nothing can possibly be greater than them. Who is the pompous one?
For someone who loves bringing up Dawkins, you're pretty shit when it comes to understanding his position. You'd be hard pressed to find a single atheist/agnostic that thinks they're the master of the Universe and they have all the answers. That's a view inherent in many religious philosophies, so it's humorous to see you project it on to those opposed to such things.
The man invented a word and even a definition for it! If that isn't arrogance, what is? I mean, seriously, how does some asshole actually try to come up with a new word in the language to justify his perverted philosophy? And every atheist in this room has proven to me that they do indeed consider themselves the greatest thing since peanut butter and sliced fucking bread. I have never seen more stuck up, pompous, arrogant people in my life.
I shan't deny that some religious people resemble them. But its a pale resemblance at best. I guess that's why the State Atheists, like China, the USSR, Albania, Cambodia, and every other regime that tried it ended up killing so many millions of people. Just China and the USSR alone managed a good 70 million people, and that is an estimate. It was probably higher than that. Although religion and religious people have been responsible for a lot of intolerance, it pales in comparison to that kind of vicious brutality. In the 20th Century alone, more people died in outright government sponsored brutality than any other century. And the current century appears to coming along similarly. And most of that government sponsored brutality was at the hands of the so-called "Communist" regimes, which weren't in any way really Communist, but they were surely Atheist, both officially and in practice.
So, continue you on your way. Keep telling yourselves the lies you need to in order to sleep at night. I've got no problem with that, honestly. Go right ahead.
The man invented a word and even a definition for it! If that isn't arrogance, what is? I mean, seriously, how does some asshole actually try to come up with a new word in the language to justify his perverted philosophy? And every atheist in this room has proven to me that they do indeed consider themselves the greatest thing since peanut butter and sliced fucking bread. I have never seen more stuck up, pompous, arrogant people in my life.
The man invented a word and even a definition for it! If that isn't arrogance, what is? I mean, seriously, how does some asshole actually try to come up with a new word in the language to justify his perverted philosophy? And every atheist in this room has proven to me that they do indeed consider themselves the greatest thing since peanut butter and sliced fucking bread. I have never seen more stuck up, pompous, arrogant people in my life.
Lewis Carroll invented the word 'chortle'. Is he an arsehole? The 20 volume Oxford English Dictionary has entries for 171,476 words; did these words spring in to existence in one natural explosion of language or were they coined, one after the other, by succeeding generations of writers, readers and speakers?
To label Dawkins an arsehole is one person's opinion; to present as evidence for his arseholeness ( I may have just invented this word) the fact that he invented a word is just silly. For one who prides himself on the quality of his thinking you've scored an own goal.
Just look at this:
http://www.shakespeare-online.com/biography/wordsinvented.html (http://www.shakespeare-online.com/biography/wordsinvented.html)
Shakespeare, the ultimate arsehole.
Edited for link after Beardo's excellent post.
This just in, every person that invents a word is literally Hitler. You realise that 'meme' has a different usage on the internet that Dawkins never intended?
I'm also really tired of seeing Communist states mentioned whenever atheism comes up. Those people weren't killed because of atheism, because atheism is not a belief system. How many died under Nazism? Because Hitler used christian rhetoric to justify some of his behaviour. The crusades as well, religious wars justified through religion. Your buddies in Israel, how many wars have they fought over the last 60 years? Countless.
Many more people have died due to religious wars than because of atheism. I challenge you to find a case of an atheist killing someone because they're religious. It hasn't happened because there isn't some atheist fantasy book that tells you who you should kill, such as the Bible, Koran and Torah.
What? You think the idea of something being passed on to another person/culture is ridiculous?
I am well aware that Shakespeare invented about half (yes, half) the language we speak. But for Dawkins to do it, particularly to define something which he has no proof exists, makes him look as stupid as he perceives religious people to be, since they supposedly commit that same error, according to him. Have you read what he means by the word "meme"?
"An element of a culture or system of behaviour that may be considered to be passed from one individual to another by nongenetic means, esp. imitation.
<origin> 1970s: from Greek mimema 'that which is imitated', on the pattern of gene."
Source: New Oxford American Dictionary
At least with Shakespeare, he wasn't coming up with ideas that didn't actually exist.
So, what's the God meme that Dawkins talks about in the "God Delusion"? How do people imitate it? Or how does it get imitated? How does it reproduce itself? See? You can't even use the word intelligently in English, and yet, some sorry dumb bastard has actually accepted it into the language. Well, I guess that is what happens when you have a language that isn't governed by an Academy, unlike most languages, which are.
So the oral history of the Jews does not exist. Got it.
This meme idea is extremely simple and self-evident. The God meme is passed on by a culture participating in and propagating the idea throug story-telling, worship, rituals, holidays, etc.... Why are you struggling Yaakov?
I should have said, half of the words we use in common speech. As for the word "meme' now appearing in dictionaries, so does the word "ain't". And remember, ours is a society that bows to political pressure faster than just about any other. God forbid we piss off the atheist.
If God does not exist, then the idea of God cannot be passed down in the cultureIf the Hindu Gods don't exist, then the idea of the Hindu Gods cannot be passed down in the culture
Yes, actually. The average American, at least, reads at no higher than the Eighth Grade level. The average newspaper here is written at that level, with the New York Times doing a bit better at the 12th Grade level. Having been a Professor before, I know this shit.
And if you look at the language called Basic English, they manage to reduce the vocabulary to 800 words.
You are so full of shit its amazing. Go to Albania, which was officially declared a completely Atheist State in 1967, and EVERY house of worship was closed, and anyone who owned any religious material could be given extremely long prison sentences, and anyone who spoke of it in public was shot. Even the USSR never went quite that far.I was stationed in Albania for a time, while NATO construction workers were building a highway to Kosovo. Yes, the women are very ugly, but the people are very nice.
Yonah, I'm a little hard pressed finding any evidence that atheists want to murder people and think they're better than everyone else. Could you mind giving me some sort of, you know, atheist bible that clears up all the atheist rules for me? Thanks. I want to make sure I'm being an orthodox atheist.
So the oral history of the Jews does not exist. Got it.
This meme idea is extremely simple and self-evident. The God meme is passed on by a culture participating in and propagating the idea throug story-telling, worship, rituals, holidays, etc.... Why are you struggling Yaakov?
If God does not exist, then the idea of God cannot be passed down in the culture, since the idea is inherantly illogical, like the idea "married bachelor". Either God exists or he doesn't. Story telling is one thing. But God, the ultimate power in the universe, either exists as a logical thought, or he does not. If he does not, then that illogical thought cannot be propagated. Since it can be, he must exist. A variation on the Ontological Argument. But true nonetheless.
and how can I get that damn boogie man to stop bothering my son?
If God does not exist, then the idea of God cannot be passed down in the cultureIf the Hindu Gods don't exist, then the idea of the Hindu Gods cannot be passed down in the culture
Wait, they are.. So the Hindu Gods exists?
Yes, actually. The average American, at least, reads at no higher than the Eighth Grade level. The average newspaper here is written at that level, with the New York Times doing a bit better at the 12th Grade level. Having been a Professor before, I know this shit.
And if you look at the language called Basic English, they manage to reduce the vocabulary to 800 words.
Professor David Crystal, author of amongst others, The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, has this to say about estimating the average size of a person's vocabulary.
An easier question to answer, he maintains, is the size of the average person's vocabulary.
He suggests taking a sample of about 20 or 30 pages from a medium-sized dictionary, one which contains about 100,000 entries or 1,000 to 1,500 pages.
Tick off the ones you know and count them. Then multiply that by the number of pages and you will discover how many words you know. Most people vastly underestimate their total.
"Most people know half the words - about 50,000 - easily. A reasonably educated person about 75,000 and a really cool, smart person well, maybe all of them but that is rather unusual.
"An ordinary person, one who has not been to university say, would know about 35,000 quite easily."
Professor Crystal knows his shit as well and his shit seems to be different from yours. The question is who should I believe?
You are so full of shit its amazing. Go to Albania, which was officially declared a completely Atheist State in 1967, and EVERY house of worship was closed, and anyone who owned any religious material could be given extremely long prison sentences, and anyone who spoke of it in public was shot. Even the USSR never went quite that far.I was stationed in Albania for a time, while NATO construction workers were building a highway to Kosovo. Yes, the women are very ugly, but the people are very nice.
In case you did not realise this, there are machinegun pill boxes littered all around the country. This was done when their paranoid leadership thought the US was going to attack at anytime.
Now, those pillboxes remain unmanned. There are just ugly women and gangsters everywhere, or at least that was the case 15 years ago. So, what is your point?
So the oral history of the Jews does not exist. Got it.
This meme idea is extremely simple and self-evident. The God meme is passed on by a culture participating in and propagating the idea throug story-telling, worship, rituals, holidays, etc.... Why are you struggling Yaakov?
If God does not exist, then the idea of God cannot be passed down in the culture, since the idea is inherantly illogical, like the idea "married bachelor". Either God exists or he doesn't. Story telling is one thing. But God, the ultimate power in the universe, either exists as a logical thought, or he does not. If he does not, then that illogical thought cannot be propagated. Since it can be, he must exist. A variation on the Ontological Argument. But true nonetheless.
So an idea of something cannot exist unless the thing actually exists? Is this your position?
If so, can you please tell me how I can get to Santa's workshop, where do I find the Easter Bunny's hole and how can I get that damn boogie man to stop bothering my son?
Yonah, I'm a little hard pressed finding any evidence that atheists want to murder people and think they're better than everyone else. Could you mind giving me some sort of, you know, atheist bible that clears up all the atheist rules for me? Thanks. I want to make sure I'm being an orthodox atheist.
Yonah, I still can't find any rulebooks for atheism. Can you please help?
The treatment of religion in the communist countries sounds more like a problem with communism than atheism. America is an atheist country, it has no official religion, but it allows people to believe and practice how they want, within legal confines of course.
Are you allowed to wear clothing made of mixed material?
GARY, that is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. You have managed to surpass Thork. Good move.
Rama, until you can come up with an argument that can defeat the Ontological Argument, I advise shutting your yap.
Since we're dealing with God here, the Ultimate Reality is that which is coherent.
My God, I just went through this in the LAST post! How dense is it possible for one group of people to be?! It can't possibly be that bad, can it?
The atheist cannot prove a negative. I, on the other hand, can give you strong reasons for believing that God exists, albeit not deductively certain ones.
You cannot give me strong reasons for assuming that he does not. You've tried, in this and other threads, and failed, miserably at it.
Rama, until you can come up with an argument that can defeat the Ontological Argument, I advise shutting your yap.Quotemillican.org/papers/2004OntArgMind.pdf
I haven't got time to read 29 pages. Summarise, please.QuoteSince we're dealing with God here, the Ultimate Reality is that which is coherent.
Why?QuoteMy God, I just went through this in the LAST post! How dense is it possible for one group of people to be?! It can't possibly be that bad, can it?
Childish ad hominem, etc, etc...QuoteThe atheist cannot prove a negative. I, on the other hand, can give you strong reasons for believing that God exists, albeit not deductively certain ones.QuoteNo you can't, you can only give me flawed syllogisms and hopeful principles. You have not offered anything in the way of proof that God empirically exists.
Nor have you offered anything in the way of proof that he doesn't.QuoteYou cannot give me strong reasons for assuming that he does not. You've tried, in this and other threads, and failed, miserably at it.QuoteIt is not my job to even try and prove the negative. The burden of proof lies on you as the positive claimant. I just rebutted Anselm. If you wanted to start making clear arguments about God as a prime mover or some such, I am happy to rebut those as well.
It is indeed your job. Since atheism is in fact a new invention, and that mankind has, for the bulk of his history, been religious, it is the duty of those who would challenge that to give their reason why, especially given the horrific toll in lives that atheism has had on the world just in one century.QuoteIf you have to resort to claiming that your arguments are "obvious" or that I am "stupid", you obviously have lost the argument.
Telling you that you are stupid is not abusive. its a statement of fact. It in no way indicates losing anything. It is a statement of information.I can imagine a being greater than your God, therefore this being exists and your God is not a god. Regarding the Sunday closing laws, they are the result of religious people overstepping their power by trying to police morals while infringing on constitutional freedom. Just because religious people are voted into power and make religious based rules, doesn't mean America is a religious nation. The fact that you don't need to be married by the church is proof enough.
Why have you never questioned that law about mixed thread? It seems like such a silly rule to have to follow.
Then by imagining a being greater than God, you have just imagined God. Brilliant deduction, Genius. In other words, the Sunday closing laws are indicative that the majority of people in the United States that elect the officials perceive the nation to be... come on now, you can get there... good for you!
Why would I question it? Its an irrelevant point at this time.
If you aren't willing to question the frivolous laws, then why would you even bother to question the major ones? It's incredibly easy to question those small ones and should be easy to find the answer as to why.
The majority of voters vote in religious people, this doesn't mean America itself is religious and the contrition forbids America from being religious.
QuoteThis just in, every person that invents a word is literally Hitler. You realise that 'meme' has a different usage on the internet that Dawkins never intended?
I'm also really tired of seeing Communist states mentioned whenever atheism comes up. Those people weren't killed because of atheism, because atheism is not a belief system. How many died under Nazism? Because Hitler used christian rhetoric to justify some of his behaviour. The crusades as well, religious wars justified through religion. Your buddies in Israel, how many wars have they fought over the last 60 years? Countless.
Many more people have died due to religious wars than because of atheism. I challenge you to find a case of an atheist killing someone because they're religious. It hasn't happened because there isn't some atheist fantasy book that tells you who you should kill, such as the Bible, Koran and Torah.
You are so full of shit its amazing. Go to Albania, which was officially declared a completely Atheist State in 1967, and EVERY house of worship was closed, and anyone who owned any religious material could be given extremely long prison sentences, and anyone who spoke of it in public was shot. Even the USSR never went quite that far.
Your challenge is easily defeated. The State Atheists made it policy that religious people, starting with the clergy, were to be killed outright, or otherwise dealt with such that they would be removed as a threat to the State. In China, and in North Korea, worship of the Leader (especially in North Korea where it is still going on) has replaced traditional religions, and practice of those religions has become difficult if not impossible.
God, if you had a brain you would seriously be a danger to yourself. Go read some history, and then come back and maybe we can have a conversation. MAYBE.
This has to be like a record or something. Yaakov has effectively trolled at least half of the active participants in this forum and is probably the most in-depth character troll I've ever seen. He makes Tom Bishop look like a two dimensional robot.
This has to be like a record or something. Yaakov has effectively trolled at least half of the active participants in this forum and is probably the most in-depth character troll I've ever seen. He makes Tom Bishop look like a two dimensional robot.
This has to be like a record or something. Yaakov has effectively trolled at least half of the active participants in this forum and is probably the most in-depth character troll I've ever seen. He makes Tom Bishop look like a two dimensional robot.
This has to be like a record or something. Yaakov has effectively trolled at least half of the active participants in this forum and is probably the most in-depth character troll I've ever seen. He makes Tom Bishop look like a two dimensional robot.
Why is it so hard to believe that he's a real person?
Why is it so hard to believe that he's a real person?
Why is it so hard to believe that he's a real person?
He denies arguments even when it isn't fundamental to his own (e.g. anselm's trollogical argument). He is arguing for the sake of it, not in support of something else.
Good point. No real human bean would ever argue "just for the sake of it".
Why is it so hard to believe that he's a real person?
He denies arguments even when it isn't fundamental to his own (e.g. anselm's trollogical argument). He is arguing for the sake of it, not in support of something else.
Good point. No real human bean would ever argue "just for the sake of it".
This has to be like a record or something. Yaakov has effectively trolled at least half of the active participants in this forum and is probably the most in-depth character troll I've ever seen. He makes Tom Bishop look like a two dimensional robot.He puts a lot of effort into it. And we're entertained. I'd call him a comedian, not a troll.
Why is it so hard to believe that he's a real person?
He denies arguments even when it isn't fundamental to his own (e.g. anselm's trollogical argument). He is arguing for the sake of it, not in support of something else.
Good point. No real human bean would ever argue "for the sake of it".
He puts a lot of effort into it. And we're entertained. I'd call him a comedian, not a troll.
Well you did make the thread of "ask a jew" and yet you couldn't provide an answer to a very simple question, you just blindly follow that rule without a second thought.
What happens to a Jew if they knowingly wear mixed threads and do not seek forgiveness?
Alright, so you didn't bite for the whole Moon business, but here's another one.QuoteSo according to genesis God created the universe in 6 days. On the first day he creates light (without a Sun since he makes that on the 4th day, mind you) and darkness (1:3). On the second day, God creates a solid roof to separate the waters from the heavens which is called the Firmament (1:6). On the third day, God created plants by letting "the Earth bring forth" the plants instead of just zapping them into existence (1:11). Now at this point God says something like "yeah, this is good" (1:12). He's pleased with his creation thus far, so afterwards on the 4th day he creates "two great lights" which are the Sun and Moon (1:14 yes, still lumping the Moon in as a light because that's what is insinuated). There are a few days left (mostly he makes stars and some other shit) but I'm going to skip those because they're irrelevant to my point.
So, the light issue is dealt with. The light came from God's own emanations. As the divine being, he has (at least in Kabbala they teach that he has) I believe 9 emanations. I may be wrong on the number, however. But I am no Kabbalist. I know very little about it. All I know is that the Rabbis postulated that the Light of God was literal, and emanated from him until the Sun was made.QuoteHow did the Earth produce any plants without Sunlight? God created plant life on the third day, and then on the 4th day he created the Sun and Moon. Notice how the Bible says "let's the Earth bring forth" plants. These plants weren't just materialized by God, they were grown. Logically we'd have to assume that these growing plants used the process of photosynthesis, but that would have been impossible without the Sun to help them.
Actually, the Rabbis resolved that problem by arguing that the earth received light from the divine emanations of god until such time as the two great lights were made. In other words, God himself produced the light from within his emanations that he used to light the earth.QuoteAnd keep in mind that God "saw that it was good", despite the fact that he didn't even create things in the right order. He created life before the sun and moon were created, which is absurd because without the sun life could not exist on Earth. God is a moron.
So there are no repercussions at all for not following God's laws?
Rama, until you can come up with an argument that can defeat the Ontological Argument, I advise shutting your yap.Quotemillican.org/papers/2004OntArgMind.pdf
I haven't got time to read 29 pages. Summarise, please.
QuoteThe atheist cannot prove a negative. I, on the other hand, can give you strong reasons for believing that God exists, albeit not deductively certain ones.QuoteNo you can't, you can only give me flawed syllogisms and hopeful principles. You have not offered anything in the way of proof that God empirically exists.
Nor have you offered anything in the way of proof that he doesn't.
QuoteYou cannot give me strong reasons for assuming that he does not. You've tried, in this and other threads, and failed, miserably at it.QuoteIt is not my job to even try and prove the negative. The burden of proof lies on you as the positive claimant. I just rebutted Anselm. If you wanted to start making clear arguments about God as a prime mover or some such, I am happy to rebut those as well.
It is indeed your job. Since atheism is in fact a new invention, and that mankind has, for the bulk of his history, been religious, it is the duty of those who would challenge that to give their reason why, especially given the horrific toll in lives that atheism has had on the world just in one century.
QuoteIf you have to resort to claiming that your arguments are "obvious" or that I am "stupid", you obviously have lost the argument.
Telling you that you are stupid is not abusive. its a statement of fact. It in no way indicates losing anything. It is a statement of information.
If I see a watch, and you tell me it has no maker, you have to prove that it doesn't. I assume naturally that it does. If I see the universe, and you tell me it has no maker, you must prove to me that it doesn't. I assume that it does until then. I realise that is difficult to comprehend for the atheist, given the peabrain nature of what's going on between their ears, but...
If I see a watch, and you tell me it has no maker, you have to prove that it doesn't. I assume naturally that it does.
If I see a watch, and you tell me it has no maker, you have to prove that it doesn't. I assume naturally that it does. If I see the universe, and you tell me it has no maker, you must prove to me that it doesn't. I assume that it does until then. I realise that is difficult to comprehend for the atheist, given the peabrain nature of what's going on between their ears, but...Only if you were told watches are made. If you had never seen a watch, how would you know it didn't occur naturally?
If I see a watch, and you tell me it has no maker, you have to prove that it doesn't. I assume naturally that it does. If I see the universe, and you tell me it has no maker, you must prove to me that it doesn't. I assume that it does until then. I realise that is difficult to comprehend for the atheist, given the peabrain nature of what's going on between their ears, but...
Also: watches are not naturally occurring on Earth.
Incorrect. Earth is inhabited by organisms which create watches through natural means.
They are the most dangerous and destructive animals on the planet, but they are also the cleverest. You may know of them as... Human Beans.
Confirmed, as a Hunan bean iattest my body naturally produces watches.
If I see a watch, and you tell me it has no maker, you have to prove that it doesn't. I assume naturally that it does. If I see the universe, and you tell me it has no maker, you must prove to me that it doesn't. I assume that it does until then. I realise that is difficult to comprehend for the atheist, given the peabrain nature of what's going on between their ears, but...
If I see a watch, and you tell me it has no maker, you have to prove that it doesn't. I assume naturally that it does. If I see the universe, and you tell me it has no maker, you must prove to me that it doesn't. I assume that it does until then. I realise that is difficult to comprehend for the atheist, given the peabrain nature of what's going on between their ears, but...
This is an inherently flawed argument and you know it, and the fact that you're falling back on it suggests that you have no good arguments and you know it.
If I see a watch, and you tell me it has no maker, you have to prove that it doesn't. I assume naturally that it does. If I see the universe, and you tell me it has no maker, you must prove to me that it doesn't. I assume that it does until then. I realise that is difficult to comprehend for the atheist, given the peabrain nature of what's going on between their ears, but...
This is an inherently flawed argument and you know it, and the fact that you're falling back on it suggests that you have no good arguments and you know it.
If I see a watch, and you tell me it has no maker, you have to prove that it doesn't. I assume naturally that it does. If I see the universe, and you tell me it has no maker, you must prove to me that it doesn't. I assume that it does until then. I realise that is difficult to comprehend for the atheist, given the peabrain nature of what's going on between their ears, but...
This is an inherently flawed argument and you know it, and the fact that you're falling back on it suggests that you have no good arguments and you know it.
Prove that it is inherently flawed. If you can't, shut your yap.
I recall you responding to my argument on the likelihood of the universe by simply saying "time didn't exist before the universe", which you didn't substantiate at all. Seeing as your foundation for calling people stupid relies on that notion, would you care to actually make a case for it?QuoteAs for the universe itself, it's a good thing you're not a bookie anymore, because you don't seem to grasp that extremely unlikely events do occur given a large enough set and time. Given how big the universe is, it would be more unlikely for an Earth-like planet to not exist, when we know that it's a composition that can occur naturally.
I expect there are other Earthlike planets. Again, more proof of a Creator. Less likely that it occurred naturally.QuoteHell, Earth is hardly even ideal. Most of it isn't habitable for humans and it routinely fucks over species with climate changes and disasters. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that planets that are even better for intelligent life than Earth already exist.
Which again, is evidence of a Creator, who would offer planets for colonisation. I'll deal with the time argument tomorrow.
As a former bookie, I can tell you myself, in spite of what people stupidly say in this forum, the odds of the Earth alone (forget about the rest of the universe) being built with just the right amount of chemicals and what-not to support life is so-far from likely that its stupid.
I can imagine a perfect universe. One which there is no greater universe. Therefore it is an eternal, uncreated universe.
Explain how the universe is NOT like a watch. As a former bookie, I can tell you myself, in spite of what people stupidly say in this forum, the odds of the Earth alone (forget about the rest of the universe) being built with just the right amount of chemicals and what-not to support life is so-far from likely that its stupid. I mean, you couldn't get a bookie to offer odds on that.
Explain how the universe is NOT like a watch. As a former bookie, I can tell you myself, in spite of what people stupidly say in this forum, the odds of the Earth alone (forget about the rest of the universe) being built with just the right amount of chemicals and what-not to support life is so-far from likely that its stupid. I mean, you couldn't get a bookie to offer odds on that.
Explain how the universe is NOT like a watch. As a former bookie, I can tell you myself, in spite of what people stupidly say in this forum, the odds of the Earth alone (forget about the rest of the universe) being built with just the right amount of chemicals and what-not to support life is so-far from likely that its stupid. I mean, you couldn't get a bookie to offer odds on that.
he is posting a bad argument combined with "only dum ppl don't beleve this!!!!11!" in an attempt to rev the thread back up to troll mode.
he is posting a bad argument combined with "only dum ppl don't beleve this!!!!11!" in an attempt to rev the thread back up to troll mode.
And the point of having a beard in the first place is to avoid having a female appearance.
Does this mean it is forbidden for women to wear pants?Yes but men can totally wear dresses.
The same code where a man is forbidden to be castrated (or for that matter, any male creature)
I'm not sure you know what castration is.The same code where a man is forbidden to be castrated (or for that matter, any male creature)
Why do you keep constantly breaking that one?
Does this mean it is forbidden for women to wear pants?
Does this mean it is forbidden for women to wear pants?Yes but men can totally wear dresses.
QuoteThe same code where a man is forbidden to be castrated (or for that matter, any male creature)QuoteWhy do you keep constantly breaking that one?
How am I breaking that one?QuoteI'm not sure you know what castration is.
Indeed, I wonder if he knows what it is.
Why are Jews so naturally feminine that without a beard or men's clothing they are indistinguishable from females?
Why are Jews so naturally feminine that without a beard or men's clothing they are indistinguishable from females?
Actually, no. It should be noted that Muslims have the same rules. They, of course, borrowed them from us.
That makes sense, but it is a bit weird of a view to hold today. It seems like the Jews need a thunderstorm to update their instruction manual.
Why is the Bible (and by extension, God) so sexist? As a followup question, since God is the most perfect being and he is sexist does this make sexism an admirable trait? Are you sexist enough to get into heaven?
Remember that the idea of shaving one's face for other than being a eunuch came from the Romans. So, if non-Jews can follow an outdated Roman practice, why can't Jews follow their practice and grow beards?
I don't understand the connection between shaved faces and modern suits.
I don't understand the connection between shaved faces and modern suits.
Modern suits are a result of military mimicry during and after WWI. This included a shaved face and short hair. It isn't an absolute rule, but a lot of employers will turn away applicants with long hair, beards, or for not wearing a proper suit to the interview.
Why are Jews so rude?
Funny that only patriarchal societies think it appropriate that women be "purified" after menstruating. It almost is like a prescription made up by men who did not understand menstruating was natural and normal.
Nobody has turned me away for having long hair
Nobody has turned me away for having long hair
But what did they have to say about your beard?
You know why Jewish men get circumcised?
Because Jewish women won't touch anything unless it's 20% off.
Heard a top quality Jew joke today and I thought I'd share.But then why do virtually all American men get circumcised too? Do they all want to tap some Jews?QuoteYou know why Jewish men get circumcised?
Because Jewish women won't touch anything unless it's 20% off.
Surely the real joke is that anybody's penis would be 1/5 foreskin.Yes.
Heard a top quality Jew joke today and I thought I'd share.But then why do virtually all American men get circumcised too? Do they all want to tap some Jews?QuoteYou know why Jewish men get circumcised?
Because Jewish women won't touch anything unless it's 20% off.
Heard a top quality Jew joke today and I thought I'd share.But then why do virtually all American men get circumcised too? Do they all want to tap some Jews?QuoteYou know why Jewish men get circumcised?
Because Jewish women won't touch anything unless it's 20% off.
America is controlled by Jews, c'mon.
Yes, I do.Then we have something in common. Do you have any favourite composers/pieces/periods?
are you I'm fond of classical music but I tend to prefer the 16 hundreds. I am particularly fond of Henry Purcell. my particular favorite piece is King Arthur the semi-opera.I like some Purcell (esp. Trio Sonatas), I'm not familiar with King Arthur, however. Any recordings you'd care to recommend?
Crudblood, one is particularly good, the Deller Consort and Choir, The Kings Musick, Alfred Deller directing. Its put out by Harmonia Mundi. GREAT STUFF! ABSOLUTELY GET THIS ONE! You will be totally carried away by it!
Do all Jews threaten lawsuits when things don't go their way?Why else would there be so many Jewish lawyers?
Do all Jews threaten lawsuits when things don't go their way?Why else would there be so many Jewish lawyers?
Well, now we're back, and Thork, who should have been banned with me, one wonders what he's doing. ADL-B'nai Brith is still analysing the situation. No decision has been made either way yet.
Well, now we're back, and Thork, who should have been banned with me, one wonders what he's doing. ADL-B'nai Brith is still analysing the situation. No decision has been made either way yet.
Anne Frankly I did Nazi this coming.Right, okay, he got banned, and now he's making dumb threats. That's no reason to keep taunting him. Please keep these sort of remarks to AR/CN.
I'm sure your Jew lawyers are secretly passing around your e-mail just to have a good laugh. "Look at this Jew, he isn't even a banking executive! Ahahaahha!"
You didn't answer my question.
You didn't answer my question.
The question didn't deserve an answer.
How heavy is your jew gold bag?
I haven't had the opportunity, financially or otherwise, to immigrate. And my personal circumstances make it difficult or impossible to live there.
This ain't it?How heavy is your jew gold bag?
Take it to the lower fora, beardo.
I haven't had the opportunity, financially or otherwise, to immigrate. And my personal circumstances make it difficult or impossible to live there.
It's not that expensive (http://www.travelocity.com/Flights-Search?trip=roundtrip&leg1=from:PHL,to:TLV,departure:12%2F22%2F2014TANYT&leg2=from:TLV,to:PHL,departure:12%2F29%2F2014TANYT&passengers=children:0,adults:1,seniors:0,infantinlap:Y&options=cabinclass:coach,nopenalty:N,sortby:price&mode=search&WA1=03010&WA2=tripadvisor.com&WA5=trave_air_dated_B1_|u&WA6=air). You could probably catch a flight during tax season.
This ain't it?How heavy is your jew gold bag?
Take it to the lower fora, beardo.
I haven't had the opportunity, financially or otherwise, to immigrate. And my personal circumstances make it difficult or impossible to live there.
It's not that expensive (http://www.travelocity.com/Flights-Search?trip=roundtrip&leg1=from:PHL,to:TLV,departure:12%2F22%2F2014TANYT&leg2=from:TLV,to:PHL,departure:12%2F29%2F2014TANYT&passengers=children:0,adults:1,seniors:0,infantinlap:Y&options=cabinclass:coach,nopenalty:N,sortby:price&mode=search&WA1=03010&WA2=tripadvisor.com&WA5=trave_air_dated_B1_|u&WA6=air). You could probably catch a flight during tax season.
Its not the plane flight. Its the fact that living in Israel is extremely expensive, and I am not working at present, being on disability, although that is hopefully not permanent. Even when I do return to work, though, the fact remains that my wife is Lutheran. She is NOT going to agree to live in Israel deep in the heart of the Middle East. Living with one Jew, maybe. Living in a country of Jews, that is something yet again. Plus, she works, but would her education degree be recognised there? Probably not.
Is humour only allowed there though?This ain't it?How heavy is your jew gold bag?
Take it to the lower fora, beardo.
No, it isn't.
SPOON, it has nothing to do with inconvenience. VAUX, as far as visiting, I agree with you. I will, or we will, one day visit. As to how I married a Lutheran, well, it was interesting. LONG story, but to make a long one short, I am a Traditional Jew, but not explicitly Orthodox. I am trans-denominational. And my wife and I are not having children. We married with my Rabbi's agreement. If we had been wanting children, the marriage would probably have never occurred.
Back to you, Spoon. Inconvenience is one thing. My wife being able to function as a human being is more than an inconvenience. She would be unable to work. I am presently unable to work. We could not survive in Israel. Like I said, of course we will visit. Or at least I will. But living there isn't practical.
You claim that you are on disability. What for?
Have you tried yoga?
Have you tried yoga?
IRUSH, no, I am NOT telling you that. I am telling you that Israel, like many countries, is an expensive place to live, just like California is much more expensive to live in than Iowa is.
Actually, California does NOT give away free money. Alaska does. I am from California, and no, they don't.
Israel actually does for the first six months of a Jew's residence there. But I may not be able to work in six months.
So, what's going on here lately? I haven't been around much.
The Coward in Chief is letting men get burned alive and doing NOTHING about it, a little country like Jordan is having to show us how to do our job in the world, if that ain't the shit
On 15 January 2015, it was reported that over 16,000 airstrikes had been carried out by the Coalition. The U.S. Air Force has carried out around 60 percent of all strikes. Among them, F-16 performed 41 percent of all sorties, followed by the F-15E at 37 percent, then the A-10 at 11 percent, the B-1 bomber at eight percent, and the F-22 at 3 percent. The remaining 40 percent has been carried out by the US Navy and allied nations.
Yeah, just, yeah. The IS has made it clear that the "surgical strikes" that the Coward in Chief has been launching have had little to no affect on its operations. What we need to do is go Dresden on the bastards. Go in there with bombers and carpet bomb the whole area under their control, killing every thing and every one in the area. Israel needs to do the same thing in the Gaza Strip and eliminate Hamas. The only way you deal with terrorists is to destroy them and their support base. EVERY SINGLE PERSON AND THING within the target area must be eliminated. CARTAGO DELENDA EST! Cato the Elder said that. He was right then. Rome followed his advice. Are we smart enough to follow that advice today? I wonder.
Then, you, my friend, will one day see yourself forced into Sharia. Enjoy. Either that or the rest of us will have to save your sorry butt. Don't worry. We will do your job for you, since you are too incompetent to do it yourself. We will incinerate the filthy animals ourselves.
Then, you, my friend, will one day see yourself forced into Sharia. Enjoy. Either that or the rest of us will have to save your sorry butt. Don't worry. We will do your job for you, since you are too incompetent to do it yourself. We will incinerate the filthy animals ourselves.
How will you do that, Yaakov?
Then, you, my friend, will one day see yourself forced into Sharia. Enjoy. Either that or the rest of us will have to save your sorry butt. Don't worry. We will do your job for you, since you are too incompetent to do it yourself. We will incinerate the filthy animals ourselves.
Adolf Hitler 2: Electric Boogaloo
Would it be offensive to wear a bumper sticker that says "I love kikes"?
I am Jewish, ask me anything.Are you a banker?
Enjoy watching your civilisation collapse within a hundred years without us.Indeed. You'll all be checked out by then.
No, but I am a bookkeeper, so I am good with my money.I am Jewish, ask me anything.Are you a banker?
No, but I am a bookkeeper, so I am good with my money.I am Jewish, ask me anything.Are you a banker?
Blanko, since he's not religious, he doesn't count as a Jew except halachically. Which doesn't count for much.
So those are the evil bankers?
Well, it seems to me like the one thing successful Jews have in common is that they've abandoned their religious practices. Why do you think that is?
Yeah, just, yeah. The IS has made it clear that the "surgical strikes" that the Coward in Chief has been launching have had little to no affect on its operations. What we need to do is go Dresden on the bastards. Go in there with bombers and carpet bomb the whole area under their control, killing every thing and every one in the area. Israel needs to do the same thing in the Gaza Strip and eliminate Hamas. The only way you deal with terrorists is to destroy them and their support base. EVERY SINGLE PERSON AND THING within the target area must be eliminated. CARTAGO DELENDA EST! Cato the Elder said that. He was right then. Rome followed his advice. Are we smart enough to follow that advice today? I wonder.
Face it, yackoff, the glory days of fes entertaining you for 70 pages are over. Don't spoil your feat by beating a dead horse. Think of a different topic.
Face it, yackoff, the glory days of fes entertaining you for 70 pages are over. Don't spoil your feat by beating a dead horse. Think of a different topic.
"Rushy said we're not going to fall for this again, let's prove him wrong!" Haha, guys. Good one.
Cartago delenda est. Of course, if you hate Jews so much, we'll gladly take back our contributions to Western Civilisation, and leave you all a bunch of Greek god worshiping boy loving pedophiles. Since that was basically standard in Greece, and became the standard in Rome, we'll gladly leave you all. Without our contributions, you would all still be humping your boys, and considering it the norm, and considering women to be "misbegotten males", as Aristotle put it.
And of course, since you love your Muslims so much, we'll gladly take back the Salk vaccine, and the other benefits Jews and Israel have conferred on the West. Oh, Mr. Hawking, we'll take back that talk machine you use, since you hate Israel so much, and it was invented there. That will shut you up, and we won't have to listen to your stupidity.
You can have Muslims, and the blessings they have conferred on the West, which, other than for about two centuries in the Middle Ages, have amounted to better ways to blow people up. Oh, and we'll make sure that the Ottoman Empire's order NOT to allow the printing press in 1455 when it arrived there, well, we'll make sure that is guaranteed to be obeyed throughout the West. The printing press wasn't allowed until the 19th Century, which is why so many Muslims are illiterate and stupid even today. We'll just spread that around, since you are so fond of the "Religion of Peace".
And since 20% of all Nobel Prizes have been won by 2% of the population (namely, Jews), we'll just take all the advances that have been given to the world by Jews and go home, and keep them to ourselves. We'll let you have the savagery of Islam. Let's see, about 1 billion Muslims have won exactly 2 Nobel Prizes. One in Literature in the late '60's, and one in Peace this last year. Such a stellar record! Christians have got the rest.
Of course, I am sure that if you added a few categories, like "How to Make a Better IED", or "How to Raise a Suicide Bomber", or "How to Train Terrorists in Hamas Training Camps for Children", why, the Muslims would probably become leaders of the pack in earning Nobel Prizes!
And of course, the reason Christians are what they are is because of us. the first 2/3 of the Christian Bible is the so-called "Old Testament", ie, the Jewish Bible. If it were not for us, Christianity would not exist. So, that is another thing we can take credit for. Their accomplishments are basically ours.
Hell, even Islam ultimately derives itself from Abraham of the Torah. So any good that comes out of Islam is a result of us. Any bad is a result of them perverting it.
But we are more than happy to take our contributions to civilisation and go. You are welcome to become a bunch of boy-ass humping pedophilic decadent pigs. Enjoy watching your civilisation collapse within a hundred years without us.
CARTAGO DELENDA EST.
MATHSMAN, what does any one person contribute? What have you offered the world lately?
Re: Jerusalem Syndrome, it is a noted psychiatric illness that has affected people. There is a hospital in Jerusalem dedicated strictly to its treatment, that accepts no other patients.
Re: the question of Jewish sensitivity toward anti-Semitism, that is sometimes true. Then again, if you had been beaten around for 2,000 years, you probably would be a bit sensitive also. And who cares what Muslims think about anything?
MATHSMAN, if you are not proud of being a part of the group of which you ARE a part, then you are a fool.
Actually, I never said that. Observant Jews have accomplished a great deal. Like the Hebrew Bible, which is a massive half of Western Civilisation (you would all be boy-ass loving Greek god worshipers without it). The entire concept of Western Justice comes from the Hebrew Bible. The entire New Testament, the bedrock of Western Civilisation would not exist without the Observant Jews.
Non-Observant Jews have accomplished things too, I don't dispute that. But they exist because of us.
Actually, I never said that. Observant Jews have accomplished a great deal. Like the Hebrew Bible, which is a massive half of Western Civilisation (you would all be boy-ass loving Greek god worshipers without it). The entire concept of Western Justice comes from the Hebrew Bible. The entire New Testament, the bedrock of Western Civilisation would not exist without the Observant Jews.
Non-Observant Jews have accomplished things too, I don't dispute that. But they exist because of us.
And the fact that non-Observant Jews have accomplished some things is beside the point. Most of the things they have accomplished have had nothing to do with religion one way or another, and could have been accomplished one way or another. Religion has had nothing to do with it. So you can't say that it wouldn't have been accomplished with Judaism. But it can be said that WITHOUT Judaism, Mosaic Law would't have existed to give rise to the West.
I already did. Anything good that came out of Islam is because of Judaism. Anything shitty about it is because they perverted Judaism.
I seriously doubt most Finnish doctors are jews.
The only reason white people in Europe accomplished anything was due to Judaism. While your ancestors were savaging about in some ungodly part of Europe, or butt-humping boys in ancient Greece, mine were Priests to the Temple of Solomon.How did the fact that your people were priests in the Temple of Solomon help white people accomplish things?
The only reason white people in Europe accomplished anything was due to Judaism. While your ancestors were savaging about in some ungodly part of Europe, or butt-humping boys in ancient Greece, mine were Priests to the Temple of Solomon. Oh, and, don't start on the 'lack of archaeological evidence' shit. The fact that they felt the need to return from captivity to build another is evidence of the first. Throw in the fact that Samaritans exist, still sacricificing on Mt. Gerizim, and you see the earliest schism between Jews and non-Jews. And remember Jesus saying: salvation is of the Jews.So now you believe the preaching of Jesus?
The only reason white people in Europe accomplished anything was due to Judaism. While your ancestors were savaging about in some ungodly part of Europe, or butt-humping boys in ancient Greece, mine were Priests to the Temple of Solomon.How did the fact that your people were priests in the Temple of Solomon help white people accomplish things?
I see. Most enlightening.The only reason white people in Europe accomplished anything was due to Judaism. While your ancestors were savaging about in some ungodly part of Europe, or butt-humping boys in ancient Greece, mine were Priests to the Temple of Solomon.How did the fact that your people were priests in the Temple of Solomon help white people accomplish things?
Without them, we probably wouldn't have the priestly class in Catholicism and thus no Father Ted. The entire history and purpose of Judaism was to inspire a Channel 4 sitcom.
(http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTU3MTczNzQwMV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNDg5NDEzMQ@@._V1_SX640_SY720_.jpg)
If you read the so called 'New Testament' carefully, you can strain out the parts that are most likely to have actually happened, since Jesus was in fact a Jew.You're right. It's equally easy to strain out the likely true parts from the Old Testament, too. All you need to do is look out your window and chuck that poorly written piece of crap out.
The only reason white people in Europe accomplished anything was due to Judaism. While your ancestors were savaging about in some ungodly part of Europe, or butt-humping boys in ancient Greece, mine were Priests to the Temple of Solomon. Oh, and, don't start on the 'lack of archaeological evidence' shit. The fact that they felt the need to return from captivity to build another is evidence of the first. Throw in the fact that Samaritans exist, still sacricificing on Mt. Gerizim, and you see the earliest schism between Jews and non-Jews. And remember Jesus saying: salvation is of the Jews.
And while the priests may have been priests, what did the rest of the Jews do?
And besides the supposed buttporking, how did the greeks live any different?
But, I realise atheists aren't exactly known for their intelligence.
I'm not homophobic at all. I simply think that being fixated on it is a little weird.
the actual gay people on this site.
What's your favorite gay sex position, everybody? Mine is the reverse Greek butt hump.
Why can't Jews just embrace their homosexual, baby penis kissing, feelings?
But, I realise atheists aren't exactly known for their intelligence.
It's when little boys butt hump men.What's your favorite gay sex position, everybody? Mine is the reverse Greek butt hump.
What even is that
I can name a good 50 off the top of my head who were STRONG believers, starting with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Deborah, Samuel, Gideon...
What is the archaeological evidence proving David's existence?
Sorry for calling you an idiot, Vauxy.
It seems a little weird that you can just "become observant" instead of following the bible from day one. I don't recall the bible setting forth that you should "get around to following these laws eventually" rather than doing so ASAP. I feel like that's what a lot of old people do because they get more worried about dying.
There isn't a consensus - those who place the final weight of proof on archaeology say 'no', those who allow weight to be accorded to the text, believe 'yes', but there's currently nothing to shut up either camp for good.
So the article is correct - we only know of David primarily because of the textual references in the Hebrew bible, with some very small archaeological support, but that is to be expected.
Well, since the report on David's palace just came out TODAY, I'd say that rather supercedes what you found.
This is not the first time archaeologists have announced what they believe to be evidence of the figure. In 2008, Israeli archaeologist Eilat Mazar said that she found what she believed to be King David's palace in an ancient area of Jerusalem by using Biblical descriptions to guide her excavations. However, the Times of Israel notes that Mazar's findings remain controversial, due in part to her dependence on a literal reading of ancient religious texts during her research.
Sometime coming to be from nothing is no less plausible than the existence of an eternal being who always has existed and always will exist with no beginning and no end.Preach it mugsy.
Actually, no. It is a logical impossibility for something to come from nothing. This is not a question of proving the Jewish G-d, or any other god or deity. But, if something comes to be, it had to come from something else.
If something is capable of creating something else, ie, if something can create you, then traditionally, said something has always been called G-d. Now you can call it what you will, but to deny its presence is simply to deny logic, and make yourself out to be a fool.
Is it so impossible to think that's something might be eternal? Just because we ourselves are not, does that imply that NOTHING is? What about something outside of time? I mean, we are getting into some interesting philosophy when we start talking about things outside our own dimensional concepts, but is it so hard to conceive after all? I don't get the malfunction here. It strikes me that an atheist lacks an imagination, for one. I mean, wow. What a boring world to live in, to only accept that which you can see. No wonder you all believe the world is flat. It looks flat. Ergo, it is flat.And none of this can apply to the Universe because?
That is simply a stupid statement, not that I have come to expect differently from an atheist. I have recommended protecting our way of life. And fighting a real war, like we fought WWII. When you fight wars, unfortunately, people die, and a lot of people die. This "surgical strike" bullshit results in just pissing people off. ISIS has already said that it has done no harm to them. The only way to take them out is to do exactly that. It would save more lives in the long run if we just did it, just like the nuclear bombing of Japan saved lives in the end.Yep, killing one of their head clerics is no damage at all.
Honestly, you'd think being a Jew you'd realize just how futile it is to wipe out an entire ethnic group and expect that to work.
What report? The one from huff post? I hope not because that was from July 2013. Anyway, newer does not give primacy as you are implying.
Is it so impossible to think that's something might be eternal? Just because we ourselves are not, does that imply that NOTHING is? What about something outside of time? I mean, we are getting into some interesting philosophy when we start talking about things outside our own dimensional concepts, but is it so hard to conceive after all? I don't get the malfunction here. It strikes me that an atheist lacks an imagination, for one. I mean, wow. What a boring world to live in, to only accept that which you can see. No wonder you all believe the world is flat. It looks flat. Ergo, it is flat.And none of this can apply to the Universe because?
The big bang was an event. So? Does that mean that this is all there is? Or maybe this big bang is just an effect from some larger universe? Just because you can't see the multiple layers of existence, doesn't mean they don't exist.
That is simply a stupid statement, not that I have come to expect differently from an atheist. I have recommended protecting our way of life. And fighting a real war, like we fought WWII. When you fight wars, unfortunately, people die, and a lot of people die. This "surgical strike" bullshit results in just pissing people off. ISIS has already said that it has done no harm to them. The only way to take them out is to do exactly that. It would save more lives in the long run if we just did it, just like the nuclear bombing of Japan saved lives in the end.
Yep, killing one of their head clerics is no damage at all.
So why would killing all of them do any damage?
Honestly, you'd think being a Jew you'd realize just how futile it is to wipe out an entire ethnic group and expect that to work.
Honestly, you'd think being a Jew you'd realize just how futile it is to wipe out an entire ethnic group and expect that to work.
Even Jews agree that Hitler did nothing wrong.
Leave it to a moderator to say something anti-Semitic and stupid. But then, you are an atheist. Why should I be surprised?
And an atheist operates on the principle that something can arise from nothing. Even stupider, but they still do it. And your opinion of "how you should do research ever" is a bit irrelevant, again, because you are not the scholar whose opinion matters a shit. I mean, come on, you believe the world is flat!
But if it were eternal , that would imply that it was G-d in some sense
As for the universe itself being eternal, that disagrees with current science saying that the Big Bang occurrec 13.8 billion years ago. But if it were eternal , that would imply that it was G-d in some sense, which, although I disagree, still makes the atheist look like a schmuck.
As for the universe itself being eternal, that disagrees with current science saying that the Big Bang occurrec 13.8 billion years ago. But if it were eternal , that would imply that it was G-d in some sense, which, although I disagree, still makes the atheist look like a schmuck.
As for the universe itself being eternal, that disagrees with current science saying that the Big Bang occurrec 13.8 billion years ago. But if it were eternal , that would imply that it was G-d in some sense, which, although I disagree, still makes the atheist look like a schmuck.
Where did God come from? (How many times has this question been asked so far?)
The idea that God is the universe is an interesting one. Or maybe the universe is God. The universe brought us galaxies, solar systems, life, planets and celestial bodies, and the means to survive on those bodies, etc. I see no reason why the universe can't be God. Of course it wouldn't be the God of the good book, but a representation of an omnipotent force that makes all things possible.
Like I said, calling the Universe G-d is something with which I disagree, but it makes more sense than atheism. The question "Who made G-d" is actually rather puerile. Aristotle spoke of the Uncaused Cause, the Unmoved Mover. I think Plato did as well. In spite of their unusual, well, let us just call them "habits", they weren't stupid. No one really cares about the question. Most people accept the fact that there is one thing in the Universe that had no creator, but has always been. Only whiny kids get hot and bothered over the question for more than five minutes. I mean, we can go round and round w/ it, but all it is is mental masturbation, ultimately. I can get you MOST of the way to G-d using reason alone. The rest you DO have to do on faith. I have never denied that.
Like I said, calling the Universe G-d is something with which I disagree, but it makes more sense than atheism. The question "Who made G-d" is actually rather puerile. Aristotle spoke of the Uncaused Cause, the Unmoved Mover. I think Plato did as well. In spite of their unusual, well, let us just call them "habits", they weren't stupid. No one really cares about the question. Most people accept the fact that there is one thing in the Universe that had no creator, but has always been. Only whiny kids get hot and bothered over the question for more than five minutes. I mean, we can go round and round w/ it, but all it is is mental masturbation, ultimately. I can get you MOST of the way to G-d using reason alone. The rest you DO have to do on faith. I have never denied that.
Like I said, calling the Universe G-d is something with which I disagree, but it makes more sense than atheism. The question "Who made G-d" is actually rather puerile. Aristotle spoke of the Uncaused Cause, the Unmoved Mover. I think Plato did as well. In spite of their unusual, well, let us just call them "habits", they weren't stupid. No one really cares about the question. Most people accept the fact that there is one thing in the Universe that had no creator, but has always been. Only whiny kids get hot and bothered over the question for more than five minutes. I mean, we can go round and round w/ it, but all it is is mental masturbation, ultimately. I can get you MOST of the way to G-d using reason alone. The rest you DO have to do on faith. I have never denied that.
They are ancient dead guys who would be considered retarded by today's standards.
They also kissed boys, which is a logical fallacy.
And mind you, no one disputes that Schliemann was a pompous arrogant ass of a man who clobbered the site of the real Troy with his sloppy work. But, he did find it. And he found it based on reading Homer, and taking him at his word. But I'll just tell him to put Homer down and go look for Troy in Antarctica or Tibet.
Ah, ok. That is a simply nonsensical, rather dumb response, but fine.And mind you, no one disputes that Schliemann was a pompous arrogant ass of a man who clobbered the site of the real Troy with his sloppy work. But, he did find it. And he found it based on reading Homer, and taking him at his word. But I'll just tell him to put Homer down and go look for Troy in Antarctica or Tibet.
It's because the Jews put Troy there.
Ah, ok. That is a simply nonsensical, rather dumb response, but fine.And mind you, no one disputes that Schliemann was a pompous arrogant ass of a man who clobbered the site of the real Troy with his sloppy work. But, he did find it. And he found it based on reading Homer, and taking him at his word. But I'll just tell him to put Homer down and go look for Troy in Antarctica or Tibet.
It's because the Jews put Troy there.
Why are you wasting your time with us dirty gentiles?
The idea that God is the universe is an interesting one. Or maybe the universe is God. The universe brought us galaxies, solar systems, life, planets and celestial bodies, and the means to survive on those bodies, etc. I see no reason why the universe can't be God. Of course it wouldn't be the God of the good book, but a representation of an omnipotent force that makes all things possible.
What is this, 5000 BC? The universe "brought us" nothing.
Beardo, the question is kind of stupid, really.So?
Yaakov, why do Jews drink non-kosher water? http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/09/02/whats-water-tiny-invisible-shrimp/
And don't worry. The bugs are kosher.
In a 2004 article in The Jewish Press, Rabbi David Berger, a professor of history at the City University Graduate Center, said, "The notion that God would have forbidden something that no one could know about for thousands of years, thus causing wholesale, unavoidable violation of the Torah, offends our deepest instincts about the character of both the Law and its Author."
I wasn't directing that post at you. I have no interest discussing magic gardens, talking snakes and mentally unhinged gods, I was discussing the idea of the 'universe' providing for us, either as a conscious or unconscious benefactor.
I would eat a locust. No question.
It is pretty telling though that the reasoning for micro-shrimp being kosher is completely Ad Hoc.
God could have, at least, told you about diseases. You know, really importaint survival stuff like how to not get small pox. (Hint, vaccination)
Having to adjust the religion to fit the times and new information puts a severe question of why God would require you to?
The invisibke shrimp could have been fixed by simply saying "that which can not fill your belly when eaten without limit can be ignored, even if it is alive."
I believe I just fixed God's poor legal skills.
God could have, at least, told you about diseases. You know, really importaint survival stuff like how to not get small pox. (Hint, vaccination)
Having to adjust the religion to fit the times and new information puts a severe question of why God would require you to?
The invisibke shrimp could have been fixed by simply saying "that which can not fill your belly when eaten without limit can be ignored, even if it is alive."
I believe I just fixed God's poor legal skills.
That's an abysmally stupid response, not that I have come to expect better. First point. If the Bible had contained information about medical solutions, that would have given the Mensa candidates like you ammunition when those medical solutions invariably became out of date. And remember, disease did not come into the world until man fell. The world that G-d originally made did not have disease and death in it to worry about.
The same issue exists with the food. The world came into existence without issues like that. It was when man fell, and the world became imperfect that questions about food became a concern in the first place. Initially, humans could eat all plants, and then all meat, and then the Hebrews were given the Torah and and the Kosher Laws. Non-Jews can still eat pretty much anything they like.
Remember that even after man fell, the world, though not perfect, was a far better place than it is now. Men were living up to 969 years. It wasn't until later that G-d restricted them to 120 years. Now, you very rarely find people living that long, although if you do, its usually in Japan. They tend to have a better diet than we do.
If you would actually take the time to READ the text, you would probably learn something. I know that's extremely hard for many of you to do (reading being such a difficult skill to master and all) but it would probably help you at least LOOK a bit less foolish.
Proof pending. On everything you just typed.
Proof pending. On everything you just typed.
Ah, whatever.
Proof pending. On everything you just typed.
Ah, whatever.
Regardless, DNA telomeres prove that the "humans lived to 900 years" claim is shit. At a certain point, human cells stop dividing. It's pretty much hardwired into our DNA.
I made no scientific argument. I merely said that according to Scripture, humans lived to be as old as 969 years.
And although I am not even familiar with the claim that you are calling "shit", my question is this: how do you know it is shit? Are you a qualified scientist? Do you have degrees in biology? Chemistry? Zoology? Even if you do, you do understand that people in the sciences disagree regularly, right?
Then again, I forget. You are an atheist.
Back then, things were A LOT different than they are now. If you choose not to accept that, then that is your business. I am fine with that. But don't expect the rest of the world to cooperate with your failure to think.
I made no scientific argument. I merely said that according to Scripture, humans lived to be as old as 969 years.
Ohhhh, I'm sorry. I forgot that the "argumentum from old desert scribblings" makes your claims completely immune to scrutiny. My bad. Next time I will try to remember. ::)
And although I am not even familiar with the claim that you are calling "shit", my question is this: how do you know it is shit? Are you a qualified scientist? Do you have degrees in biology? Chemistry? Zoology? Even if you do, you do understand that people in the sciences disagree regularly, right?
I have 6 Ph.Ds. I don't know what you're implying here.
Then again, I forget. You are an atheist.
What makes you think that?
God could have, at least, told you about diseases. You know, really importaint survival stuff like how to not get small pox. (Hint, vaccination)
Having to adjust the religion to fit the times and new information puts a severe question of why God would require you to?
The invisibke shrimp could have been fixed by simply saying "that which can not fill your belly when eaten without limit can be ignored, even if it is alive."
I believe I just fixed God's poor legal skills.
That's an abysmally stupid response, not that I have come to expect better. First point. If the Bible had contained information about medical solutions, that would have given the Mensa candidates like you ammunition when those medical solutions invariably became out of date. And remember, disease did not come into the world until man fell. The world that G-d originally made did not have disease and death in it to worry about.
The same issue exists with the food. The world came into existence without issues like that. It was when man fell, and the world became imperfect that questions about food became a concern in the first place. Initially, humans could eat all plants, and then all meat, and then the Hebrews were given the Torah and and the Kosher Laws. Non-Jews can still eat pretty much anything they like.
Remember that even after man fell, the world, though not perfect, was a far better place than it is now. Men were living up to 969 years. It wasn't until later that G-d restricted them to 120 years. Now, you very rarely find people living that long, although if you do, its usually in Japan. They tend to have a better diet than we do.
If you would actually take the time to READ the text, you would probably learn something. I know that's extremely hard for many of you to do (reading being such a difficult skill to master and all) but it would probably help you at least LOOK a bit less foolish.
your inability to do anything more than be rude reflects a lack of intelligence on your part.
I'm not using ad hominems at all. I am simply stating facts.
1. If you have degrees in Biology or Zoology, you clearly do not realise that scientists disagree often.
2. You are obviously not familiar with the Bible, and cannot argue its contents logically.
3. You can only insult it because you are NOT familiar with it. Since it has been praised by believer and non-believer alike, your inability to do anything more than be rude reflects a lack of intelligence on your part.
I'm not using ad hominems at all. I am simply stating facts.
1. If you have degrees in Biology or Zoology, you clearly do not realise that scientists disagree often.
2. You are obviously not familiar with the Bible, and cannot argue its contents logically.
3. You can only insult it because you are NOT familiar with it. Since it has been praised by believer and non-believer alike, your inability to do anything more than be rude reflects a lack of intelligence on your part.
Shall I go on?
The fall of man happens in the first 20 chapters of genesis no? Like 99% of the Torak follows. If the Torah was given to man well after the fall of man, it would make sense that it might cover information relevant to that. It makes sense that there would at least be a section on pasteurization or that spit will not cleanse an open wound. But no, you get dumb kosher laws instead. God gives terrible advice.
Then again, Heinrich Schliemann was controversial in his day for using the Iliad, until he found Troy.
You are dumber than I thought. It's entirely relevant. An archaeologist uses an ancient text, that most people regard as myth, and with it finds the most important part of said "myth". He went looking for Troy and found it. This lady used the Bible to find David's Palace and found it. You are a bit slow.
You are dumber than I thought. It's entirely relevant. An archaeologist uses an ancient text, that most people regard as myth, and with it finds the most important part of said "myth". He went looking for Troy and found it. This lady used the Bible to find David's Palace and found it. You are a bit slow.
Still not relevant to your claims. Unless you're claiming that Troy validates David's Palace? If so, please elaborate.
This woman (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/palace-king-david.html) also claims to have found David's Palace.
How can both of these peoples be correct? ???
You are dumber than I thought. It's entirely relevant. An archaeologist uses an ancient text, that most people regard as myth, and with it finds the most important part of said "myth". He went looking for Troy and found it. This lady used the Bible to find David's Palace and found it. You are a bit slow.
Still not relevant to your claims. Unless you're claiming that Troy validates David's Palace? If so, please elaborate.
Please pretend to have sense. All I am saying is that the comparison is apt. My wife's preschoolers could understand comparing and contrasting better than you.QuoteThis woman (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/palace-king-david.html) also claims to have found David's Palace.
How can both of these peoples be correct? ???
They can't. One will eventually prove correct, and one will not. In either case, the Bible was used to find the site. Its just a question of narrowing in on WHERE the site is. The Bible isn't a map. It gives only general information. So they have to determine from that general information where the specific site is.
I understand your comparison, but I don't see how it's relevant to your argument that David's Palace was a real place. Those two things are completely separate events. What you're doing is basically saying "well they found Troy so this must be the real David's Palace". If that't the case than Troy also proves that Atlantis was a real place as well, and will be found in time,.
I understand your comparison, but I don't see how it's relevant to your argument that David's Palace was a real place. Those two things are completely separate events. What you're doing is basically saying "well they found Troy so this must be the real David's Palace". If that't the case than Troy also proves that Atlantis was a real place as well, and will be found in time,.
Ah, no. All I am saying is that Troy was deemed by many to be a fiction. It was eventually found based on the Iliad. David's Palace is deemed by some to be a fiction. It may be found based on the Bible. Its already been proven scientifically that Atlantis has never existed, could never have existed, and for obvious reasons can never be found. You are taking one hell of a leap there that I never took, and are putting thoughts in my head, that I shall thank you to keep in your own illogical little brain.
It may be found based on the Bible.
Do you believe that finding David's Palace necessarily means that the Biblical narrative of King David is historically accurate?
Why you do believe that the Bible is historically accurate? This seems like a reasonable question.
And why do many archaeologists and historians regard David's supposed existence with skepticism? Are they all anti-semitic douchebags as well?
Since David's existence, while not absolutely certain, is reasonably accepted by most scholars,
I think I am in pretty good company when I say that.
The fall of man happens in the first 20 chapters of genesis no? Like 99% of the Torak follows. If the Torah was given to man well after the fall of man, it would make sense that it might cover information relevant to that. It makes sense that there would at least be a section on pasteurization or that spit will not cleanse an open wound. But no, you get dumb kosher laws instead. God gives terrible advice.
How would G-d give ideas on pasteurisation to a Bronze Age people that didn't have a way to heat things to a temperature for long enough that would succeed in pasteurising something? Again, the Bible is NOT a health code. I don't know how many times I have to say that to get it through an atheist's thick skull.
It is not an ad hominem to say something about somebody when that something happens to be a fact. Saying a person lacks intelligence, when in fact they do lack intelligence, is not an ad hominem.
Furthermore, I never claimed it was true because it was praised, in fact, I even said unbelievers praised it. I merely said that insulting it reflects a lack of intelligence since non-believers even recognise the merits of it.
Well, the Palace of David was found just recently using the Scripture as source material, even though the liberal fucked up press and what-not are calling this "controversial". Then again, Heinrich Schliemann was controversial in his day for using the Iliad, until he found Troy. So, the question itself is stupid. I don't really care that the non-believing world has its head up its ass.
You can't really boil unclean harvest without destroying it back in the Bronze Age, because you haven't got the technology to build anything to cook it in. How are you going to do that?
Again, its not an ad hominem when it is true.
You can't really boil unclean harvest without destroying it back in the Bronze Age, because you haven't got the technology to build anything to cook it in. How are you going to do that?
Again, its not an ad hominem when it is true.
I expect they did, but to keep it at boiling temperature for 3/4 of a day? I think that would probably burn whatever they had beyond recognition. They didn't have the steel or the iron that we have. Bronze isn't a strong metal, you know that as well as I do. Yes, they might have been able to use it, but would they have? Metal had to be used for far more valuable things. Likes swords and shit.
You can't really boil unclean harvest without destroying it back in the Bronze Age, because you haven't got the technology to build anything to cook it in. How are you going to do that?
I was thinking of a pot.
QuoteAgain, its not an ad hominem when it is true.
If you want to ignore my points that's cool but just to see my words once more: An ad hominem is not a fallacy because it is true or false. It is a fallacy because the intelligence of a person has nothing to do with the truth of their claims.
Here is a handy way to think about it: as soon as you stop dealing with what has been posted, but instead deal with your opinion of who posted it, you argument is shit.
I expect they did, but to keep it at boiling temperature for 3/4 of a day? I think that would probably burn whatever they had beyond recognition. They didn't have the steel or the iron that we have. Bronze isn't a strong metal, you know that as well as I do. Yes, they might have been able to use it, but would they have? Metal had to be used for far more valuable things. Likes swords and shit.
Cool so you know nothing about pasteurization. Minimal pasteurization is achieved by raising some thing to 72C for 15 seconds. I hope you did not take my fictional bible passage as literal truth!
How would G-d give ideas on pasteurisation to a Bronze Age people that didn't have a way to heat things to a temperature for long enough that would succeed in pasteurising something?
But they couldn't refrigerate. So what good would it have done?
Britain is a lot colder than Israel. You really aren't that bright.
You can't really deal with someone's arguments when they are so illogical that they do not admit of dealing with them.
A person's intelligence, or the lack thereof, speaks to their abilities to make an argument, and is therefore relevant.
Now, if I said you were fat, or ugly, or fucked up, or if I questioned your ancestry, or recommended you do socially unacceptable things with your mother, or insulted the size of your private parts, then you would have a point. Because none of those things have a bearing on your ability to post an argument. But your intelligence does indeed have a bearing on that ability.
You really aren't that bright.
Alright, this is getting out of hand again. Yaakov can take another break to cool off. Vauxy, as accurate as your Yaakov impression is, it's still against the rules.
Probably going to get banned again, but I just wanted to say, that was a little unfair. No one gets banned but me, even though their insults were far worse, not just personal, but downright anti-Semitic in many cases. I would be happy to stop insulting on both sides. It doesn't contribute to a discussion at all. But what do you expect me to do? Sit and take it?Too bad there's no rule against anti-semitism.
It seems odd to me that God would make something taste really good, like shrimp and ham, and then tell people they are not allowed to eat it. Then, he puts shrimp in your drinking water, but it is ok to drink it.God originally put shrimp on the moon, then some fell to earth. I think this is the reason for the seeming paradox.
If God really does not want for you to eat shrimp, then it seems logical that he would have just not created the tasty little things. Jewism is so confusing.
Jet fuel can't melt steel beams? I suppose it can when its in flames, but I too, question the 9-11 explanation of things we've been given.
Jet fuel can't melt steel beams? I suppose it can when its in flames, but I too, question the 9-11 explanation of things we've been given.
Ignoring the fact that it's an epic meme, the argument is actually a strawman designed to prompt the following response from autists like myself. No, jet fuel cannot melt steel beams as it ignites and burns at a lower temperature than the melting temperature of steel. But this is missing the point, as the beams didn't melt and their bending was not due to the jet fuel. The jet fuel burned out rapidly within the first few minutes, and the fire that remained burned on for long enough (and well enough, given just about everything in there was flammable) to sufficiently weaken the steel structure of the WTC. Once the structure was too weak to support 1 floor, it caved, resulting in a subsequent crashing of lower floors that could not hold the weight.
Jet fuel can't melt steel beams? I suppose it can when its in flames, but I too, question the 9-11 explanation of things we've been given.
Ignoring the fact that it's an epic meme, the argument is actually a strawman designed to prompt the following response from autists like myself. No, jet fuel cannot melt steel beams as it ignites and burns at a lower temperature than the melting temperature of steel. But this is missing the point, as the beams didn't melt and their bending was not due to the jet fuel. The jet fuel burned out rapidly within the first few minutes, and the fire that remained burned on for long enough (and well enough, given just about everything in there was flammable) to sufficiently weaken the steel structure of the WTC. Once the structure was too weak to support 1 floor, it caved, resulting in a subsequent crashing of lower floors that could not hold the weight.
How did we get on this topic? ???
Jet fuel can't melt steel beams? I suppose it can when its in flames, but I too, question the 9-11 explanation of things we've been given.
Ignoring the fact that it's an epic meme, the argument is actually a strawman designed to prompt the following response from autists like myself. No, jet fuel cannot melt steel beams as it ignites and burns at a lower temperature than the melting temperature of steel. But this is missing the point, as the beams didn't melt and their bending was not due to the jet fuel. The jet fuel burned out rapidly within the first few minutes, and the fire that remained burned on for long enough (and well enough, given just about everything in there was flammable) to sufficiently weaken the steel structure of the WTC. Once the structure was too weak to support 1 floor, it caved, resulting in a subsequent crashing of lower floors that could not hold the weight.
How did we get on this topic? ???
If you took some cud from a cow, and fed it to a pig, and the pig chewed it, does that mean that you could eat it?Leviticus says no because the pig's feet still aren't acceptable. Something about ugly toes.
What if the pig was genetically modified to have no legs?If you took some cud from a cow, and fed it to a pig, and the pig chewed it, does that mean that you could eat it?Leviticus says no because the pig's feet still aren't acceptable. Something about ugly toes.
What if the pig was genetically modified to have no legs?If you took some cud from a cow, and fed it to a pig, and the pig chewed it, does that mean that you could eat it?Leviticus says no because the pig's feet still aren't acceptable. Something about ugly toes.
Many of us would argue that there was a motive behind it. I mean, with people like Mr. Bickles to deal with, its probably a good idea to get used to that kind of thing quickly, no?
DNA testing proves you wrong of course. But keep it up. I like reporting you to Administration for insults in the upper fora.
Blanko: Is insulting Yaakov against the rules?
I don't think Yaakov claimed that the Jews built the pyramids.
Yaakov, what do you think about the more recent studies in Egypt indicating that the Egyptians didn't use slave labor and actually had paid farmers work the pyramids when the growing season was done?
Why did Noah curse Canaan?
What do you think of the deal with Iran being forged?
In a society that is not governed by religious law, I agree with you entirely. And frankly, I am not so sure I would want to live in a Halachic State (meaning one that is governed by Halacha, or Jewish Law). I mean, it would depend. If Halacha were used as an inspiration for law, that is one thing. I wouldn't mind that at all. But if it in fact WERE the law, that would not be a state I would want to live in.
Right now, there is a debate going on in Israel, that started before the last election. A "Nationality Law" was proposed that would define Israel as a Jewish State and would make Halacha "the inspiration for Israeli law". Furthermore, although all citizens would have their rights respected as individuals, their current status as separate national groups would dissolved. The State would be defined as a State of its Jewish citizens. Other citizens would have individual rights, but not group rights, as they do now.
"highest ranking generals"?What do you think of the deal with Iran being forged?
I think that even talking to Iran is the stupidest thing we could possibly do. Just a few days ago, one of their highest ranking generals was talking about wiping Israel off the map, and just a few days before that, they had people in the streets chanting "death to America". I hope Israel decides to take out their reactors. Obama is a traitor to the American people and should be tried for treason, found guilty, and treated as such. Even Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia, the which I normally hold in contempt, are questioning this deal with the Devil.
Brought here from the same-sex marriage thread:In a society that is not governed by religious law, I agree with you entirely. And frankly, I am not so sure I would want to live in a Halachic State (meaning one that is governed by Halacha, or Jewish Law). I mean, it would depend. If Halacha were used as an inspiration for law, that is one thing. I wouldn't mind that at all. But if it in fact WERE the law, that would not be a state I would want to live in.
I'm curious as to why you wouldn't want this. Is it just a belief in secularity, or is there some feature of Halacha that would make it undesirable?
Right now, there is a debate going on in Israel, that started before the last election. A "Nationality Law" was proposed that would define Israel as a Jewish State and would make Halacha "the inspiration for Israeli law". Furthermore, although all citizens would have their rights respected as individuals, their current status as separate national groups would dissolved. The State would be defined as a State of its Jewish citizens. Other citizens would have individual rights, but not group rights, as they do now.
Would that distinction be made on the basis of ethnicity or religion? That is, what rights would an Arab who converted to Judaism have? What about an ethnic Jew who converted to Islam?
I'm not sure if this actually happens in practice, I'd just like to understand where the line is drawn.
Even Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia, the which I normally hold in contempt, are questioning this deal with the Devil.
First off, the only english news paper I found that had this information was an Israeli one. So forgive me if I don't take their word for it.
Secondly, he isn't high ranking.
Mohammad Reza Naqdi, commander of Iran's Basij force is not, by any definition, a man of actual political clout. He runs the Basij and can't even get a law to force women to wear the veil. If he's the only one calling for death of Israel, I wouldn't worry.
What do you think of the deal with Iran being forged?
I think that even talking to Iran is the stupidest thing we could possibly do. Just a few days ago, one of their highest ranking generals was talking about wiping Israel off the map, and just a few days before that, they had people in the streets chanting "death to America". I hope Israel decides to take out their reactors. Obama is a traitor to the American people and should be tried for treason, found guilty, and treated as such. Even Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia, the which I normally hold in contempt, are questioning this deal with the Devil.
What do you think of the deal with Iran being forged?
I think that even talking to Iran is the stupidest thing we could possibly do. Just a few days ago, one of their highest ranking generals was talking about wiping Israel off the map, and just a few days before that, they had people in the streets chanting "death to America". I hope Israel decides to take out their reactors. Obama is a traitor to the American people and should be tried for treason, found guilty, and treated as such. Even Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia, the which I normally hold in contempt, are questioning this deal with the Devil.
Why is your side better than theirs? They say call America the Great Satan, you call them the Devil. They say 'Death to America', you hope Israel bombs them. Both sides are war-mongering bastards.
Anyway, why is peacekeeping treason? What, exactly, has Obama done that is treasonous?
What do you think of the deal with Iran being forged?
I think that even talking to Iran is the stupidest thing we could possibly do. Just a few days ago, one of their highest ranking generals was talking about wiping Israel off the map, and just a few days before that, they had people in the streets chanting "death to America". I hope Israel decides to take out their reactors. Obama is a traitor to the American people and should be tried for treason, found guilty, and treated as such. Even Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia, the which I normally hold in contempt, are questioning this deal with the Devil.
Why is your side better than theirs? They say call America the Great Satan, you call them the Devil. They say 'Death to America', you hope Israel bombs them. Both sides are war-mongering bastards.
Anyway, why is peacekeeping treason? What, exactly, has Obama done that is treasonous?
I consider Obama a traitor for far more reasons than just betrayal of our ally in the Middle East and coddling up to one of our worst enemies on the entire planet, although that alone would be enough. But, since you asked, let's play a little game, you and I. Let's list a few things, shall we?
To wit:
1. Benghazi. - Unless you have evidence that he knew the compound was going to be attacked and wanted it to happen, you've got nothing.
2. Fast and Furious - A good plan that didn't end well. Following the guns is a good strategy but somehow they found out the guns were marked.
3. His "apology" tour at the beginning of his Aministration - If an apology is an act of a traitor then clearly no human should ever apologize to another. It would be an act of personal treason.
4. Bowing to the Saudi King - Yes, let's never show respect for foreign officials.
5. Spending taxpayer money to attempt to prevent Netanyahu from being re-elected. Whether or not you like the Israeli Prime Minister, spending taxpayer money in an attempt to influence another nation's election is, by any definition of the word, illegal. And before anyone starts yapping about AIPAC, AIPAC is not in any way paid for using Israeli government funds. Although it may function in the interest of Jews, and thus, by definition, Israel, the Israeli State did not invent it, nor do they fund it. - Didn't hear this one. You'll have to elaborate. Like which budget code the money came from.
I've gotta be honest, Yaakov, I find your outrage at Obama's attempts at normalizing relations more disgusting than I do your Hitler complex. Honestly man, just because they're our enemies today doesn't mean they have to be our enemies forever. That attitude is actively evil.
I've gotta be honest, Yaakov, I find your outrage at Obama's attempts at normalizing relations more disgusting than I do your Hitler complex. Honestly man, just because they're our enemies today doesn't mean they have to be our enemies forever. That attitude is actively evil.
Unless they are explicitly willing to guarantee that Israel, one of our major allies, has the right to exist, and quit calling for it to be wiped off the map, any normalisation of relations with them is an act of treason against the State for which Obama should be promptly arrested, tried, and punished as a convicted traitor.
I've gotta be honest, Yaakov, I find your outrage at Obama's attempts at normalizing relations more disgusting than I do your Hitler complex. Honestly man, just because they're our enemies today doesn't mean they have to be our enemies forever. That attitude is actively evil.
Unless they are explicitly willing to guarantee that Israel, one of our major allies, has the right to exist, and quit calling for it to be wiped off the map, any normalisation of relations with them is an act of treason against the State for which Obama should be promptly arrested, tried, and punished as a convicted traitor.
This is completely illogical Yaakov. Do you know what treason means? Betraying an ally, which is the worst thing you could accuse Obama of in this case, is not treason by any definition.
I've gotta be honest, Yaakov, I find your outrage at Obama's attempts at normalizing relations more disgusting than I do your Hitler complex. Honestly man, just because they're our enemies today doesn't mean they have to be our enemies forever. That attitude is actively evil.
Unless they are explicitly willing to guarantee that Israel, one of our major allies, has the right to exist, and quit calling for it to be wiped off the map, any normalisation of relations with them is an act of treason against the State for which Obama should be promptly arrested, tried, and punished as a convicted traitor.
I want Iran to have nukes. Historically, a country that acquired nukes always became more stable and the region became more peaceful. Very recent examples include Israel, which threatened to nuke the entire region and subsequently survived an Egyptian beat-down, and then we have Ukraine, who gave up their nukes only to be invaded by Russia.
Nuclear weapons have only stopped wars, they have never started them.
I don't think it's the nukes themselves that stabilize a country, but rather the technological prowess required to make them. Any country that spends enough time and energy on science to develop nuclear weapons and missiles to use them with probably has its shit together.
As for the peace-enforcing possibility, I'm not sure the risk is worth the reward even if the reward exists. Maybe nukes help prevent war, but it only takes one bad egg-nation to fuck up everything for everyone forever. And if I had to choose a nation that would fuck up in that manner, Iran would be in the top 5.
How do you nuke ISIS?
No, nuking ISIS is a bad idea. You need to go to the areas controlled by them, and Boko Haram, and Al Shabab, and Hamas, and carpet bomb the living shit out of each area for a solid week. First you offer a chance to surrender unconditionally. If that is refused, then you completely wipe out with carpet bombing everything in those areas that exists down to the smallest rabbit. But before you do that, you choose one city to do it as an example. Pick the city that is the headquarters of ISIS and carpet bomb it into complete non-existence for one week. Then offer a second chance for surrender, and inform the rest of the bastards that a second refusal will result in them being turned into what that one city now looks like. Then give them three days to decide.
How do you storm a border that has a huge security fence?
*GRIN* Israel has armed guards on theirs. That actually will shoot to kill.
*GRIN* Israel has armed guards on theirs. That actually will shoot to kill.
That's not a good thing.
Killing is a good thing.
I seriously doubt if ISIS has much in the way of anti-air capabilities, and I know that Gaza doesn't. They can't even shoot a rocket right. The rockets that they fire at Israel more often then not end up landing in Gaza, according to analysts of the last war. In fact, I would choose Gaza City as the city to make an example of, rather than the capital of ISIS, but that's just a personal choice. I'm not one of the Generals. And I think Israel is more than prepared to have a bunch of poorly armed "Palestinians" attempt to attack it. They have what is basically the best military in the world. They could very easily resolve the "Palestinian" Problem. They simply choose not to, because of the bleeding heart idiots in the rest of the world.
I seriously doubt if ISIS has much in the way of anti-air capabilities, and I know that Gaza doesn't. They can't even shoot a rocket right. The rockets that they fire at Israel more often then not end up landing in Gaza, according to analysts of the last war. In fact, I would choose Gaza City as the city to make an example of, rather than the capital of ISIS, but that's just a personal choice. I'm not one of the Generals. And I think Israel is more than prepared to have a bunch of poorly armed "Palestinians" attempt to attack it. They have what is basically the best military in the world. They could very easily resolve the "Palestinian" Problem. They simply choose not to, because of the bleeding heart idiots in the rest of the world.
Actually, the translation is inaccurate. The Hebrew actually reads, "Thou shalt do no murder". Killing in defence of the State is not murder. Ergo, no violation,
Actually, the translation is inaccurate. The Hebrew actually reads, "Thou shalt do no murder". Killing in defence of the State is not murder. Ergo, no violation,
That sounds like a pedantic interpretation designed to shield your own conscious from guilt.
Come at them with every single plane we've got over their headquarters city for the purpose of carpet bombing the holy shit out of it, and see how long their "anti-air capabilities" last. They would be dogmeat in a matter of about six hours. Then just continue carpet bombing the city for a straight week to make sure absolutely nothing else is left by the time you are done.Actually, the translation is inaccurate. The Hebrew actually reads, "Thou shalt do no murder". Killing in defence of the State is not murder. Ergo, no violation,
That sounds like a pedantic interpretation designed to shield your own conscious from guilt.
Not at all. Simple linguistics. I know my languages.
Not at all. Simple linguistics. I know my languages.
Not at all. Simple linguistics. I know my languages.
It is the equivalent of saying "Thou shalt not kill" so I define my enemies as demons that are not alive and therefore can't be killed anyway. I once again am confused that Jews need to find loopholes in their own religion and think that if such a god existed, this god would be fine with you jumping through pedantic hoops to avoid following his rules.
Murdering and killing in self defence are two different things.
Not at all. If you kill me because you don't like the way I look, that is murder. If you kill me for trying to rape your wife, that is justified homicide. Any legal system would agree with me.
Not at all. If you kill me because you don't like the way I look, that is murder. If you kill me for trying to rape your wife, that is justified homicide. Any legal system would agree with me.
I didn't realize that what makes sense in a legal system makes sense for god, since I assumed god was morally superior to humans. My bad.
Come on! G-d is, first and foremost, a G-d of Justice, is he not? He is also a G-d of Mercy, but no moreso than of justice.
Like I said. The purpose is to destroy every living thing in the city. And the city itself. To completely level it. And then to spread salt across it so that it can never be rebuilt. This is total war, Roman Style, with modern weaponry. We had to go Dresden quite literally on Germany, and it worked. That is what we are going to have to do here. Might as well get it done sooner rather than later.
Like I said. The purpose is to destroy every living thing in the city. And the city itself. To completely level it. And then to spread salt across it so that it can never be rebuilt. This is total war, Roman Style, with modern weaponry. We had to go Dresden quite literally on Germany, and it worked. That is what we are going to have to do here. Might as well get it done sooner rather than later.
It's not total war at all, it's isolated air strikes against ISIS controlled facilities and targets. Technology has come a long way since Dresden (which, by the way, is considered a war crime by some historians).
Come on! G-d is, first and foremost, a G-d of Justice, is he not? He is also a G-d of Mercy, but no moreso than of justice.
It sounds more like he is the god of your justice, specifically.
I don't think it's the nukes themselves that stabilize a country, but rather the technological prowess required to make them. Any country that spends enough time and energy on science to develop nuclear weapons and missiles to use them with probably has its shit together.
"North Korea has its shit together." -Tausami the GreatAs for the peace-enforcing possibility, I'm not sure the risk is worth the reward even if the reward exists. Maybe nukes help prevent war, but it only takes one bad egg-nation to fuck up everything for everyone forever. And if I had to choose a nation that would fuck up in that manner, Iran would be in the top 5.
Considering Iran is the most advanced nation in the region, I don't think they would. Their culture opposes Western morality, yes, but they're not stupid.
Like I said. The purpose is to destroy every living thing in the city. And the city itself. To completely level it. And then to spread salt across it so that it can never be rebuilt. This is total war, Roman Style, with modern weaponry. We had to go Dresden quite literally on Germany, and it worked. That is what we are going to have to do here. Might as well get it done sooner rather than later.
It's not total war at all, it's isolated air strikes against ISIS controlled facilities and targets. Technology has come a long way since Dresden (which, by the way, is considered a war crime by some historians).
Well, that is precisely the problem. You can't win a war without Total War. Anybody who doesn't believe that is a fool. That is why we haven't won a war since 1945.
Well, he's on ignore. Pretty sorry excuse for a human being, if all he has time to do is come in here and threaten and insult one person. What I find interesting is that he has all this time to be pissed at 2.2% of the world population. Well, since he hates us so much, he should voluntarily not be vaccinated against things like polio, which vaccination was invented by a Jew, and he should also refuse to accept the Hebrew Bible, which is also our patrimony... I could go on, but why bother?
Are you saying that North Korea has become more stable since it developed nuclear technology? I thought we were just ignoring them as the outlier in the situation. Anyway, they haven't developed the missile technology to use them yet so they don't really count at all.
I'm not sure how not-stupid they are. They knowingly stepped into a situation where the UN would impose extremely harsh restrictions on them. That doesn't sound like something an intelligent, self-aware country would do.
Oh, here comes our friendly neighbourhood anti-Semitic Troll! He's on ignore, of course. But what a threatened little man. So afraid of 2.2% of the world's population! I love the fact that he is so terrified of us.
Well, he is a Troll, since his purpose is strictly to come onto a thread dedicated to Jews and piss off a Jew. And ignore works however I want it to work. Let's be honest. He is afraid of 2.2% of the population. He is terrified, in fact. So terrified, that he, while he was not on ingnore, was saying so much BS it was absolutely incredible. I expect he's still at it.
Are you saying that North Korea has become more stable since it developed nuclear technology? I thought we were just ignoring them as the outlier in the situation. Anyway, they haven't developed the missile technology to use them yet so they don't really count at all.
I'm not saying it is more stable, but it hasn't really degraded much. (not that I imagine it could)I'm not sure how not-stupid they are. They knowingly stepped into a situation where the UN would impose extremely harsh restrictions on them. That doesn't sound like something an intelligent, self-aware country would do.
Now you're implying that Russia is not an intelligent, self-aware country. I'm really confused about how you imagine foreign countries.
Russia knows it's powerful enough to fight sanctions fairly successfully in the UN and elsewhere. They're a completely different case. They're permanent members of the Security Council, for christ's sake. Iran, on the other hand, is pretty much helpless in the face of the international community.
When I use my phone, I am on the WAP2 Interface. Ignore doesn't work on that. I switched back to my computer, but I still had to read it.This actually makes no sense.
This actually makes no sense.
WAP2 is a WiFi encryption.
Ignore is a forum level flag that doesn't display a specific user's post.
WAP2 is a WiFi encryption.I think you're thinking of WPA2.
God Damnit!This actually makes no sense.
WAP2 is a WiFi encryption.
Ignore is a forum level flag that doesn't display a specific user's post.
He means this: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?action=forum;wap2
WAP2 isn't WiFi encryption. You're thinking of WPA2.
Don't worry, people. It's no big deal. So I occasionally see what he says. Sometimes, especially when it comes to things like that, its helpful. Here's my blanket advice. When he comes up with weird shit about Jews and calls it fact, I would ask me first before I accept it as such. The Kol Nidre Prayer is a perfect example of one that can be take and twisted out of context very easily. I am sure that next you will probably hear about "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion", which were supposedly written by Rabbis as a secret treatise on how to take over the world. In fact, its a forgery of the Okhrana, the Czarist Secret Police from about 1871. After that he'll probably accuse the Talmud of saying its ok to rape three year old girls. They usually cite a non-existent section of the Tractate on Marriage for that one.You weren't wiped out. You were able to get the US into the war, which likely saved the Jewish race.
Seriously, I find it really humourous how much power people think we've got. If 2.2% of the world really has that much power over 97.8% of the world, the rest of you have got to be a bunch of fucking morons! Obviously I don't really believe that. But how can we have that kind of control, and still manage to allow 1/3 of our population to be annihilated in 12 years? Clearly we aren't that good with our control. Something obviously went wrong.
Anyway, my take on Mister Bickles. I think he needs a seriously long nap. He seems tired.
A woman has to carry children before birth, give birth, do the lion's share of the raising of said children, keep a kosher home, do most of the cooking and cleaning, take care of her man, and on, and on, and on. What man can do all that a woman has to do? Our job in life is MUCH, MUCH easier than that of a woman's lot, and we Jews are smart enough to know that.
Well, its kind of hard for a man to take care of his man, unless he routinely drops the soap, but that's another matter. And I assure you, with my wife injured and me having taken over almost all feminine duties in the home at present, I have come to realise that I shall NEVER do them as well as my wife does them. You can say what you like. And my response is that you have your head in the sand. When you are bashing Judaism, remember, we have been here for 3800 years, and will continue to be here long after atheism and every other current religion or belief has either disappeared or changed so much that it is unrecognisable.
You have a personal problem, think. There is nothing wrong with traditional gender roles.
I don't know, Rama, I think your narcissism is beginning to display itself. The Torah tells us how men and women are to interact. Now, either Judaism is an inspired religion or not. If it is not, then what the fuck is the point? But if it is, then we do what the Torah tells us to do. Your issues with that are not my problem, but rather, your problem. I suggest you keep them that way. The Torah was not meant for the Goy anyway. So don't worry about it.
At that point, any secularist, or any non-Jew, who happens to be in the way, will need to get clear or be made to get out of the way. It is that simple
What does מָגֵן mean?
In the Heaven thread, someone actually suggested this. If anyone has any questions about Jews & Judaism, I'll try to answer. I'm neither the most brilliant nor the most foolish Jew in the world. I like to think I'm reasonably well informed. If I can't answer your question, I'll tell you that too. So, fire ahead. If nobody does, that won't offend me either. This is just an offer.
In the Heaven thread, someone actually suggested this. If anyone has any questions about Jews & Judaism, I'll try to answer. I'm neither the most brilliant nor the most foolish Jew in the world. I like to think I'm reasonably well informed. If I can't answer your question, I'll tell you that too. So, fire ahead. If nobody does, that won't offend me either. This is just an offer.
I have two questions, if you don't mind.
As a Christian, I DO NOT believe in the trinity doctrine, since they say there are three persons as God, while YHWH himself has said the he is the only one (as God). And even Jesus said that God is only one (Mark. 12:29)...
The Christian pastors say all over the world that the word "Elohim" is a proof of that God is three persons since it is a plural form. Is it true that all nouns, verbs and adjectives connected with the word "Elohim" in the Tanakh is ALWAYS in a singular form when God is talking about himself?
And if this is the case, do you agree that the plural form is no proof at all of that HE is schizophrenic as the Father, Son and the holy spirit?
In the Heaven thread, someone actually suggested this. If anyone has any questions about Jews & Judaism, I'll try to answer. I'm neither the most brilliant nor the most foolish Jew in the world. I like to think I'm reasonably well informed. If I can't answer your question, I'll tell you that too. So, fire ahead. If nobody does, that won't offend me either. This is just an offer.
I have two questions, if you don't mind.
As a Christian, I DO NOT believe in the trinity doctrine, since they say there are three persons as God, while YHWH himself has said the he is the only one (as God). And even Jesus said that God is only one (Mark. 12:29)...
The Christian pastors say all over the world that the word "Elohim" is a proof of that God is three persons since it is a plural form. Is it true that all nouns, verbs and adjectives connected with the word "Elohim" in the Tanakh is ALWAYS in a singular form when God is talking about himself? And if this is the case, do you agree that the plural form is no proof at all of that HE is schizophrenic as the Father, Son and the holy spirit?
TOM, w/o trying to sound unfriendly, when the Torah uses the singular, that just means G-d is NOT using the Royal We in that instance. He doesn't, always. And forgive me if I say that debating theological points w/ a Jew who has lost his Faith (you), which puts you on my list of self-hating Jews, is not high on my list of things to do. There is ultimately no point to it. I have just sat shomer for 2 hrs & I'm tired. Go argue w/ someone who cares. Pete wants a true Jewish answer, I assume, as opposed to your atheist crap, @ least I hope he does.
That's not what the commentaries I've read state. How an atheist reads the Scripture? & that is relevant how? According to Torah, your kind would have been disposed of, by stoning, if memory serves. That is appropriate, of course. I would personally be more lenient, & simply exile you.
That's not what the commentaries I've read state. How an atheist reads the Scripture? & that is relevant how? According to Torah, your kind would have been disposed of, by stoning, if memory serves. That is appropriate, of course. I would personally be more lenient, & simply exile you.
What is the definition of an atheist? I don't think I am one. Besides, I don't hate myself, but you hate me apparently.
I don't like your threats!
Back to the topic.
Do you only parrot the commentaries or can you think for yourself as well.
If you read the Tanach with the eye of a Kabbalist, you will also see different things.
In the beginning Elohim = Gods (plural) is used. Later El = God is used in different texts. Avraham (a group of people in that area) chose one of the many 'Gods' that were around, the one he liked most (the jealous/violent one).
That's not what the commentaries I've read state. How an atheist reads the Scripture? & that is relevant how? According to Torah, your kind would have been disposed of, by stoning, if memory serves. That is appropriate, of course. I would personally be more lenient, & simply exile you.
What is the definition of an atheist? I don't think I am one. Besides, I don't hate myself, but you hate me apparently.
I don't like your threats!
I am not threatening you at all. I am just saying what you deserve to have done to you.QuoteBack to the topic.
Do you only parrot the commentaries or can you think for yourself as well.
If you read the Tanach with the eye of a Kabbalist, you will also see different things.
This coming from someone who says that Judaism is untrue. You cannot be a student of Kabbalah and not be a Faithful and Devout Jew. It is impossible to do. Anyone who thinks it can be done is fooling themselves.QuoteIn the beginning Elohim = Gods (plural) is used. Later El = God is used in different texts. Avraham (a group of people in that area) chose one of the many 'Gods' that were around, the one he liked most (the jealous/violent one).
That, without a doubt, takes the California Taco for the stupidest remark I have ever heard a person say. It is clear to me that you are an idiot. Avraham did not choose anything. He was chosen by the Only True G-d. It is certainly true that there were other gods, but, as the commentaries say, they were but idols, with mouths that do not speak, ears that do not hear, eyes that do not see, and so-forth. Have you not read the commentary that discusses how Avram destroyed Terah's idols in his shop, and then blamed one of the idols? And when Terah did not accept this, Avram made clear to Terah how illogical the making of idols was? At least I think the idol-maker was Terah, its been awhile since I have read the tale myself. But whoever it was, you get my point.
Your lack of Faith in Judaism has made you spiritually empty. No Jew can ever fill his soul with anything spiritual except with Judaism. Anything else is but a pale imitation of the Divinely Revealed Faith that is ours by inheritance. What we get by birth, by election and grace, is something that others could only wish for, beg for. And you have thrown it away like a fool. May G-d have mercy on your poor, sorry, empty, savage soul.
I am not threatening you when I say that Torah should be applied to you. Naturally, I am not the one who would do it. I don't believe in vigilantism. But I do believe that in an ideal world, you would be killed, or at the least exiled, for your offence against the Divine Majesty. Any Jew who has rejected Judaism has forfeited his right to live, according to Torah. And I hope and pray that in my lifetimes those laws will apply to you and your ilk. I shan't enforce them, as it isn't my business to do so. But I hope that they will be.
You acknowledge with your words that the God you worship is a 'God' full of hate and violence. Well, the Tanach is full of it.
And you are one of his most fanatical followers, it seems.
So, back to the topic.
Avraham (a group of people, as there is no proof that a person called Avraham ever existed) decided to worship this violent God (El, El Shaddai, Adonai, Hashem, etc).
Maybe he was invited to do so, but he believes this 'God' will help him.
Other people who are worshipping other 'Gods' are driven away or killed.
You acknowledge with your words that the God you worship is a 'God' full of hate and violence. Well, the Tanach is full of it.
It was a violent time. After all, it was the Bronze Age. What do you expect, that they were all going to gather round and sing about the age of Aquarius with the Canaanites? You really make some illogical remarks, indicative of a severe lack of knowledge of history. It was hardly convenient for Joshua to invite the citizens of Jericho to sit round the campfire, roast s'mores (even if you could have found kosher marshmallows), and sing kum-bay-ya.QuoteAnd you are one of his most fanatical followers, it seems.
A juvenile response from a petty little man that can't keep up in an argument.QuoteSo, back to the topic.
Avraham (a group of people, as there is no proof that a person called Avraham ever existed) decided to worship this violent God (El, El Shaddai, Adonai, Hashem, etc).
Maybe he was invited to do so, but he believes this 'God' will help him.
There is no proof that a people named "Avraham" ever existed. It is true that they have not found Avraham's bones, but after all, it was a LONG time ago. How illogical to take the name of a person and convert it, with no evidence to do so, into the name of a people group. That make no sense at all.QuoteOther people who are worshipping other 'Gods' are driven away or killed.
Naturally. Granted, at this point, the Hebrews were basically just an extended family group. But eventually, with the fullness of the time, after Torah was delivered to Moses, the Law applied to all. If one rejected it, you were driven outside the Camp of Israel or killed, as one should have been.
So, the story started with 'In the beginning created Elohim (Gods) .......' and it ends with El (Elah), the God a group of people (family) decided to worship as he promised them a good life (at the expense of many other people). The family used a lot of violence.
It is a collective system with a fence around it. A black box (cube) with a strict law in it (Tefillin).
Even the children of the children of the children .... of this group have to obey this strange 'God'. Nobody knows if he really exists or if he is one of the 'Gods' who exploit the human race.
It would be interesting to find this out.
So, the story started with 'In the beginning created Elohim (Gods) .......' and it ends with El (Elah), the God a group of people (family) decided to worship as he promised them a good life (at the expense of many other people). The family used a lot of violence.
It is a collective system with a fence around it. A black box (cube) with a strict law in it (Tefillin).
Even the children of the children of the children .... of this group have to obey this strange 'God'. Nobody knows if he really exists or if he is one of the 'Gods' who exploit the human race.
It would be interesting to find this out.
Composing a logical answer to such a stupid response is going to be difficult at best. Of course the Hebrews used violence. IT WAS THE BRONZE AGE, FOR FUCK'S SAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you propose one more time for them to sing kum-bay-ya with the natives, I am going to suggest you be arrested just for committing the crime of felony stupid.
Since the laws regarding Tefillin were not ordered until well after Avraham, you are making a bit of ass of yourself. And by then, the Tribes were a nation, rather than a family. And how strict is it, really, to remind you what your G-d is, and to tell you to teach your children about your G-d? Seems pretty reasonable to me.
And this crap about "gods exploiting the human race". You sound like Erich von Daniken. Not exactly a man I would be trying to emulate. I've read enough of his books to know that he is a quack, preying on the simple-minded (which I agree would include you, or so it would appear at present. You might of course change my mind by demonstrating logical arguing skills).
To incite a group of people to use such a violence, killing men, women and children is absurd. We are talking about a War God.
I am talking about the collective system in general, the Hebrew system is. I use the black cube (Telfeillin) as a metaphore to illustrate that it is a divisive, oppressive and enclosed system.
A sane person would reject such an absurd system for living beings with the Life Force in it.
So, I am trying to figure out if there really are 'Gods' who are oppressing and exploiting living expressions of Life.
On the other hand, it is not relevant, as all Life Forms have the Life Force 'in' them, so nobody has to obey an outside power/force.
To incite a group of people to use such a violence, killing men, women and children is absurd. We are talking about a War God.
So you are guilty of the crime of felonious stupidity by asking Bronze Age people to respond to the standard violence of their time with chants of "kum-bay-ya". Ok. Now that we have established your inability to say anything intelligent on the topic...QuoteI am talking about the collective system in general, the Hebrew system is. I use the black cube (Telfeillin) as a metaphore to illustrate that it is a divisive, oppressive and enclosed system.
Explain, without committing the offense of felonious stupidity, how it is oppressive and enclosed.QuoteA sane person would reject such an absurd system for living beings with the Life Force in it.
So, I am trying to figure out if there really are 'Gods' who are oppressing and exploiting living expressions of Life.
Greetings, Erich. What is your latest absurd claim, I wonder?QuoteOn the other hand, it is not relevant, as all Life Forms have the Life Force 'in' them, so nobody has to obey an outside power/force.
This makes no sense. Of course all living things are alive. That is what makes them "living things". See how that works? If they were not alive, ie, did not have life force, they would be dead. See how that works? That doesn't eliminate the need to obey the Creator of the Universe and all that therein lies.
Violence in the past, violence is used now and will be used in the future. Nothing changed!
The Laws keep Living Life Forms in a Frame. A time frame, a superiority frame, an apartheid frame, an authority frame, a good-bad frame, a false hope-frame, a fear frame, etc, etc.
It is about mind and behaviour control through illusions.
I am asking questions. You believe in a War God, but you can't even prove that he exists.
Violence in the past, violence is used now and will be used in the future. Nothing changed!
Anyone who has studied history (I have an MA in the subject) knows that violence is in the nature of the human race. Until the Messiah comes, we will commit violence. That is just the way we are. The only hope that it will stop is the Messianic hope.QuoteThe Laws keep Living Life Forms in a Frame. A time frame, a superiority frame, an apartheid frame, an authority frame, a good-bad frame, a false hope-frame, a fear frame, etc, etc.
This is simply pure, unadulterated foolishness. No one would say something like this that understood Judaism. Clearly you do not, and never did. We separate ourselves spiritually for the well-being of both Jew and Gentile. We know what G-d has commanded for us. We do not pretend to know what he has commanded for the Gentile. I am commanded to follow the G-d of Israel as he has revealed himself to the Prophets, as they have been understood by the Sages and Rabbis of Blessed Memory. I do not presume to dictate to the Gentile what he is supposed to do. That is beyond my paygrade. Nor does one have to be a Jew to be "saved", or any silliness like that. A Righteous Gentile has a place in Olam Ha Ba.QuoteIt is about mind and behaviour control through illusions.
Only a fool says things that are not true, when he knows they are not. Rejection of G-d carries with it Divine punishment. The choice is yours.QuoteI am asking questions. You believe in a War God, but you can't even prove that he exists.
Your questions are illogical, as are you. G-d is a G-d of all things, war among them. The fact that the Universe exists is proof that G-d exists. There are many arguments for the existence of the Deity. I shall not rehearse them with you, as it will serve no purpose. Your mind is closed to all but your petty rejections. You are as the child, who rebels because it didn't get the piece of candy that it wanted. You resist G-d, because you want to be king of your own castle. Well, you are. The fact that you have thrown out your Creator is your business, and your problem.
You are talking about an universe and don't even know that the earth is flat.
You can fool yourself and love your War God.
Good luck with your illusions!
You are talking about an universe and don't even know that the earth is flat.
Wow. Just, WOW. You went there. You actually fucking went there. He said it. The Earth is flat. Now I have heard as much felony stupid as I can ever hope for. You shouldn't just be arrested, you should be shot.
Of course, its beside the point. Even if I believed something so patently absurd, it would not change anything I have said. The ancient Hebrews believed the Earth was flat. So, your point is?QuoteYou can fool yourself and love your War God.
A gratuitous, borderline ad hom from a petty man who can't hold his own in an argument.QuoteGood luck with your illusions!
No, anyone who thinks the world is flat after the life of Aristotle is the one who is messed up with illusions. You need to be committed. They have hospitals and medications for this kind of thing, Man.
You're getting real close to crossing into ban territory again, Yaakov. Try to keep calm, okay?
What are you doing on this flat earth forum, if you still believe in a sphere in the middle of nowhere?
You are full of accusations and threats. You are not a fun guy to talk to.
Live in your own fantasy reality. Good luck!
You're getting real close to crossing into ban territory again, Yaakov. Try to keep calm, okay?
Fair enough. Thanks for the friendly warning.What are you doing on this flat earth forum, if you still believe in a sphere in the middle of nowhere?
You are full of accusations and threats. You are not a fun guy to talk to.
Live in your own fantasy reality. Good luck!
Even if I did believe in a Flat Earth, so did the Ancient Israelites. That mistaken belief didn't invalidate their religion. I don't threaten at all. A threat involves me suggesting that I would do harm to you. I have not suggested that at all. I have suggested that in a Halachic State, harm would be done to you by that State, yes. But I am not the State.
Face it, Tom. You can't hold your own in a real argument. Apparently, you never mastered the art of pilpul. I'll admit, this has gone outside the realm of pilpul into rudeness, but you started that with you outright crass disrespect of Judaism. Don't ask for respect when you refuse to give it.
You said among other things, I quote "You shouldn't just be arrested, you should be shot." That is a threat, mister!
Not nice!
All your accusations that I am stupid and that I don't know anything about history and Judaism are really very weak arguments. Give me some solid proof that your War God exists! Give me some solid proof that all the famous War Lords in the Tanach like Avraham, Jaakov, his 12 sons, David, Solomon, etc. existed.
I am still interested in the story. What really happened and what really is going on.
You cannot provide any interesting thoughts. No point to talk with fundamentalists about these things.
Anyone else?
You said among other things, I quote "You shouldn't just be arrested, you should be shot." That is a threat, mister!
Not nice!
Suggesting what I think your punishment should be is one thing. I am not saying that I should be the one to carry it out. Ergo, not a threat.QuoteAll your accusations that I am stupid and that I don't know anything about history and Judaism are really very weak arguments. Give me some solid proof that your War God exists! Give me some solid proof that all the famous War Lords in the Tanach like Avraham, Jaakov, his 12 sons, David, Solomon, etc. existed.
Well, given that they have found stones in Israel with David's name on them, that should be your first clue to his existence. They also, in a recent find, believe that they have found his palace in Jerusalem. Obviously, if David existed, it is likely his son did. I agree that they have no proof of Abraham or Jacob or the Twelve Sons thereof, but the fact that there were Twelve Tribes is a pretty good indicator that there were Twelve founders of those Tribes. Remember, it was a LONG time ago. That proof is going to be awhile in coming. Remember where they are digging for things.
As a perfect example, they recently found a Jeep from the 1973 War in the Sinai Peninsula. This Israeli Jeep was buried 50 feet deep in sand. Notice the figure. 50 feet deep. And that is just in the last 40 years. Can you imagine what sand has moved around in the last 3,800 years? Finding ANYTHING in that part of the world is going to be a pain in the butt at least.
I would encourage you to start using your head, instead your emotions. You have developed such a hatred for Judaism that all you can think with is your hatred. I don't know why you feel the way you do, but something has caused you to despise your upbringing. You have betrayed your G-d and your People. As far as I am concerned, you deserve the punishments that a Halachic State would provide for such. Note that I do NOT say that I would enforce such punishments. I merely say that I believe you deserve to be punished accordingly. Again, not a threat. Merely an opinion.QuoteI am still interested in the story. What really happened and what really is going on.
You cannot provide any interesting thoughts. No point to talk with fundamentalists about these things.
Anyone else?
There really is no such thing as a Jewish fundamentalist. I mean, yes, the Torah actually occurred, of course. Well, at least after Chapter 11 of Genesis. I am not so sure about the first 11 chapters, because they are all quasi-mythological, but that is another issue altogether.
But the Torah, and the rest of the Jewish Bible has to be read as a multi-layered text. Please note I don't use the term TaNaKh. The term is correct, of course. I avoid it, however, because most Gentiles have no clue what the heck it means. It is easier for their understanding to use terms such as "Jewish Bible", or "Hebrew Bible", or, much as I hate it, the oft-used term, "Old Testament", which I usually will place in quotes to indicate the incorrectness of the term.
So, back to the topic. The Jewish Bible is a multi-layered text. It has to be read literally of course. But there are also metaphorical, poetic, literary, mystical, and many other ways in which it can and often should be read in addition to the literal. The fact that it can and should be read this way is the reason for the existence of Talmud and Kabbalah. But the only way to understand either of these is through the prism of a faithfully lived Jewish life. Trying to break from Judaism, and its disciplines, and yet understand either of these, particularly Kabbalah, is just straight impossible, and doomed to failure.
No proof for the existence of your War God and his soldiers.
There is a story about the Hyksos that tried to conquer Egypt and were kicked out. That's a clue that there was something going on in that area.
Btw, Einstein was a kabbalist. We all know how he got his theories. Unfortunately they are wrong.
No proof for the existence of your War God and his soldiers.
Your point being?QuoteThere is a story about the Hyksos that tried to conquer Egypt and were kicked out. That's a clue that there was something going on in that area.
Actually, they DID conquer Egypt for a time, and ruled it, until they were conquered themselves, and thrown out of the country. It is believed that it was about this time that the Hebrews were made slaves, because it was feared that they would ally with the Hyksos. At least, so some scholars say.QuoteBtw, Einstein was a kabbalist. We all know how he got his theories. Unfortunately they are wrong.
Einstein was not a practitioner of the Jewish Faith. He was an ethnic Jew only. And he only vaguely believed in G-d at all, as some vague force that created the universe. He certainly did not believe in Judaism. And every single reputable scientist and scholar in the world accepts Einstein's work as revolutionary in understanding our universe. I hardly think that anyone on this website is going to convince 99.99999999% of the educated world that the Earth is flat and Einstein was an idiot.
I highly doubt that Einstein was a kabbalist, given his very vague notions of deity and religious concepts. That sounds like a load of bilge.
If you had ever studied philosophy, you would have known the arguments for the existence of G-d. Telling me that Einstein's theories are similar to Kabbala simply means one thing. Citation needed. And even if they were, sine he was not devoutly Jewish, he could not have understood Kabbala.
If you had ever studied philosophy, you would have known the arguments for the existence of G-d. Telling me that Einstein's theories are similar to Kabbala simply means one thing. Citation needed. And even if they were, sine he was not devoutly Jewish, he could not have understood Kabbala.
There are no valid arguments for the existence of God, especially not your War God.
People who say that other people cannot understand something, are so unbelievable supercilious.
What are you doing here, if you don't acknowledge that the earth is flat?
If you had ever studied philosophy, you would have known the arguments for the existence of G-d. Telling me that Einstein's theories are similar to Kabbala simply means one thing. Citation needed. And even if they were, sine he was not devoutly Jewish, he could not have understood Kabbala.
There are no valid arguments for the existence of God, especially not your War God.
People who say that other people cannot understand something, are so unbelievable supercilious.
What are you doing here, if you don't acknowledge that the earth is flat?
The only reason you claim there are no arguments for G-d's existence is because you refuse to obey the Creator. You are in open rebellion. You have stupidly closed your mind.
I claim you don't understand because it is obvious that you do not. If that makes me supercilious, tough. Get over it.
You will find the majority of people here don't believe the earth is flat.
B. Existence is greater than non-existence.
My first argument would be the Ontological Argument.
A. I can conceive of a Being a Greater than which cannot possibly be Conceived which exists.
B. Existence is greater than non-existence.
C. Ergo, G-d exists.
Of course, there are a shit-ton of others. I am not going to rehearse them all. An atheist is as the child, screaming in rebellion because it didn't get the candy that it wanted. Grow up, act like an adult, and maybe it will be worth my time debating with you.
Why does it matter why I am here?
That is just a stupid response. If I tell you there is a boat in the harbour, when in fact there is no boat there, that means that it does not exist. I am not going to get into this. You are an illogical individual, although we knew that already.
That is just a stupid response. If I tell you there is a boat in the harbour, when in fact there is no boat there, that means that it does not exist. I am not going to get into this. You are an illogical individual, although we knew that already.
That is just a stupid response. If I tell you there is a boat in the harbour, when in fact there is no boat there, that means that it does not exist. I am not going to get into this. You are an illogical individual, although we knew that already.
It's just one of many valid counter arguments such as:
A. This, in fact is not true, since one can engage in an infinite progression of superlatives. An infinity cannot exist in reality therefore your premise is false.
B. In order for this premise to hold it must be true in every possible case. There are cases where non-existence is superior such as ending a life well-lived before succumbing to a painful degenerative disease. This premise fails.
C. The premises do not hold true therefore God does not exist.
Why do you think a syllogism must necessarily be a part of reality?
In the Heaven thread, someone actually suggested this. If anyone has any questions about Jews & Judaism, I'll try to answer. I'm neither the most brilliant nor the most foolish Jew in the world. I like to think I'm reasonably well informed. If I can't answer your question, I'll tell you that too. So, fire ahead. If nobody does, that won't offend me either. This is just an offer.
Jews, for obvious reasons, are very concerned with matters of social justice.
QuoteJews, for obvious reasons, are very concerned with matters of social justice.
So long as they're not Arabs, right?...
Pete wants a true Jewish answer, I assume, as opposed to your atheist crap, @ least I hope he does.
Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick jews, do they not bleed? If you tickle jews, do they not laugh? If you poison jews, do they not die? And if you wrong jews, shall they not revenge? If jews are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villainy you teach me I will execute—and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.
You're not very bright, are you, Bickles? You can't be a Marxist and a Capitalist at the same time, see. Those two don't work and play well togther. Not that I would expect you to know this, given your approximate fifth grade iq.Well no you can't but from a literary theorist's perspective Marxism is the following of capital to make a story making them two sides of the same coin. Both Concerned with ducats but oopposite views of distribution.