LGF

Dhimmitude at the Times

Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 4:15:49 pm PST

In the New York Times, John Kearney wants the media to stop calling Allah “Allah,” and just use the name “God” to signify that Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship the same deity: My God Is Your God. (Hat tip: davesax.)

Last August the Washington Post Web site posed this question to readers: “Do you think that Muslims, Christians and Jews all pray to the same God?” One Muslim respondent wrote yes, each of the three major monotheistic faiths “pray to the God of Abraham.”

Christian respondents, however, were equivocal or hostile to the notion. “Jews pray to Yahweh,” one Virginia woman wrote. “As a Christian, I pray to the same God.” But she insisted that “Muslims pray to Allah. Allah is not the God of Abraham.” This woman might be surprised that Christian Arabs use “Allah” for God, as do Arabic-speaking Jews. In Aramaic, the language of Jesus, God is “Allaha,” just a syllable away from Allah.

Still, who can blame her? Earlier that month, NPR reported Palestinian demonstrators in Gaza City intoning, “there is no God but Allah.” Last week, The Los Angeles Times mentioned mourners for a slain Baghdad professor reciting, “there is no God but Allah” at the university campus. In September, The New York Times reported an assassinated Palestinian uttering, “there is no God but Allah” before he died.

“There is no god but God” is the first of Islam’s five pillars. It is Muhammad’s refutation of polytheism. Yet to today’s non-Muslims, the locution “there is no God but Allah” reads as an affront, a declaration that inflammatory Allah trumps the Biblical God. This journalistic rendition distorts the meaning of the Muslim confession of faith.

But Kearney gives no evidence that the phrase “there is no God but Allah” is a distortion, just his own word. This is argument by assertion; politically correct wisdom received from on high. Hasn’t Kearney ever read a transcript of the Islamic supremacist sermons preached in Gaza City mosques? A real case could be made that the phrase as currently used by journalists conveys its precise meaning—that all other gods and all other religions are inferior to Islam.

Kearney uses the CAIR-approved term “Abrahamic faith” to denote Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, and thinks the Muslim festival of Eid Al-Adha would be a good time to start implementing his shiny multicultural ideal world—a festival during which the God of Islam demands his followers sacrifice animals. With their own hands. Supermarket Chain Sells Sacrificial Sheep.

Advertisement

714 comments

  • Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
  • Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
  • Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
  • Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
  • Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
  • REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.

Hide comments | Jump to bottom

1 Allah  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 2:21:18pm
a festival during which the God of Islam demands his followers sacrifice animals. With their own hands.

Slice left to right under the throat, Satan!

2 hellcat  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 2:24:15pm

Even calling Allah "Allah" would be too patronizing in my book.

3 Mr Pol  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 2:25:22pm

I'll become atheist before I pray the same G-d as the death cultists.

4 Tim K  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 2:25:58pm

Here you have one more candy-ass trying to make nice to people that are trying to kill or convert us.
This is the same sort of piss-ant that got beat-up right through highschool by a bully that could not fight his way out of a paper bag. All this piss-ant had to do was stand-up for himself and the bullying would have stopped. Instead it was societies fault for him being a victim and he still does not understand.
Make sure you sit down when you piss so you don't pee on your leg.

5 zulubaby  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 2:32:07pm

I think it was yesterday that somebody wrote "attention K-Mart shoppers" and linked to the sacrificial sheep article. I thought it was very funny.

6 rayra[deleted]  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 2:32:51pm
7 Lewis Can't Lose  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 2:34:28pm
Last August the Washington Post Web site posed this question to readers: "Do you think that Muslims, Christians and Jews all pray to the same God?" One Muslim respondent wrote yes, each of the three major monotheistic faiths "pray to the God of Abraham."


Christian respondents, however, were equivocal or hostile to the notion.

This is incredibly (possibly intentionally) sloppy writing.

ONE Muslim respondant wrote blah blah blah?

What the hell does that mean?

Does that mean there was only one Muslim respondant?

Or, for all I know, hundreds of Muslim respondents wrote that each of the three major monotheistic faiths DO NOT pray to the God of Abraham.

Citing one Muslim respondent tells me jack shiat. Thanks for basing the whole premise of your article on the opinion of one random guy on the internet, Mr. Kearney, and dismissing the "there is no God but Allah" rantings of thousands and thousands of Muslims. A social scientist and statistician you are not. And you're a lousy philosopher as well. Your article is nothing more than warmed-over PC bullshiat.

8 SoCalJustice  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 2:35:06pm

John Kearney is a student at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.

I wonder if he's concurrently enrolled in their Middle Eastern Studies program, and merely running an errand for Rashid Khalidi.

9 Dean Douthat  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 2:35:35pm

The Arabic word for God is Ilah, not Allah. Allah is clearly stated in the Koran to be the name of Ilah, just as Yahweh is the name of God (Eli) in the Torah.

Before Mohammed's time, for at least 150 years, Allah was the name of one of the more famous of 360 rock idols at Mecca. Allah's daughters, godesses Al-Lat, Al-Uzza and Manat figured in the well-known "Satanic Verses".

10 Lorenzo  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 2:35:35pm

It's not Allah, it's Allan. The God of the Jews and Christians wouldn't demand animal sacrifices, at least not lately. But Allan is just a little insecure to renounce animal sacrifices. My advice is to keep your cats indoors.

11 Flaming Sword  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 2:37:57pm

There is no God named Allah, and Mohammed was a pedophile.

12 Satan  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 2:38:15pm

#1 Al,

Actually, I prefer straight through the side of the neck, and then cut out counter-clockwise. With a decent length blade (6" or so), it gets both carotids, both jugulars, and opens the trachea (no scream, plus they get to drown in their own blood! How cool is that? :-)

Would Arafish be an acceptable animal sacrifice?

Seems like US Armed forces already took care of Uday and Qesay.

13 Dean Douthat  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 2:40:00pm

#11 Flaming Sword:

"There is no God named Allah..."

Yes there is, but it's a rock.

14 Merry Maven  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 2:41:31pm

#10-Lorenzo: Cats are safe; Muhammad liked cats. I read a story once that said Muhammad was so fond of cats that, rather than disturb one that was sleeping on his robe, he cut the sleeve off to keep the cat comfy. Dogs, however, are in serious danger since puppy spit will make you ritually unclean.

15 quark2amenbrother!  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 2:41:46pm

@3 Mr.Pol

So will I.

16 Allah  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 2:43:32pm

You can call me Al.

17 What a JERK!  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 2:46:12pm

So, I'm supposed to trust my soul/life to the theological rants of a jounalist. Trust the NY Times to come up with this old 'stewpot' of theological crappola!!! Not even the islamic mullahs are dumb enough to swallow this stuff.

18 Tim K  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 2:47:30pm

#6 Rayra

I will accept your trophy comment as a compliment.

But what is this Little People stuff? We have Midgets wreslin tonight on the WWE?

19 Bubbaman  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 2:49:13pm

"Kumbay-Allah, my Lord, Kumbay-Allah"...

Can I smash a guitar over the heads of these numb-nuts?

20 billhedrick  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 2:49:26pm

My God is the Father of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

21 zulubaby  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 2:50:27pm
My God Is Your God.

It's arrogant of John Kearney to decide this issue and the notion is insulting to me. What religion does John Kearney practice?

22 Larry  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 2:51:32pm

It's to bad that there isn't a website where we could suggest the Islofacists put a truck/car bomb. right outside the New York Times...now that would wake em up! Why not just everyone call him 'Tree' or 'Rock' or 'Potato Chip'?

23 Mr Pol  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 2:51:45pm

#20 billhedrick

My God is the Father of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

2000 years ago, nobody believed a Jewish carpenter could go that far :-)

24 zulubaby  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 2:51:55pm
Would Arafish be an acceptable animal sacrifice?

No, too old, stinky and diseased.

25 zulubaby  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 2:52:44pm

Bubbaman (#19)

LOL!

26 Dom  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 2:52:46pm

So Allah is Arabic for God I can accept, but then I cannot accept that Allah gave Mohammed that particular book, which means slandering another Qu'ranic principle. Tough. That f'ing book says that the Bible is Allah's too but the Jews and Christians ruined the Bible. So they are saying, our version overrules yours. And I think that kind of God wouldn't have bothered in the first place.

If they want to observe a religion in which Roger Avery means Holy Prophet it doesn't change who he really is, and in my view people who know better are entitled to refute any other premise. It's all stuff. I have never called my God Yahweh or Jehovah or anything like it in my life, nor have I ever corrected anyone who said I worship Yahweh, and I have never insisted that Jesus or Allah be redefined in light of continuing Jewish practise, and why is John Kearney writing this?

27 Dean Douthat  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 2:53:10pm

Interestingly, on the Hudaybiyah treaty, Muhammed bin Abdallah is how the Prophet was named. This means, Muhammed, son of Abdallah and Abdallah means "slave of Allah". Now this is interesting since Muhammed's father was, by definition, a polytheistic pagan.

28 Mr Pol  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 2:53:22pm

#24 zulubaby

Still good enough for that moon-god.

29 quark2  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 2:54:09pm

@16 Allah

Howz about callin' you nuttin'.

30 gadfly  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 3:00:40pm

1. Jews have been known to make some animal sacrifices of their own. Remember the Temple? There are remnants of it today too among some orthodox Jews.

2. The word for God in Greek and Latin is derived from the word for Zeus. Something similar is probably true of God's name in Hebrew too.

Neither of these facts seem to be damning to Chrisitianity or Judaism, so why should similar things be damning to Islam.


C'mon people. Let's direct our criticism at something real. There's plenty out there.

31 Old Patriot  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 3:01:52pm

Obviously the graduate student in Journalism hasn't taken any comparative religion courses. While the Muslims might say that the God of Abraham and Allah are the same, there's a big disconnect in how these two Dieties have spoken to their people.

After reading both the Bible and the Quran, after several years of careful studying the two religions based on the books of Moses and comparing them to Islam, I cannot accept that God (Yahweh) and Allah are the same. The best I can come up with is that somewhere around the 6th Century, a cult formed to counter the teachings of Christianity and Judaism. This cult developed a series of teachings that repudiate the foundations of the other two religions (personal faith, love of all men, God's Laws [10 commandments], personal responsibility for individual actions, and the equality of women in the family), and established rules that were beneficial to the cult: plural marriage, subjugation of women, predestination, no future prophets, etc.

As usual, the NYTimes has decided to muddy the waters, rather than seek any serious discussion. As usual, the Times gets it 180 degrees wrong, and makes a fool of itself.

32 Dean Douthat  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 3:02:13pm

#15 Allah:

"You can call me Al. "

How about if I just call you Rocky?

33 quark2  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 3:02:22pm

Before the cold beer takes me away breathless, according to the pedophile G-d did a 180 and became an entity of death instead of a G-d of light and life.
It's too bad we didn't have Sharps 59 back then, someone coulda taken the pedophile out at a distance. That would have solved a lot of problems for all of us.

34 superfly  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 3:03:24pm

If Muslims, Christians and Jews worship the same "god" why are the Muslims always trying to kill us?

But Allah's other name was Satan, I thought everone knew that.

35 Otaku  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 3:08:18pm

#27 dean douthat
can you give me your sources. just so i can quote them

36 RayA  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 3:09:08pm

# 10, I think according to the bible, God demanded sacrifice MANY many times, including a little boy LOL.

#12 Arafish would make a terrible sacrifice, you cant save the hide and the meat probably tastes like crap... he is better as cow feed.

BUT Lets not all get so crazy over the "Sacrificial sheep" thing. As middle eastern Christians, we do the same in our weddings, baptisms and communions. It my shock you to know that Irani, Iraqi and Syrian jews also do the same. Actually, it was a practice started by Judaism and maintained by Jews outside of Israel and thus its passing on to Christian converts in the middle east by St Thomas... (well, some of the converts were Jews so they maintained the practice). In fact, we still say the original Aramaic sayings when we sacrifice the lambs. It is supposed to bring you prosperity and health and it is also a sign of wealth (not everyone could afford a lamb back in the day). Now those of poorer origins still do it on the Christian and Jewish side (the rich ones just big limos instead), Muslims mostly do it for weddings. It has to be done by a family member and I have witnessed it three times in my life, my cousin’s wedding, my communion and one more time that I cant recall... Its not “barbaric”, it is probably more humane than most slaughter houses in the US since the sheep or the lamb is fed like crazy and treated like a god before it gets slaughtered.

But I do agree, I do not worship the same god as the Muslims, whatever F*&%ed up god spoke to Mohammad on that hill isn’t mine... and if it is, I want my damn virgins!

37 Yehudit  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 3:11:01pm

The ineffable divine energy or whatever you want to call it is beyond all names and description. We label it and make stories aobut it so that we can connect with it in some way. Every religion does this in different ways: they are all equivalent but they all have different flavors. The particular flavor is what allows you to access God. People convert to different religions or come back to the practice of their youth becaus they need that particular set of metaphors and rituals and images to make the connection.

But the reality is beyond all that. I find this quibbling over whether "Allah" is the "same" God as "Yahweh" really ridiculous. God is God.

Anyway Jews don't call God "Yahweh" and never did - that's an attempt to literally pronounce the tetragrammaton Y-H-V-H. Jews just say "Adonai" which means "Lord" or "HaShem" which means "The name" in Hebrew.

But another old Hebrew name for God is "Ya." As in "hallelu-ya" and names like "Eliyahu."

"Allah." "Yah." Not that different. Big deal.

38 evariste  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 3:14:01pm

Dean Douthat-

Before Mohammed's time, for at least 150 years, Allah was the name of one of the more famous of 360 rock idols at Mecca.

That sounds like a week-long VH1 countdown! "360 Hottest Mecca Rock Idols"

39 Kat  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 3:14:55pm

Allah promises the highest prize i.e. paradise filled with raisins, for heinous acts against humanity. The God who feels tickled when humans are tortured to glorify Him, is not Divine. I don't know whom the hell allah is, but he is not the God I pray to.

40 evariste  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 3:15:43pm

#35 Otaku, you don't need a source, any muslim knows that Muhammad's dad is Abdallah, and any Arabic name with the 'abd prefix means "slave-of-".

41 Pitiricus  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 3:20:04pm

I don't know if you have seen this article
[Link: www.atimes.com...]
which really spells out the difference between Allah and the God of the Bible, courtesy of the German-Jewish theologian Franz Rosenzweig

"Remember that the Jewish God enjoys only a qualified sort of omnipotence. His sympathy with mankind, his creation, compels him to suffer along with his creatures. He cannot help but hear the cry of innocent blood, the complaint of the widow and orphan, the mistreated stranger and the oppressed slave (Professor James Kugel of Harvard makes his hoary argument in The God of Old). He is the God of the town meeting, of the popular assembly, of the democrats. With good reason, Friedrich Nietzsche labelled the Jewish deity a God of slaves. He permits the likes of Abraham and Moses to give him a hard time over such things as the destruction of Sodom, or exterminating the sinners among the Israelites.

When ancient Israel demanded that their leader, the prophet Samuel, appoint a king (I Samuel 8), God complained, "They have rejected me as their king." He tells Samuel to warn the people against kings. When the people demand a king nonetheless, God tells Samuel, "Give them a king." The Jews' God chose for his people a despised race of slaves. He humbles himself by sympathizing with the weak. The Christian God even came to earth and allowed himself to be crucified. He loves the poor and weak. Indeed, weakness ineluctably draws forth his love. Jewish and Christian theologians speak of "divine humility".

Not so Allah, the beneficent, the merciful. "For Islam, the notion that man's failings more powerfully awake God's love than man's merits is an absurd, indeed an impossible thought. Allah has pity upon human weaknesses, but the idea that he loves weakness more than strength is a form of divine humility that is foreign to the God of Mohammed," wrote the Jewish theologian Franz Rosenzweig...

So no, Allah isn't t5he God of the Bible, in spite of CAIR!

42 evariste  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 3:22:00pm

As I recall it one of the first gifts of the Jews to humanity was the substitution of animal and symbolic sacrifice ceremonies for human ones, but I do think that it's rather nasty, distasteful and unempathetic of large majorities of muslims to insist on personally slitting a sheep's throat. I helped hold not a few sacrificial ghanam as their throats were slit and the blood drained out of them, it's not a pleasant experience at all.

43 Spiny Norman  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 3:22:17pm

Kat,

The God who feels tickled when humans are tortured to glorify Him, is not Divine.

Sounds more like that other guy, doesn't it?

44 AG in Houston  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 3:23:28pm

Iraqi govt. papers: Saddam bribed Chirac

Huh, Is this on anyone's radar screen?

45 evariste  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 3:26:17pm

AG in Houston, I saw that, and I followed a link from either Sullivan or Blair to a Google-translated list of all the recipients as well. I just don't see where "Saddam bribed Chirac" is an accurate headline; the WashTimes story doesn't spell it out and neither does the Google-translated list. The Google-translated list does list several French entities, I wish that someone would detail the links between these and Chirac, if any.

46 Mr Pol  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 3:27:20pm

#44 AG in Houston

Chirac's name does not appear on the published list. However, Charles Pasqua's name is there. In 1999, the year of the 'gifts' on the list, Pasqua was not a member of Chirac's party any more. Before 1995, Pasqua was in charge of the financing of Chirac's party, though.

Anyway, the headline is bogus.

47 Johnny  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 3:29:41pm

Moon worship has been practiced in Arabia since 2000 BC. The crescent moon is the most common symbol of this pagan moon worship as far back as 2000 BC, in Mecca, there was a god named Hubal who was Lord of the Kabah and this Hubal was a moon god. The idol of moon god Hubal was placed upon the roof of the Kaba about 400 years before Muhammad,This may in fact be the origin of why the crescent moon is on top of every minaret at the Kaba today and the central symbol of Islam atop of every mosque throughout the world:

Quote:
About four hundred years before the birth of Muhammad one Amr bin Lahyo ... a descendant of Qahtan and king of Hijaz, had put an idol called Hubal on the roof of the Kaba. This was one of the chief deities of the Quraish before Islam. (Muhammad The Holy Prophet, Hafiz Ghulam Sarwar (Pakistan), p 18-19, Muslim)

The moon god was also referred to as "al-ilah". This is not a proper name of a single specific god, but a generic reference meaning "the god". Each local pagan Arab tribe would refer to their own local tribal pagan god as "al-ilah". "al-ilah" was later shortened to Allah before Muhammad was born in 610 AD.

There is evidence that Hubal was referred to as "Allah".
When Muhammad came along, he dropped all references to the name "Hubal" but retained the generic "Allah".
Muhammad retained almost all the pagan rituals of the Arabs at the Kaba and redefined them in monotheistic terms.
Regardless of the specifics of the facts, it is clear that Islam is derived from paganism that once worshiped a moon-god.
Although Islam is today a monotheist religion, its roots are in paganism.

48 Dean Douthat  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 3:31:29pm

#35 Otaku & #48 evariste

Check out:

[Link: www.prophetofdoom.net...] particularly chapter 20.

Here is the Hadith:

Ishaq:504/ Tabari VIII:85

“He [Muhammed] said, ‘Write: “Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, has made peace with Suhayl.”’ Suhayl said, ‘If I testified that you were the Messenger of Allah, I wouldn’t fight you. Why not write your name and the name of your father.’ So Muhammad said, ‘Write: “Muhammad bin Abdallah has made peace with Suhayl.”

This has another interesting implication; Suhayl is a polytheist pagan of Mecca. So, why would he not fight the "Messenger of Allah"? Simple, Allah was one of Suhayl's rock gods.

49 Mr Pol  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 3:32:00pm

#45 evariste

Here are the 11 names listed for France:

1- Adax (3 / 8 mb)
2- Traficora (Patrick Mougin) (25 mb)
3- Michel Grimard (1 / 17 mb)
4- Association d'amitié franco-arabe (15,1 mb)
5- X (47,2 mb)
6- Charles Pasqua (12 mb)
7- Elias Ferzli (14,6 mb)
8- A Lotus (Claude Caspar) (4 mb)
9- Bernard Miramé (3 mb)
10- Bernard Miramé (8 mb)
11- Di Suza (11 mb)

#5 has not been published in France. Could you check on elaph.com what is the name? I'll look for the connections.

50 Vezzini  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 3:32:11pm

Quibbling over the “name” of the Cosmic Otherness is a fool’s errand. Whether It is called G-d, Allah, YHVH or El is essentially meaningless to a monotheistic religion. Hell, call It Elvis if you want – don’t mean nothin’.

What does matter to monotheistic theology is the relationship of G-d to man. That relationship is the very core of religion and from it springs all dogma. Jews consider themselves G-d’s People. Christians consider themselves G-d’s Children. Moslems consider themselves G-d’s Slaves.

As a slave of G-d, Moslems have no claim to the Christian’s hope of inheriting G-d’s Kingdom. He is forever doomed to his Master’s whims and caprices.

What an ugly religion.

51 b  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 3:34:56pm

Doesn't this discussion make you ashamed to be an inhabitant of this little fucking blue planet in the middle of nowhere?

It does me.


The rest of the universe must certainly be laughing.

52 evariste  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 3:37:06pm

Mr Pol, sure! Checking it out right now.

53 Kat  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 3:38:00pm

Professor Augustus H. Strong makes an accurate assessment in his "Systematic Theology" when he declares that Islam "is heathenism in monotheistic form." 

Mohammad grew up in Mecca in Arabia, belonging to the Quraysh tribe, in charge of idol worship at the Kabah shrine, containing the black stone and at least 360 idols. The word for god or idol in Arabic is "ilah."

According to ancient archeological evidence, Allah was the name for the main idol worshiped in Mecca. The name was probably originally derived from the two Arabic words "al" and "ilah", meaning "the god" or "the idol." therefore, as we can see, Mohammad did not set the foundation for a 'new' religion, he simply took the chief deity within the pantheon in Arabia, and made it the only god, while keeping the original pagan practices associated with this idol worship.

Allah was also used as THE PERSONAL NAME among the Arabs for the moon god.  Its symbol was the crescent moon found on many idols from pre-Islamic Arabia and it has special significance among all of the Arab nations. The symbol is included on their national flags and official stationary even to this day. 

Every year, these early Islamist idol whorshippers made a pilgrimage to Mecca, to worship Allah at the black stone. They were taught to turn and pray towards Mecca several times a day and that for one month every year, beginning and ending with the crescent moon, that month was dedicated to fasting. All of these traditions, and religious duties were "grafted" by Mohammad into the current Islam practiced by Muslims today. 

As stated earlier, Mohammad had built upon and added to all of these already known forms of idol worship. The only thing that was new was that Mohammad declared the pagan moon deity "Allah" to be the only true god and forbade the worship of all the other idols in Mecca. The basic confession within Islam is, "Allah is greater [greater than all the other idols].  There is no god but Allah and Mohammad is his prophet." 

These teachings are of course in complete contradiction to the basic message about the one and true God found in the Bible, both in the Old and the New Testament, where idol worship is strictly forbidden. Abraham was chosen to leave cult worship surrounding the moon god in Ur of the Chaldeans, to go to a different land, in order to give mankind the revelation about the 'One' God. 

To confuse the issue, Mohammad declared that Allah is the god of the Jews and the Christians. Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus were all prophets sent by Allah. Since Mohammad's beliefs did not agree with the Scriptures, Mohammad declared that the Jews and the Christians have changed and perverted the Scriptures!

Therefore Allah has rejected them and cursed them and has sent Mohammad to replace the Bible with the Koran; and to replace Judaism and Christianity with Islam. It is therefore the religious duty of Islam to subjugate and destroy the infidels, the Christians and the Jews. Ironicaly, Islam, in Judaic/Christian terms, could therefore be Satan's most powerful and successful plan to destroy the true faith in the God of the Bible.

54 Model4  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 3:40:08pm

Taranto tried this bit on for size a few weeks ago, and it was cumbersome and unconvincing to me, even though he's obviously got a great mind. It basically boiled down to everyone who believes in one God must therefore have the same one in mind. Sorry, if a co-worker tells me about his only child, his daughter Rebecca, then I meet his wife who says no, our only child is our son Fred, at least one of them's going to the funny farm. That they do have one child doesn't mean that both are right.

Muslims are entitled to their beliefs (personally, not in ordered society, as they mandate violence), but that doesn't mean they are allowed to determine mine. If a reporter wants to get cute and say "Muslims believe they worship the same God as..." well, that'd be poor taste and probably poor writing, but so be it. Just be sure to include the differences, like rejecting the Torah and that bit about killing all Jews until the end of time.

Looks like the moose is on the loose again.

55 b  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 3:42:36pm

Someday...you'll get a ticket for illogic.

It'll be touch and go until then.

56 jason  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 3:43:11pm

what a bunch of garbage. we need to remove things like from taking up our intellectual considerations.

57 Paladin  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 3:43:49pm

There is no god named allah.
Mohammad was a pedophile
Islam is not a religion, it is a brutal, vicious cult of death.

Wake up, people.

58 evariste  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 3:46:10pm

Mr Pol, unless I'm somehow missing it, all I see on elaph.com is a translated rehash of an AFP story, here. Unless I'm somehow missing it. The AFP story cites an Iraqi paper, Al-Mada. I can't find their site.

59 b  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 3:50:43pm

Hey...I know. Let's gut a couple of virgins and fling them down the pyramid.

Oh wait, it's not 1090, it's 2004.


Nevermind.

60 Mr Pol  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 3:55:09pm

#58 evariste

I got the full list from Proche-Orient Info. They say they translated it from elaph.com?

Patrick Mougin is a trader, no public links with Chirac.

Michel Grimard is the president of a political association called Mouvement Chrétien Vème République. The goal of this association was to get Christian Democrats to vote for Chirac's party, the RPR, rather than for the UDF.

Elias Ferzly is Lebanese, a staunch defender of Syrian presence in Lebanon, vice-president of Lebanon's assembly and president of the Association for Franco-Lebanese friendship. THat he is listed in France would be strange - if we didn't know that Chirac got bribes from Lebanese billionaires.

...and I already talked about Charles Pasqua.

3 am, I'm done for now. More research tomorrow...

61 evariste  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 3:58:18pm

An interesting story on Elaph that I haven't seen in English media:

Washington removes diplomatic immunity from 16 Saudis
Washington-A US Department of State official announced Wednesday afternoon that Washington has removed the diplomatic immunities of 16 Saudi and ordered them to leave the United States because of their involvement in religious activities under the cover of the diplomatic duties that they were tasked with. The official said, "We asked the 16 Saudis' departure because it became clear to us after studying the (Saudi) diplomatic mission that they do not work in the mission but rather evangelize Islam outside of the mission." and added, "they do not deserve to hold diplomatic immunities", clarifying that they will be leaving "soon".
62 Mr Pol  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 3:58:42pm

#58 evariste

I think al-Mada website is [Link: www.al-mada.net...]

63 evariste  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:04:22pm

Mr Pol-Nope, that's some kind of tech consultancy or something. Definitely not the newspaper. At any rate, MEMRI has the complete translation of al-Mada's list, which wasn't completely published by them and doesn't seem to have as many French people on it as yours either.
Maybe it scrolled off the page at Elaph? I don't know. I couldn't find it, maybe I'll try reading again, slowly-I skimmed some of the headlines because they looked unrelated.

64 Ottawa Mike  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:07:29pm

I doubt if you will find two Christians who worship the same god.

65 evariste  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:07:54pm

Anyway, I guess have a good night if you've already gone to bed.

66 Alouette  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:09:20pm
67 evariste  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:10:15pm

Interesting! If you Google "Saudis", it thinks you made a typo and asks, "Did you mean saunas?"

68 Pork Eating Whisky Drinker  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:11:07pm

There is no G-d named allah.
Mohammed was a pedophile.
Where Islam goes, blood flows.

Any more questions?

69 Mr Pol  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:11:09pm

#63 evariste

I checked MEMRI. It's neither the full article nor the full list. I wonder who that 'X' in France is... why Proche Orient Info didn't publish that name? With 47 million barrels, whoever that is got the biggest bribe in France.

I wonder... could it be Chirac himself?

70 Abu Reason  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:11:09pm

First of all, the correct translation of god is ilaah and God is Allah. This is the Arabic language. This has nothing to do with religion.

If you want to distance Christianity from Judaism, you have to argue that Muslims' conception of God is different.

Furthermore, if Christians and Jews feel uneasy at being associated with Islam, they should be. All three religions (or any religion for that matter) are based on fundamentally anti-Western, barbaric, de-humanising elements:

(1) the belief in something supernatural, based on faith, i.e. believing something without evidence, reason or logic.

(2) accepting morality based on faith, on obeying commands, rather proving, rationally, with evidence and reason, the correctness of those morals.

(3) positing a being superior to the individual, subverting the individual's happiness to something higher.

To their credit, Judaism and Christianity are less backward than Islam in the above, and actually incorporate some Western elements (particularly some elements of individualism in the concept of redemption).

However, to defend Western values, religion, including Judaism and Christianity, are not effective and in fact destructive: when confronted by terrorists who claim that they're doing what they're doing because God told them to, what good is the response that we're doing what we're doing because God told us? That is not an argument, its fighting irrationality with irrationality.

71 superfly  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:12:06pm

For those on the east coast, there is a Thomas Freidman special on the Discovery channel on right now. He's "checking out" the security fence.

72 Kat  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:12:16pm

Geez--Canada is on that list. No wonder they opposed the war.
[Link: www.naharnet.com...]

73 Dean Douthat  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:12:21pm

#38 evariste:

Yep, one for each degree; so it's "Rock Around the Clock".

:-)

Boo hiss, even I can't abide that one.

74 Ed Moran:Abu Yes "لله لله " is Watching You!  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:14:38pm

Discovery Channel has a documentary on now about the apartheid fence. A guy named Friedman is narrating (is he the Friedman people talk about). he reminds me of Alan Alda for some reason.

BTW, Muslims worship HaBa'al, the same Ba'al revealed as a false god in the Old Testament/Torah. They reject the Hebrew G-d. While Christians and Jews have huge theological differences, we Christians accept the entire body of their scripture, we don't reject it as flawed/corrupted as the Muslims do.


Google up Allah, the Ka'aba (Qaaba) and HaBaal(HuBal). The Muslim god is the Arab moon god, borrowed from the people of the region that comprises modern dayv Syria.

75 dennisw  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:15:56pm

Author of this idiotic paean to Islam:

John Keating Kearney

Student, GRADUATE SCHOOL OF JOURNALISM

kk25@columbia.edu

76 Kat  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:16:04pm

Yes, Abu, Sir--from now on I will pray to Frederick Nietzche, Karl Marx, and Joseph Stalin and Adolph Hitler--they were superior like you and did not believe in God. Forgive me, your intellectual pompous assed highness.

77 evariste  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:16:07pm

Mr Pol-gotcha, I wasn't reading closely enough, I thought MEMRI had a complete translation of al-Mada's partial list, rather than a partial translation of al-Mada's complete list.
I'm gonna go back to elaph.net now and see what I can dig up, it must be there and I'm curious to know who the hell X is too!

78 Cornholio  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:16:32pm

Since Israelis and Palis both live in the Mideast, the media should start referring to both of them only as "Mideasterners." (NOT!)

Unfortunately, something tells me that CNN, the NYT, Democratic candidates, etc. will take up terrorist-apologist Kearney's suggestion and start referring to "Allah" as "God". So the report of the Egypt Air flight that crashed a few years back would say the pilot kept saying "praise God" as he dove the plane into the water. No Muslim fanatics here folks! Nothing to see, move along.

79 Paladin  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:17:27pm

#68 Pork Eating Whiskey Drinker

Glad to see my "mantra" is catching on.

80 Ed Moran:Abu Yes  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:19:19pm

71

Beat me to it.

I suspect Mr. Friedman is sympathetic to the Palis, so far. In the beginning, he mentioned the West Bank and Gaza were captured by Israel in a war against the Arabs, giving the implication the Israeli's started it. Now he is talking how badly "The Wall" inconveniences the Paleos.

81 b  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:20:37pm

OT

A plane carrying 36 Arabs prisoners took off from Jerusalem shortly before 4 a.m., while another plane left Beirut, Lebanon, carrying kidnapped businessman Elhanan Tannenbaum and the bodies of three Israeli soldiers.

People for Corpses

Is this stupid? Or is it me?

Why isn't Israel pounding the living hell out of their enemy?

They're getting corpses anyway!! Holy fuck-a-moly. How stupid are the Israelis??

Their people are dead. And they are trading live prisoners for dead flesh.


Get real! For once in your miserable stupid existence, get real!!

82 Paladin  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:20:45pm

Screw Friedman -- Dennis Miller interviewing Rudi Guiliani!

83 Ed Moran:Abu Yes  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:21:48pm
Thomas L. Friedman Reporting:The West Bank Wall

As Israeli and Palestinian leaders struggle to follow the "road map" to peace, the cycle of terrorist violence and retaliatory attacks continues. Tom Friedman returns to Israel to examine the causes and consequences of the new wall under construction.
tv :: pg
cc :: cc

Now I have learned how happy Palestinian children who went to class with Jewish kids (Hand to Hand) can't anymore, and are now unhappy.

84 Abu Reason  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:25:32pm

# 70 Abu Reason

I should have concluded my post above with:

Western values must be defended on the proper grounds:

* There is no supernatural realm or beings.

* Knowledge can only be gained by rational conclusions drawn from the evidence, not mystical revelation, superstition, or emotion.

* Morality is determined by the above as well (not by the dictates of a supernatural being), and must help the individual to achieve happiness on earth (not in some alleged afterlife), and not self-abnegation.

* The individual is sovereign, whose freedom must not be sacrificed to anything outside himself, including the state or God.

Anything less is a compromise with the dark side. And we know what compromise leads to.

85 Jakester  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:26:35pm

Rather see them sacrifice sheep then blowing themselves and everyone around them to bits. Lke most, I hate it when some multi-cultural dweeb has to lecture us on religion when he doesn't even have faith himself.

86 Ed Moran:Abu Yes  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:27:40pm

Abu Reason

The two prime commandments given by Jesus, who we Christians believe to be G_d made Man, are

1) Hear, Oh Israel, the Lord your G-d is One! You shall love G-d with all your heart, and all your mind. This is the greatest commandment

2) You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these hang all the laws and all the commandments.


Christians are commanded to love their neighbor, to pray for their enemies, and to forgive those that do them wrong "seven times seventy times". If everyone followed these rules, everyone would be pretty happy.


When Christians have done nasty things (ie, the Inquisition) they have been violating the laws given to them by Jesus.

87 Seth  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:28:23pm

The New York Times article was -- as usual -- wrong, in important points.

First, the language of Jesus wasn't Aramaic. It was Hebrew. Mishnaic Hebrew to be precise. Among the few words that Christian Scriptures attribute to Jesus are: "Eli, Eli, lama sabakhtani" -- "My God, my God, why have you abandoned me." That sentence is Mishnaic Hebrew, not Aramaic. In Hebrew, "Eli" did and does mean "my God." In Aramaic, it's not even close.

In Mishnaic Hebrew, "sabakhta-ni" meant, "you abandoned me." In Aramaic, it wasn't even close. In Hebrew then and now, "lama" meant "why."

Second, the word "God" is not "Allahah" in Aramaic. It is "Elohoh," pronounced "eh-law-haw" (where "aw" is the same sound as the "o" in "horse," not "o" as in "cot"). In Aramaic, the "l" in "Elohoh" is not doubled as it is in Arabic. That is to say, it was not pronounced doubly long, (i.e., as the double "el" in the words "Teal Lake").

Third, the two Gods are not the same: The Arabic god Allah was derived from the pre-Islamic pagan Moon God of Arabia. The Jews and Christians didn't recognize Mohammad as a prohpet in their religions, so he declared that the Jews and the Christians intentionally falsified their scriptures, and he went calling on the priests of the pagan shrine of the Moon God located at Mecca. He told the priests he was a prophet of the Moon God and, by the way, that he was sent by the Moon God to inform everyone that the Moon God is bigger than all the other gods. In essence, Mohammad said, the Jews and Christians were worshipping the wrong God all along -- the Moon God was the God of Abraham.

Whatever your point of view about any given religion, Mohammad started out worshipping the Moon God and then clothed him in the garb of the Judaeo-Christian God.

Seth

88 Mr Pol  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:30:18pm

#84 Abu Reason

You say:

* There is no supernatural realm or beings.

and

* Knowledge can only be gained by rational conclusions drawn from the evidence, not mystical revelation, superstition, or emotion.

Please explain what evidence, if any, enabled you to reach the previous conclusion.

89 Josh  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:31:16pm

To the tune of "This land is your land":

This god is my god, this god is your god,
from the masjid in Makkah, to the dome al-aksa,
while we're slaying infidels, or just mutilating wooomen,
Allah is our moon-god yesiree

90 quark2  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:32:16pm

@77 evariste

When you go back to the website, and find the listing. Read that list using the source page for the site. Sometimes you'll find things hidden there.

91 evariste  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:32:51pm

Mr Pol, I think I found it!!! I had skipped it previously because the headline started off with "Zhirinovsky and the Church", I should have kept reading :-)
I'll report back when I find Mr X's name, shortly (I hope!).

92 rusta  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:33:06pm

To quote General Boykins "My God is bigger than thier God."

Apolologies if someone posted this already

93 andrew  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:33:09pm

#84 Abu Reason
I used to think all that stuff too - then I grew up, got married, had kids...

94 Lewis Can't Lose  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:34:12pm

Friedman just tossed a huge softball: "Do you find the checkpoints humiliating?"

Gimme a frickin' break.

95 evariste  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:34:13pm

Fuck, it's the arabic letters a, y, k, s. X, in other words.
Assholes.

96 evariste  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:35:56pm

Complete listing, in Arabic, at Elaph.

97 Abu Reason  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:36:29pm

#76 Kat


Yes, Abu, Sir--from now on I will pray to Frederick Nietzche, Karl Marx, and Joseph Stalin and Adolph Hitler--they were superior like you and did not believe in God. Forgive me, your intellectual pompous assed highness.

Those evil men superficially omitted a God, but replaced him with the State/the Race/the proletariat.

Otherwise, they are philosophically identical to any religious extremists (e.g. Islam today): belief without reason and the subjugation of the individual.

You have to understand, there are two poles in the world of ideas and principles: on one end you have (the best of) Westernism; on the other you have evil (Fascism, communism, islamism, etc.)

The better religions are somewhere in between, but you have to realise that any compromise away from Westernism is a step in the direction of evil.

98 Dar ul Harb  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:37:08pm
99 evariste  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:38:15pm

The story's from the 25th, and it wasn't the "Zhirinovsky and the Church denied..." story I spoke of earlier; I had the brainstorm of using Word to type out al-Mada in Arabic and then cut-n-pasting into their search (why didn't I think of that before? *kick*) and it came up as the second hit, it's definitely one that had scrolled off the front page by virtue of being old news...

100 Cornholio  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:38:15pm
* There is no supernatural realm or beings.

Oh-oh, somebody better tell Allah!

101 Lively  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:38:28pm

Thanks for posting about Thomas Friedman.

102 D. Edgren (the Merciless Infidel)  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:39:39pm

The Times would have us all be sacrificial sheep, eh?

What an Asshat rag!

"All the News That's Politically Correct"...

...now deservedly lining the foulest birdcages and wrapping the stinkiest fish.

D. Edgren

103 Josh  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:40:39pm

#81
Last I heard, they closed the Jerusalem airport, since it is neaer Ramallah. Arafat's goons would shoot at planes taking off and landing. Passenger planes.
Maybe they figured they wouldn't shoot at their own.

Now lets go give a state to people who try to shoot down passenger planes!

104 monsterdog (Abu Bow Wow)  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:41:16pm

This weasel should go into a mosque in Saudi Arabia and say a prayer to the father, son, and holy spirit. He will discover that Wahabbis do not in fact worship the same god as Christians. They're pretty emphatic about it, too.

At any rate, common sense tells you that a god who is a father is a very different god from one who is childless.

105 b  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:42:51pm

#86

2) You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these hang all the laws and all the commandments.

So let me see here.

If you have one little bag of rice. God says you must share that with your neighbor and let your wife starve.

Is that what you're saying about your neighbor?

OK dickweed, I hear you.


(It's all a bunch of bullshit folks. Happy, happy religious bullshit.)

106 quark2  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:42:51pm

Rationalists have an increasingly difficult time trying to come up with materialistic evidence and solutions for miracles.
Even doctors and scientists agree there are realms of situations, incidents and occurances that defy the rationalism of unbelieving men.

107 Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:44:37pm

#47 Johnny and #53 Kat

Allah wasn't just a moon god! He was also a storm god and a vegetation god.

Draft of Chapter 3 - Allah is the Same as the God of the Bible

108 Kat  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:45:49pm

Well, don't forget the principles on which westernism was founded. People like you are destroying westernism not religion. It is you not I who believes in murdering unborn children, plunging knives in their skulls and draining their brains. It is not religion that caused the AIDS epidemic. All this political correctness and multicultural crap have eroded the principles of westernism and made us a land of twits afraid to speak the name of our enemy and always finding Christian equivalencies to excuse the muslim murderers. I don't need a bloody atheist preacher telling me what to believe--I don't tell you how stupid you are for not believing--afford me the same courtesy.

109 logger phd  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:47:20pm

"Allah," "El," "Ilaah" . . .

I thought we were talking about someone else

110 andrew  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:47:33pm

There goes b again. Now he's called Ed Moran a d*ickweed. Way to go, b.

Simpleton f*ck.

111 evariste  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:47:42pm

Abu Reason, b, you should both just shut the fuck up and sit back down, and I say this as an avowed atheist. Your ridiculous posts only highlight the shallowness of your thinking and the superficiality of your understanding Judaism and Christianity. Basically, you're being offensively stupid, and wrong. I suggest you learn a lot more of the theological underpinnings of Christianity and Judaism before you come back here to go off at half-cock.

112 b  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:49:46pm

The irrational deserve no courtesy.

They deserve blunt trama, and nothing else!

113 evariste  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:50:01pm

logger phd, LOL! May she RIP. Now there's a goddess I can get behind! In both senses.

114 Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:52:05pm

#106 quark2

Heh heh, "rationalists" are so delightfully incapable of discerning the subtle differences between religions that teach you to love your neighbour, and those which teach you to kill your neighbour, aren't they?

115 QueenEsther  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:52:17pm

The Muslim's co-opted (stole and corrupted) the idea of G'd. They've co-opted (stole and corrupted) the narrative of the Bible, and apparently, holidays too. In other words, there is no new year but "muharram" -- a word I just discovered on my new 2004 desk calendar at the office

On the 10th of Muharram:

 In another Hadeeth, Ibne Abbas (radhiyallahu anhuma) narrates that the noble Prophet (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) came to Madeenah and found the Jews fasting on the day of Ashoora. Hence the noble Prophet (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) inquired of them, "What is (the significance of) this day on which you fast?" They replied, "This is a great day. On this day Allah saved Moosa and his people and drowned Fir'awn and his nation. Thus Moosa (alayhis salaam) fasted on this day as a token of thanksgiving, therefore we too fast on this day. The Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) said, "We are more worthy of Moosa and nearer to him than you."  Thereafter, the noble Prophet (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) fasted on this day and ordered (his Companions) that a fast be kept on this day. (Muslim) 

[Link: www.jamiat.org.za...]

The 10th of muharram is also a special day to honor "martyrdom"
[Link: www.jamiat.org.za...]


1st of Muharram - February 21, 2004
10th of Muharram - March 1, 2004
[Link: www.islamicfinder.org...]

116 SoCalJustice  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:52:20pm

(#83) Ed Moran:Abu Yes

I flipped on the Discovery Channel after reading your post.

Tom Friedman just made me ill, in the way he chose to conduct the interview with the Israeli-Arab clerk (Mohamed Daleh) to the Israeli Supreme Court.

Oh no, and now he's interviewing Diana Buttu - a Palestinian expert on "the wall" - as he called her. She's a Pali flack. A good one, but a flack nonetheless.

117 andrew  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:52:26pm

#112 Stalin

Irrational people deserve physical violence? Grow up or shut up.

118 Camel Prophet  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:53:04pm

I am the only poster here, who dares question GWB's moronic treatment of Jews, Christians and musliswine as a fellowship. If anyone is sufficiently brain dead to disbelieve that muslims claim Satanic distortion of Abrahamic and Christian prophecy, just offer a Bible (Old or New Testament) to a muslim. They will refuse it, unless it serves strategic deceit (al-taqiyah) purpose to do so, and mumble some gibberish about Mohammed (Piss Be Upon That Pedophilic Bandit) being the "last prophet."

It is a fact that White House insider, David Frum, wrote of GWB's gathering of fellow "Abrahamist" idiots in the Oval Office, where the Clown-in-Chief told these dorks that he would still be an alcoholic, if not for their allegedly common faith. That type of denial of muslim depravity, if not celebration of the social idiocy of those pigs, is dangerous at any time. If the fiction that muslims will somehow begin to feel some fellowship with we "Shaytanites," is treated as bedrock fact, then that will drive steel into the backs of these mortal enemies of all humanity.

SINCE LAST AUGUST I HAVE BEEN ADVOCATING A STARVATION SIEGE AGAINST FALLUJAH (IRAQ) - FOOD IN EXCHANGE FOR BAGGED JIHADIS. AS I PREDICTED, FALLUJAH HAS BECOME THE CENTER OF AL-QAEDA TERROR. EXPLAIN ABRAHAMIST BS TO THE AMERICAN SOLDIERS WHO ARE PUT AT RISK BY THE INDULGENCE OF THESE WAHABI ANIMALS.

[Link: www.weeklystandard.com...]

119 b  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:53:22pm

#111

Give up your ghosts, you're killing everyone!

120 Abu Reason  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:55:17pm

#88 Mr Pol


#84 Abu Reason

You say:


* There is no supernatural realm or beings.

and


* Knowledge can only be gained by rational conclusions drawn from the evidence, not mystical revelation, superstition, or emotion.

Please explain what evidence, if any, enabled you to reach the previous conclusion.

My second point is an inescapable fact of existence. You are asking from me proof and evidence -- which means that you have accepted the fact that they are needed (which is my point). That is good. The next step is to apply that same standard to any belief that you accept -- including where you get (how you derive) your moral values and political ideals.

As far as the first point: you want me to disprove the existence of something asserted without any proof or evidence? What about gremlins? Or angels? Or fairies?

121 Red Herring  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:56:50pm

Just because followers of a pedophile cum prophet claim Allah is the G-d of Abraham does not make it so. Judging by their behaviour, Allah is an alias of Satan. Islam has all the trappings of a satanic cult because it is one.

122 logger phd  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:57:51pm

b = Abu Reason?

123 b  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 4:59:41pm

People are abandoning leftist, liberalism because it's a cult, a belief system, a worshiping of the state, ---regardless of the pile of corpses, that everyone can see.

It's a contest between the rational versus the irrational,
life versus death,
reality versus superstition.

Choose your fucking side!

You are either for human life or against human life.

Make your mind up! And then act accordingly.

124 evariste  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:00:12pm

Camel Prophet-

I am the only poster here, who dares question GWB's moronic treatment of Jews, Christians and musliswine as a fellowship.

durrr...really? What about me? What about, like, almost everyone on this thread?

125 logger phd  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:00:56pm

Funny, I didn't think that "Westernism" and "The West" began with the Enlightenment, but also included Dante, Shakespeare, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, Maimonides, Bach, and other "irrationalists" who preceded the "Age of Reason."

126 b  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:02:42pm

It might as well be today!

127 Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:03:18pm

Abu Non-reason stated,

* Knowledge can only be gained by rational conclusions drawn from the evidence, not mystical revelation, superstition, or emotion.

In this case, there is no possibility of every arriving at any true knowledge, since it is not possible for one to be able to ever examine all the evidence which might possibly exist, way out in the far reaches of the universe away from our prying eyes. As such, partial knowledge is all that mankind is capable of obtaining empirically.

128 Abu Reason  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:04:35pm

#122 logger phd:

b = Abu Reason?

I be not b ;)

I also disagree with b's rudeness. I think that the typical religious peole here are decent, people who belive in the good, but are being hamstrung by religion (as america and the west)

#108 Kat:

It should be pretty clear that I am anti-politaical correctness and multiculturalism.

129 evariste  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:04:50pm

b, shut up.

130 Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:05:54pm

#123 b

It's a contest between the rational versus the irrational,

life versus death,

reality versus superstition.

It's also, apparently, a contest between those who can think logically and those (such as yourself) who habitually commit the fallacy of false dichotomy.

131 DL  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:05:55pm
132 pat  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:08:56pm

Trying to be nice to these morons is in and of itself moronic. They are stupid, ignorant, dangerous cultists who would chop off the hand that feeds them as soon as the hand-outs stop. Bush is indeed a fool to believe anything any Muslim says. They prove day in and day out that they are incapable of speaking the truth, demonstrating civility orsensitivity. By the way, exit polls, just released show that Muslims voted Democratic by 93%. Rememer Bush's arab outreach in 2000?

133 Abu Reason  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:10:22pm

Actually, I'm starting to side with b now.

He b making sense.

134 aaron's rantblog  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:14:54pm

Wow. I scooped LGF. I posted about this at 8:48am.

See More Questions for Christians

135 Abu Reason  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:15:50pm

130 Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus:

#123 b

It's a contest between the rational versus the irrational,

life versus death,

reality versus superstition.

It's also, apparently, a contest between those who can think logically and those (such as yourself) who habitually commit the fallacy of false dichotomy.

So no good and evil? just a fuzzy shade of grey? all cultures equal?

how much moer dichotomous can you get than life or death!! And where is the middle ground between proof and voices from heaven?

136 evariste  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:16:23pm

aaron, why did I always miss your hilarious "blogging at you from Occupied Aztlan" tagline until now?

137 Ed Moran:Abu Yes "لله لله " is Watching You!  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:16:46pm

b, I think you've missed the point.

I have had a couple of glasses of Ste. Genevieve red wine, made from grapes grown near Ft. Stockton, TX. You know, Ft. Stockton isn't too far from Imperial, TX (on the Pecos River), where the spring water has salinity that matches sea water. Thus, almost 500 miles from the nearest sea, Texans are farming shrimp. Thus, even in the more arid and dry regions of West Texas, you can still find local wine and shrimp.


There is a lesson in there for "b", although I may have to sober up to figure it out. ("Reggie" on the previous thread triggered a round of consumption).


BTW, best I can tell, as I am only an occasional imbiber,"b" is not an occasional imbiber. At least I hope "b" is buzzing, or else he may have mental health issues.

138 Model4  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:16:55pm

#70 Abu Reason:

However, to defend Western values, religion, including Judaism and Christianity, are not effective and in fact destructive

You might do a little more research to see what brought about Western civilization in the first place. Don't get me wrong though, I can't wait to hear how reason leads to a morality that all objective observers can agree upon (and neither the law of the jungle nor its father, the laws of physics, are acceptable moral codes).

You are entertaining, but along the lines of "Kids Say the Darndest Things," especially when they say stuff like "widdle" instead of "little." Perhaps you'll be the first religious, Atheist or agnostic person to grace this board who claims to have all the answers (very few), who actually does (none so far).

Extra credit question: Which nation in any period that was as hostile to all religion as you are would you personally care to live in?

#83 Ed Moran:Abu Yes: You got off easier than I did, my cable listing has "Israel and Palestine"

139 b  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:19:18pm

#130

the fallacy of false dichotomy.

I haven't heard of that one. Maybe you could enlighten us on it.

False dichotomy, huh?

Pray, and pray, and pray, tell...

...but of course please tell us the difference between
poision and nutrition,
death and life,
ruin and prosperity.

There is no dichotomy between these things, it's one or the other.

And it's that time in history to choose.

So make your choice, and then shut the hell up.

140 evariste  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:19:47pm

Abu Reason, TQC isn't saying it's not a false dichotomy because everything is equal, he's saying it's a false dichotomy because he doesn't accept that religious belief = death and atheism = life. The metaphors that b is trying to frame his polemic in aren't apt.

141 Lawrence Schmerel  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:21:24pm

I don't get it.

If a lying murderer says "There is no Lite but Miller Lite." he is still a lying murderer.

142 aaron's rantblog  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:22:06pm

Islam died a long time ago, centuries if you want to quantify. Current Muslims are more clearly members of the child-sacrificing cult of Molech.

Muslim moderates only differ from Muslim extremists in that they are willing to wait a little before subjugating us to dhimmitude or a Daniel Pearl-like fate. According to the Koran, there is NO alternative to this.

See Do Christians, Jews and Muslims worship the ’same god’?

Six more Rantblog rants equating Muslims with Molech.

143 quark2  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:23:59pm

It matters not what abu non reason or b spout. When it's all said and done and we will all be dead. Then it will be revealed who was right and who was wrong. In that case as a believer nothing is lost whether it's proven or not. Because if as a believer you are right, you have saved your soul. And if you're wrong and you're just dead then you've lost nothing.
And in case either of you are aware of western culture, it's based on judeo-christian beliefs. And, if originally man had not attained belief in a supernatural being there would be no need of laws for that which is considered right and wrong. If that is so, then there is no need to rampage against the heathen muslim as they are not going to be held culpable in the afterlife.
Personally I am devoted to the fact that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Saviour, I have everything to gain and nothing to lose. :)

144 Cooper for President  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:23:59pm

This is what I love about LGF. People engaged in high-brow philosophical discussions.

Such as Has John Kerry been using Botox?

You decide...

145 IzzyFromAussie  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:24:02pm

Surely it doesn't matter what name you call God. We who believe God exists make up the names anyway. In the Torah, when Moses asked God what his name was he just said "I will be who I will be". The real question is does He exist in the first place and if He created us then why and what is our purpose. Clearly the three religions all have different views on that.

With regard to the rational versus irrational argument, I would like to say that not everything which cannot be empirically proven is automatically false. An intelligent person realises (rationally!) that he cannot possibly understand or know everything in the universe and therefore his own logic tells him that some things are beyond his logic.

146 Abu Reason  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:26:15pm

130 Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus:

Do you realize you are preaching the moral relativim and nihilism that LGF and other site have ben exposing?

Same goes for Kat:


I don't need a bloody atheist preacher telling me what to believe--I don't tell you how stupid you are for not believing--afford me the same courtesy.

more moral relativism.


#86 Ed Moran:Abu Yes


Christians are commanded to love their neighbor, to pray for their enemies, and to forgive those that do them wrong "seven times seventy times". If everyone followed these rules, everyone would be pretty happy.

this is moral relatism. this si what the UN wants the US to do.

147 Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:28:46pm

#139 b

#130


the fallacy of false dichotomy.

I haven't heard of that one. Maybe you could enlighten us on it.

Hmmm...I suspect there are quite a number of things which you haven't heard of.

False dichotomy - attempting to build an argument on spurious premises based upon an attribution of distinction which is not logically apparent.

#135 Abu Un-Reason

See Evariste's #140 - Why engage in repetition?

how much moer dichotomous can you get than life or death!! And where is the middle ground between proof and voices from heaven?

Before we engage in a discussion of revelation, please demonstrate that empiricism can ever conclusively "prove" anything...

148 fiery celt  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:31:03pm

Contrary to common opinon "Allah" was mentioned in the Bible...Allah is Ba'al the false god...

1 Kings 17-39

17 When Ahab saw Elijah, Ahab said to him, "Is this you, you troubler of Israel?"
18 He said, "I have not troubled Israel, but you and your father's house have, because you have forsaken the commandments of the Lord and you have followed the Baals.
19 Now then send and gather to me all Israel at mount Carmel, together with 450 prophets of Baal and 400 prophets of the Asherah, who eat at Jezebel's table."
20 So Ahab sent a message among all the sons of Israel and brought the prophets together at Mount Carmel.
21 Elijah came near to all the people and said, "How long will you hesitate between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him." But the people did not answer him a word.
22 Then Elijah said to the people, "I alone am left a prophet of the Lord, but Baal's prophets are 450 men. 23 Now let them give us two oxen; and let them choose one ox for themselves and cut it up, and place it on the wood, but put no fire under it; and I will prepare the other ox and lay it on the wood, and I will not put a fire under it.
24 Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the Lord, and the God who answers by fire, He is God." And all the people said, "That is a good idea."
25 So Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, "Choose one ox for yourselves and prepare it first for you are many, and call on the name of your god, but put no fire under it."
26 Then they took the ox which was given them and they prepared it and called on the name of Baal from morning until noon saying, "O Baal, answer us." But there was no voice and no one answered. And they leaped about the altar which they made.
27 It came about at noon, that Elijah mocked them and said, "Call out with a loud voice, for he is a god; either he is occupied or gone aside, or is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and needs to be awakened."
28 So they cried with a loud voice and cut themselves according to their custom with swords and lances until the blood gushed out on them.
29 When midday was past, they raved until the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice; but there was no voice, no one answered, and no one paid attention.
30 Then Elijah said to all the people, "Come near to me." So all the people came near to him. And he repaired the altar of the Lord which had been torn down.
31 Elijah took twelve stones according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob, to whome the word of the Lord had come, saying, "Israel shall be your name." 32 So with the stones he built an altar in the name of the Lord, and he made a trench around the altar, large enough to hold two measures of seed. 33 Then he arranged the wood and cut the ox in pieces and laid it on the wood.
34 And he said, "Fill four pitchers with water and pour it on the burnt offering and on the wood." And he said, "Do it a second time," and they did it a second time. And he said, "Do it a third time," and they did it a third time.
35 The water flowed around the altar and he also filled the trench with water.
36 At the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, Elijah the prophet came near and said, "O Lord, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, today let it be known that You are God in Israel and that I am Your servant and I have done all these things at Your word. 37 Answer Me, O Lord, answer me, that this people may know that You, O Lord are God, and that You have turned their heart back again."
38 Then the fire of the Lord fell and consumed the burnt offering and the wood and the stones and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench.
39 When all the people saw it, they fell on their faces; and they said, "The Lord, He is God; the Lord, He is God."
___

Allah is not G-d.

And no multi-culti secular humanist from the NYT, has any right to teach otherwise!

For that matter neither does Pres. Bush or those apostate interfaith Cardinals in Rome...

___

Deuteronomy 17:
2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant,
3: And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded;
4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard [of it], and enquired diligently, and, behold, [it be] true, [and] the thing certain, [that] such abomination is wrought in Israel:
___

Corinthians 6:9
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,"

149 Abu Reason  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:31:34pm

Hey b, good stuff, but you don't need to resort to that language - your arguments stand on their own.

150 Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:35:48pm

#146 Abu Un-Reason

Do you realize you are preaching the moral relativim and nihilism that LGF and other site have ben exposing?

Well, that may be your faith based opinion, but...

How's this strike you: Atheism such as yours is the product of an irrational, foolish mind which is incapable of understanding logic, much less of employing it in any meaningful way. As such, people of your low calibre of thinking have to resort to meaningless platitudes which they don't understand (whining about "moral relativism" while completely failing to understand their opponent's argument), useless rants about "religion", and non sequitur arguments based on hand-waving.

We used to laugh at people like you in grad school.

Now, go back and do the lab over, and do it right this time, before I flunk you.

151 superfly  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:37:10pm

"Knowledge can only be gained by rational conclusions drawn from the evidence, not mystical revelation, superstition, or emotion."

This statement fails its own test.

152 Paladin  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:37:17pm

b and Abu Reason

From your posts, I assume you believe homo sapiens evolved from lower animals?

Please correct me if I misstate your position/belief.

153 Alex F  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:37:43pm

Absolutely ridiculous that they would think the three major monotheistic religions would have the same god, much less that they fail to realize that imposing this view is itself condescending and insulting to a great many people.

For starters, I am constantly ribbed by my girlfriend and my jewish friends about Judaism being the only true monotheistic religion (I know the Holy Trinity can be confusing for my jewish friends). The Comedy Central movie the Hebrew Hammer is funny and relentless on this point.

Second, my girlfriend and I also disagree about whether its the same god because if He is, boy is He a bi-polar schizofrenic! In one testament, He's smiting and flooding the world; in the next, He's love-dovey, touchy feely, turn-thy-cheek.

I know, I know I blaspheme.

Finally, when it comes down to it, if it were the same God, why the Muslim insistence on exterminating their brothers of the book, the Jews? Hmmm...

Then again, maybe that's why the ground has never shook and the blood never frozen in the veins of the Jews and the Christian Crusaders, despite the numerous and continuing pleas for Allah to do so.

I, for one, know my God has nothing to do with the fanatic terrorists that practice Islam.

154 Ed Moran:Abu Yes  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:38:25pm

Much less obnoxious story on Discovery.

Mass Transit/Subway systems. I used to really have a thing for subways. It would have fit my sister's amateur diagnosis of Asperger's, ( but I rented a video about Asperger's and those people are just sad, I felt sorry for them, but I said, I may be a touch eccentric, but I'm not like that).


Houston has a new light rail system that runs from where people work/see baseball games to where people work/visit hospital patients/see NFL football games. If the trains ran from where people live to where they work, or from where they live to where they recreate, people might ride it. In the two months it has been running, the streetcar has wrecked 10 cars, including a Union Pacific Rail Road maintenance pickup truck that drove around crossing gates (there is irony in that)

Also OT, the Zionist Occupation Govt./Zionist World Conspiracy achieves new milestone, ZOG/ZWC weather machine keeps Kofi Annan and other America/Jew haters from making ot to the office!

155 Ed Moran:Abu Yes  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:39:17pm

Fiery Celt

I missed you!

156 evariste  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:39:49pm

Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus-

and non sequitur arguments based on hand-waving.

Touché.

157 Richard the Lionheart  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:39:50pm

Exerpter from an article be Serje Trifkovic:...

One of the clichés endlessly repeated by those who would conceal the dangerous potentialities inherent in Islam is that Moslems "believe in the same God" as Christians and Jews. But this is a severe distortion of the truth, for what Moslems fundamentally believe is that they know the true nature of the God that Judaism and Christianity tell lies about. Lies for which Christians and Jews will be punished in hell. The fact that Moslems share Levantine monotheism with us, makes them more, not less, antagonistic to us on a religious level. Hopes for reconciliation on the grounds of common monotheism, as opposed to a realistic "good fences make good neighbors" civilizational détente, are wishful thinking.
The widespread belief in the non-Muslim world that Islam accords respect to the Old Testament and the Gospels as steps in progression to Mohammad’s revelation is mistaken. Modern Muslim apologists try to stress the supposed underlying similarities and compatibility of the three faiths, but this is not the view of orthodox Islam. Muhammad’s insistence that there is a heavenly proto-Scripture and that previous "books" are merely distorted and tainted copies sent to previous nations or communities means that these scriptures are the "barbarous Koran" as opposed to the true, Arabic one. (Let’s leave aside for a minute the puzzling question of how any degree of "distortion" of the Koran could produce either an Old or a New Testament.) The Tradition also regards the non-canonical Gospel of Barnabas, and not the New Testament, as the one that Jesus taught. The Koran alone is the true word of God and sets aside all previous revelations.
While the influence of orthodox Christianity upon the Koran has been slight, apocryphal and heretical Christian legends are the second most important original source of Islam. In other words, Islam contains an awful lot that Christians have deliberately rejected over the years as religiously unsound. There are also influences of Sabaism, of Zoroastrianism, and of ancient Arabian paganism, including the divine sanction for the practices of polygamy and slavery. The reports in both the Koran and the Hadith (authoritative traditional sayings) concerning paradise, the houris, (virgins) the youths, the jinn (genies) and the angel of death have been directly taken from the ancient books of the Zoroastrians. Zoroastrianism also originated the story that on the Day of Judgment all people will have to cross a bridge stretched across hell leading to paradise on which the unbelievers will stumble and fall down into hell.
The denial of the Trinity is also explicit: Allah begets not, i.e. he is no Father; and was not begotten, that is, he is no Son; and no one is like him, which means he is no Holy Spirit. "They are infidels who say, Allah is the third of three." But "Isa" is not the Son of Allah, only a special prophet, and the Christians’ contrary claim shows how they are perverted. The Christians are guilty of blasphemy because of their belief in the "trinity" of Allah, Mary, and Jesus. The "real" Jesus was a righteous prophet and a good Muslim who paved the way for the final prophet, Muhammad himself.
There is a wishful myth in circulation among liberals that Islam accords respect to all "people of the book," i.e. Christians and Jews in addition to Moslems. While Islam indeed accords them a higher standing than it does to polytheists like Hindus (pace the question of whether Hinduism properly understood is truly polytheistic) or African animists, this hardly amounts to respect. Of all the "people of the book" only Muslims can attain salvation. Jews’ and Christians’ refusal to acknowledge Mohammed as the messenger of God dooms them to unbelief and eternal suffering after death. Christians are mortal sinners because of their belief in the divinity of Christ, and their condemnation is irrevocable: "God will forbid him the garden and the fire will be his abode."
Unlike the Christian faith in God revealing Himself through Christ, the Koran is not a revelation of Allah – a heretical concept in Islam – but the direct revelation of his commandments and the communication of his law. It has been said that the Koran, to a Muslim, is not the perfected Gospel, it is Christ, the Word Incarnate. This is a somewhat tenuous metaphor, however, not a valid parallel: Christian God "comes down" and seeks man because of His fatherly love. The Fall cast a shadow, the Incarnation makes reconciliation possible. Allah, by contrast, is cold, haughty, unpredictable, unknowable, capricious, distant, and so purely transcendent that no "relationship" is possible. He reveals only his will, not himself. Allah is "everywhere," and therefore nowhere relevant to us. He is uninterested in making our acquaintance, let alone in being near to us because of love. We are still utterly unable to grasp his purposes and all we can do is what we have to do, to obey his command.
The Koran claims to be the fulfillment of a religious design which was imperfectly revealed to the Jews and to the Christians. It is the crowning synthesis, the final word. But viewing the matter objectively, leaving aside for a moment the question of the actual truth of the book, it seems hard to see how the Koran is a synthesis of anything. The way in which Christianity makes sense – again, simply as a logical matter and leaving aside the truth of it – as a fulfillment of Judaism, is clear even to the unbeliever. But the Koran’s claim is singularly implausible. Non-Muslim commentators fail to see in what way the Koran is an improvement over, or advancement on, the moral teaching, language, style, or coherence of the Old and New Testament. It looks, feels, sounds like a construct entirely human in origin and intent, clear in its earthly sources of inspiration and is the fulfillment of the daily needs, personal and political, of its author.
Finally, one cannot ignore that whatever mildly friendly things the Koran may say about Judaism and Christianity in its early part, the late Surras also signify the final break with the Jews and Christians, who are fiercely denounced. The Muslims must be merciless to the unbelievers but kind to each other. "Whoso of you makes them his friends is one of them." War, not friendship, is mandatory until Islam reigns everywhere. Muslims are ordered to fight the unbelievers, "and let them find harshness in you." They must kill the unbelievers "wherever you find them." The punishment for resistance is execution or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides. By the stage in his life during which these Surras were written, Muhammad was no longer trying to convert his hearers by examples, promises, and warnings; he addresses them as their master and sovereign, praising them or blaming them for their conduct, giving laws and precepts as needed. His raw dogmatism stands, finally, naked of all pretence.

158 Dar ul Harb  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:42:20pm

I'd rather have a false dichotomy than a prefrontal lobotomy ...or was that "free bottle in front of me"?

I forget.

159 evariste  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:42:40pm

Ed Moran-cool, me too! I bet you'll love Transport Blog then!

160 aaron's rantblog  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:45:11pm

evariste

The ever-improving Rantblog has lots of surprises.

161 evariste  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:45:30pm

Dar ul Harb-oooh!
Should I say it?
I will.
Forgive me in advance.
I'd rather have a false dichotomy than a dick falls outta me.
*ducks*

162 Gordon  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:47:47pm

Of course Kearney's right, in a theological succession way of looking at the issue.

1. Are there any other significant monotheistic religions in the world?

2. Does the Koran accept Christians and Jews, even if they are "errant" and therefore of second class status, as opposed to polytheistic Hindus and Animists and Zorastrians, who were traditionally given the choice of conversion or death?

3. Does the Koran incorporate the Old and New Testaments, even if they are in somewhat bowdlerized forms?

[Link: www.economist.com...]

It's premium content at "al-Economist," so I would suggest finding the print version in your local public library to read about the connections between Christianity and Islam over Mary, mother of Jesus.

As a Christian, I believe that Mohammed was not a messenger of God, but rather a perverter of his message. Radical Islam is proof of what can arise out of this conflict of belief.

But then, as a Christian I also believe that Jews are in error in not accepting Christ as the Messiah. Traditional European anti-semitism is proof of what can arise out of this conflict of belief.

That doesn't mean that Christians, Jews, and Muslims don't worship the same God.

163 Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:48:59pm

#151 Superfly

HAH HAH, good point!

#156 Evariste

Merci. Trust me, I've seen my share of handwaving too.

164 Abu Reason  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:49:23pm

138 TCQ


I can't wait to hear how reason leads to a morality that all objective observers can agree upon.

This is moral relativism!! This is what we are fighting against - the leftists and multiculturalists. If you can't rationally prove your beliefs, on what grounds do you hold them? If "because God/society/the stars/my emotions told me" is the basis of your moral and political beliefs, then you are in sad, sad shape.

BTW, If you were right you wouldn't need to be condecending to bolster a weak position.

Extra credit question: Which nation in any period that was as hostile to all religion as you are would you personally care to live in?

The United States, which is the least religious country in history -- and which BTW is why the islamists hate it.

165 logger phd  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:49:35pm

#157 Richard the Lionheart

While the influence of orthodox Christianity upon the Koran has been slight, apocryphal and heretical Christian legends are the second most important original source of Islam. In other words, Islam contains an awful lot that Christians have deliberately rejected over the years as religiously unsound.

--Good way of putting it. I have made this point on another thread before, that Islam seemed to have cherry-picked some heresies that Christianity already found to be old hat in the 7th century. The example I pointed out was Manicheism, which viewed matter as evil.

166 isaiah520  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:50:32pm

jtf.org is fighting against the destruction of Israel and the West against the moslems who pray to satan, not
G-d.

167 aaron's rantblog  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:51:29pm

Evariste... and I'm also part of the settler movement, here.

Nothing wrong with being a settler.

Take a peek at my Watcher of Weasels Council award-winning What Makes Texas More Sacred To The US than Judea and Samaria to Israel?

The Jews predate Arabs in the Promised Land. It wasn't until after the Illiterate Pedophile Prophet, piss be upon him, had hoardes who violently expanded westward, eventually triggering the Crusades in reaction.

168 Ed Moran:Abu Yes  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:51:51pm
28 One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked
Him, What commandment is the foremost of all?
29 Jesus answered, The foremost is, "HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD;
30 AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL
YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH.'

31 The second is this, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' There is no other
commandment greater than these.
32 The scribe said to Him, Right, Teacher; You have truly stated that HE IS ONE, AND THERE IS NO
ONE ELSE BESIDES HIM;
33 AND TO LOVE HIM WITH ALL THE HEART AND WITH ALL THE UNDERSTANDING AND
WITH ALL THE STRENGTH, AND TO LOVE ONE'S NEIGHBOR AS HIMSELF, is much more
than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.
34 When Jesus saw that he had answered intelligently, He said to him, You are not far from the kingdom of
God.

I still say if everyone treats their neighbor the way they wanted to be treated, the world would be a good place.

169 cba  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:52:00pm

#158 Dar ul Harb:
LOL!

#161 evariste:
Lucky for you that you ducked...

170 b  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:53:08pm

#149

I like cussin some times.
I don't know why exactly,
but I do.

I'm American, and I don't need no explainin.
Or not much.

I don't know if it's Jefferson, or Twain, or Sherman.
I just can't help but undercut myself from time to time.

I'm an American, for several generations, now.

171 d  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:53:14pm

As Izzy points out, at the burning bush G-d declares I am that I am.

Popeye (the sailor man) states, I yam what I yam.

Forget Allah, YHVH, or El – G-d’s name is Popeye.

172 andrew  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:55:36pm

#164 Abu Reason

You remind me of Vizzini from The Princess Bride:

"Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I'm not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool; you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me."

173 logger phd  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:56:03pm

#164 Abu Reason

"Extra credit question: Which nation in any period that was as hostile to all religion as you are would you personally care to live in?"

The United States, which is the least religious country in history -- and which BTW is why the islamists hate it.


--Not France, c. 1790? No gold star for you!

174 Camel Prophet  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:56:50pm

pitiricus #41:

That post caused some discussion here, last Fall. I would call it an essential download:

[Link: www.atimes.com...]

The Asian Times' "Spengler" column goes from great to mediocre, which tells me that it is assigned to various persons, none of whom is the notorious Che-Gonzo, Pepe Escobar:

[Link: www.globaldevelopment.org...]

There is some comment above on the "kaba stone." The stone is only 9" in circumference, and rests on the "Yemeni Corner" of the Cube. It was once stolen, and remained outside of Mecca for almost 200 years. It is certainly no different from any of the 360 "idols" which the ersatz "prophet" destroyed when he occupied Mecca. It was cracked during exile, therefore it is probably not a meteorite, which are super-dense. According to hadith comment, it was once white but acquired additional blackness with each "sinful" human touch. Some anti-muslim Hindus believe that there are hidden hadith references to the stone being: feces from "il-lah" (or "allah," "the-god"). His alleged purity would have made his crap white. (Mideast deities, like Marduk, did eat). One hadith has "the-god" using "stars" - "the-god" didn't tell his "abds" ("slaves") that the Sun is a star - to toss at "demons" ("jinn"). Not bad for a 150 foot tall entity who supposedly sits on a throne while cursing humanity, just like Baal. Could muslims be venerating god-shit? That must really stick to your shoes.

175 Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:59:10pm

#164 Abu Un-Reading

I appreciate the input, but if you go back and read it over, you'll see that post #138 was by Model4, not me. Perhaps you would like readdress your statement and concerns to him?

While we're on the subject, however, I'm somewhat perplexed at your claim that the United States is the "least religious nation in history" (Indeed, all the atheists I've heard seem to complain about it being just the opposite). I guess the various Great Awakenings, the position of America as the greatest sender of overseas missionaries, official state religions in several of the States until the 14th amendment, religiously-based blue laws and even the 18th amendment to the Constitution don't count as religious?

176 quark2  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:59:14pm

Now we as christians and jews are being put into the same camp as the muslims...moral relativism.
You are fools, where do you think right and wrong originated from? From some heathenistic cave dwelling aetheist? Right and wrong, crime and lawfulness have their base in the belief of being rewarded or punished by a greater being. If there is no greater being then there is no right or wrong. Now that is relativism...amorally so.

From now on, both of you, Abu reason [really?] and b, if you cannot present your arguments towards the posters who do not hold to your virulent opinions, then keep it to yourselves.
I firmly believe from your postings if you had your way you would not only outlaw all religious beliefs you would do just as Kat pointed out, you would use force to make it so.

177 EE  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:59:16pm

Pali society believes that their deity requires people to kill themselves for the deity, and that child sacrifice is especially what their deity requires. It is a throwback to the worship of Molech. Add to this the belief that their deity requires the murder of people who get their religious inspiration in a different way, and you have what can only be described as a death cult. There is a climate of opinion in Pali society that one should hate life itself, and long for death. It is surely best described as a death cult.

Here is an article, "Aspiration, not desperation", by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook, that examines the motivation of the Pali Islamikazes. Pali Islamikazes are not desperate people, contrary to what the Euro elites maintain. They are doing what they have always dreamed of doing, and what Pali society glorifies.
[Link: www.jpost.com...]

They may call their deity "Allah", but their deity resembles Molech, or something far more evil -- the Devil, perhaps, might be the one that desires the massive murder and suicide of people.

178 evariste  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:59:22pm

Aaron-

Whey and the curdish territories

LMAO!
It's true what you say about the unhesitating answer to a question about Palestinians' ultimate goal-min alnahri ila albaHr-from the river to the sea.

179 cba  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 5:59:33pm

Ed Moran, weather dude:

The temperature here in Winnipeg is currently -37C, and with the windchill it feels like -53C (-63F).

Tomorrow's high--let me say that again, high--is expected to be -32C (-26F), with the windchill -50C (-58F).

It's not quite record-breaking cold here, but it's fairly close. The record low for today is -42C in 1966.

180 logger phd  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:02:56pm

#179 cba

I think if I had read that a couple of months ago i would not be moving to Winterpeg!!!

181 evariste  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:03:42pm

"Extra credit question: Which nation in any period that was as hostile to all religion as you are would you personally care to live in?"

The United States, which is the least religious country in history -- and which BTW is why the islamists hate it.

That's gotta be one of the most retarded things I ever read. We're one of the most religious countries in history, we just aren't officially religious, only privately.
What about France, the USSR, China?

182 Model4  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:05:30pm

#164 Abu Reason: You're talking to the wrong dude. And you can complain, whine, and divert all you like, so long as it's shown that you can't produce the system of morality you claim rationality alone can create. Forgive me for being underwhelmed by someone who barges in claiming everyone is wrong but him, yet stands there empty-handed when asked for his solution.

I guess I shouldn't bother pointing out that the United States has always been governed in a fashion that openly welcomes at least some faiths, but it seems you're clueless on that as well. The nation in history I asked for was one that, as a matter of policy, is as hostile to all faiths as you are. Remaining silent or admitting you couldn't come up with an answer would have been far better than answering a different question than the one that was asked.

183 Kat  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:05:54pm

Abu-I know I am superior because I am a child of God and you descended from apes, so I can understand your believing USA is the most unreligious country on earth. Just further reinforces my belief that you are a bloody fool. Why don't you move to North Korea or Cuba. You'd fit in wonderflly with Ping Pong or Castro. They have used rational thought to develop two of the most superior godless regimes on earth.

184 cba  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:08:22pm

#180 logger phd:
Sorry to break it to ya, buddy! But at least you'll be moving in summer. That'll give you a chance to ease into it. Although there's no too ways about it--this weather SUCKS!

It's not this bad every year. It's the worst it's been for 8 or 10 years, so next year will probably be better.

BTW, are comments glacially slow, or is it just me?

185 Paladin  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:12:47pm

b and Abu Reason

Please be so kind as to respond to my post #152.

Thank you.

186 Pitiricus  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:12:54pm

Kat:

Rosenzweig made in the 20s the same point about Islam, which he calls a mockery of a religion...

187 logger phd  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:13:48pm

#184 cba

Thanks for the advance welcome! ;-)

All in all, I'm still looking forward to the move. I would savor it more without this big dissertation thing in my way.

only slightly off-topic: Are there any mosques in Winnipeg? I want to avoid buying a house where I'd have to hear "BWAAAH-UH!" at 3:00 in the morning!

All right, it's after 11 here inside the Beltway. Time to call it a night and savor the repartee in the morning!

Oh, and the posts do seem to be creeping. Blame it on spam.

188 Iowa Soccer Mom  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:15:09pm

An interesting aside to the rather long Biblical excerpt about Elijah and the prophets of Baal... when it was all over, the people were quoted as shouting, "The Lord, He is God! The Lord, He is God!"... ironically, the exact translation of Elijah's name is "The Lord, He is God." So really, the people might've just been chanting "Elijah! Elijah! Elijah!" LOL

OK, just messing around. It is very interesting to read through the theological debate here. This is my first time to post, but I don't think it will be my last.

Blessings,
Kris

189 Ed Moran:Abu Yes  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:15:22pm

Well, CBA, it was -1C at the big airport in Houston, and I had to use an expired ATM card to scrape the windshield.


I am heartbroken as a week ago Thursday's GFS supercomputer model said over 1" of snow the evening of the Super Bowl, and now it looks like showers ending and upper 40s ( ~9C)


It looks like Houston's 14 year snow drought continues to grow. We are going on 19 years on our Major Hurricane Drought ( cat 3 Hurricane Alicia was the last major Hurricane to directly hit HOU, although numerous minor storms, such as 1989 minimal Hurricane Jerry, Tropical Storm Frances and two different Tropical Storms called Allison. Hurricane Claudette, while a borderline Cat 2, missed Houston by 150 miles).

Houston is now in a ten year drought of Fujita scale F-4 tornadoes.


Frankly, getting dull here in HOU. Lately, all we get are floods. Floods have a lot of clean up work involved, but aren't that spectacular to watch. (After Allison in 2001 had the "fun" of pulling up carpeting at my wife's cousins house and her grandparents house. Nasty work).

190 Jay  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:17:16pm

A Short Summary of Islamic Beliefs and Eschatology
Collected by Lambert Dolphin

[Link: www.ldolphin.org...]

Arabic Inscriptions in The Dome of The Rock in Jerusalem
From the Muslim point of view the Islamic shrine known as the Dome of the Rock built on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem is an answer to, and a denial of, the attractions of Christianity and its Scriptures, providing the "faithful" of Islam with arguments to be used against Christian theology. The inscriptions are seven hundred and thirty-four feet long in all, amongst the lengthiest inscriptions in the world. There is a great amount of repetition and many quotations from the Koran.

The following extracts are relevant:


Inner Face: South Wall. "In the name of Allah the Merciful the Compassionate. There is no God but Allah alone; he has no co-partner. He is the Kingship and His the praise. He giveth life and He causeth to die, and He hath power over everything."

South-East Wall. "Verily Allah and His angels pronounce blessing upon the Prophet. O ye who have pronounced blessings upon Him and give Him the salutation of peace. O, People of the Book (i.e. the Jews and Christians, always referred to as such by the Moslems -Ed.) do not go beyond the bounds in your religion and do not say about Allah anything but the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, is but a messenger of Allah and His word which he cast upon Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe only in Allah and of his messenger, but do not say 'Three' (Trinity) and it will be better for you. Allah is only one God. Far be it from His glory that he should have a son."

North Wall. "The Messiah will not deign to be in the service of Allah nor will the angels who stand in his presence. O Allah; pray upon Thy messenger "the servant Jesus---(N-W Wall) the son of Mary and peace be upon him the day of his birth, the day of his death and the day of his being raised alive. That is Jesus, son of Mary---a statement concerning which YOU are in doubt. It is not for Allah to take for Himself any offspring, glory be to Him."

West Wall. "Allah bears witness that there is no God but Him, likewise the angels and the people possessed of knowledge," (S-W Wall)---Upholding justice. There is no God but He, the Almighty and All wise. Verily, the religion in Allah's sight is Islam."

Outer Face: West and North-West Walls. "In the name of Allah the Merciful and Compassionate. There is no God but Allah alone. Praise be to Allah who hath not taken to himself offspring. To Him there has never been any person in the sovereignty. Mohammed is the messenger of Allah, may God pray upon Him and accept his intercession."

"Praise be God who has not taken unto himself a son and who has no partner in sovereignty nor has He any protector on account of weakness."

If religious Jews are offended by the presence of this Islamic shrine on their holy mountain, Christians have even more reasons to take offense at these blasphemous statements about their God, and the deliberate insults to Biblical revelation that the interior inscriptions clearly intend.

1990

191 b  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:18:20pm

#176

--- well aren't you the rude little mother fucker?

I firmly believe from your postings if you had your way you would not only outlaw all religious beliefs you would do just as Kat pointed out, you would use force to make it so.

I would 'ticket' people for ill-logic, and fine them as we now do for traffic violations. It would cost you money, personal production, and it would go on your permanent record.

You can categorize this as force if you wish, and it is in a way. But the point is that I would punish you for your stupidity. And I would hound you with a permanent record that followed you throughout your miserable life, for your logical transgressions.


I would basically fuck you up, every time you strayed from logic. And the more irrational you were, the more likely you would be locked up in a prison or insane asylum you would be.

Tough shit for you, but that's the way it would be if I were king.

192 evariste  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:18:42pm

Welcome, Kris (Iowa Soccer Mom)!

193 evariste  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:19:41pm

b is obviously a teenager.

194 Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:19:46pm

#152 Paladin

Am I to suppose from your post that you do not believe that life began with the condensation polymerisation of amino acids in the early ocean?

195 aaron's rantblog  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:21:07pm

evariste

I'm not unreasonable. I'm for unlimited territory for the Palestinians... 6' under ground.

196 fiery celt  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:21:11pm

Ed Moran,

I lurk occasionally and post infrequently. My parents and my brother are headin' down your way this weekend.

Keep your eyes, ears and instincts my friend...because it appears as if one of our multi-lettered agencies are not taking the threats down in Texas too seriously.

Texas plant guard sticks to story; Man shot near port facility says FBI doesn't believe him

197 Ed Moran:Abu I Think "b" has been drinking  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:22:47pm

b


You'd give tickets for "thought crimes?

198 Ed Moran:Abu I Think if "b" isn't drunk....  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:24:47pm

Then he is a raving nutbar.

199 quark2  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:25:19pm

@184

"The United States, which is the least religious country in history -- and which BTW is why the islamists hate it."

Have you ever studied documented American history? This country was founded on JUDE0-CHRISTIAN premises. Are you aware that Jews were among the foundation of our way of life in this country?
You are not ignorant, you are illerate!

200 Lewis Can't Lose  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:25:55pm

Don't hate me because I'm beautiful.
And don't hate me because I'm an atheist.

As long as your religion doesn't proscribe killing or oppressing me, I don't really give a shiat what you believe.

I'm all about freedom of religion, baby, cuz it means freedom FROM religion for me.

Sorry for the interruption, we now return you to your regularly scheduled debate between Descartes and Kant.

201 b  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:28:05pm

#193

Oh, yuckety, yuck, yuck!

You are on to something.

Oh brave soul, go back and scratch your balls.

You are brave, you are mount everiste!

202 Paladin  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:28:38pm

#194 TQC

Uh, close.

203 Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:28:45pm

#190 Jay

Another interesting thing about the Dome of the Rock inscriptions is that they provide the first chronological evidence (c. 70 AH) for a number of key theological underpinnings of Islam. Basically, before Abd al-Malik and the Dome of the Rock, there was no Islam. It was merely a non-descript Arab monotheism loosely based off of the various "Abrahamist" beliefs prevalent in Palestine and Syria for centuries before the Arab invasions. Islam developed only gradually, and wasn't really "established" in its present form until the reign of Walid I, Abd al-Malik's son (which, correspondingly, is when the first real evidence of major persecution of the Jews and Christians appears, as found in contemporary, i.e. non-Muslim, evidences).

Another interesting tidbit. There is no evidence of there being any sort of prophet Mohammed in the Arab religion until 71 AH, when we find a coin bearing the inscription "Muhammed rasul allah" dated to that year. Apparently, Muslims were completely silent about their "Holy Profit" for the first seven decades or so.

I highly recommend to all on this forum the book "Crossroads to Islam", by Yehuda Nevo and Judith Koren, both noted ANE archaeologists.

204 Peter  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:29:12pm

A couple of years ago I saw an item about this guy in Cairo who was keeping a ram on his apartment roof so he could slaughter it during Eid. It seems he bent over to pick something up and the ram... rammed him. He fell to his death. May be an urban legend

205 evariste  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:30:59pm

Lewis Can't Lose,

Sorry for the interruption, we now return you to your regularly scheduled debate between Descartes and Kant.

LOL! I was thinking, Plato vs. Aristotle, but I like yours too.
quark2-

You are not ignorant, you are illerate!

Heh :-)

206 Abu Reason  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:31:45pm

If you guys are the best of what America has to offer, then America is doomed.

If you think that the answer to the Islamists' wild irrationality and subjugation of the individual to a wrathful god should be answered by ... orgainized irrationality and subjugation of the individual to a pleasant god, then America is doomed.

If you cannot defend America, the West, and your freedom on objective, scientific, rational grounds, then you intellectually are no better than the head-slashing crazies -- and America is doomed.

If that is your position, you do not deserve the freedom you cannot comprehend and the values you had you part in creating.

You have betrayed what this country stood for. You are parasites living of the dying glory that was once America.

God help America.

207 cba  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:32:52pm

#187 logger phd:
My trusty Sherlock (only $12.95 at Shopper's Drug Mart!) lists two places under the Islam section of Places of Worship: the Ahmadiyya Muslim Centre in Fort Rouge, and the Manitoba Islamic Centre in St. Vital.

I suggest renting when you arrive, so you can take your time about buying.

However, I do recall fondly living on a moshav in central Galillee, a few miles from an Arab village (home to our Arabic teacher). I rather enjoyed hearing the muezzin. It was so quiet that the sound traveled very clearly. OTOH, we also heard the wedding celebrations--lots of music punctuated by gunfire.

Ed Moran--if you want snow, come visit, we've got tons. For some reason we've had huge amounts of snow this winter as well as this nasty cold snap. Between all the snow I've shovelled from my driveway and all the snow the city's plowed from the street onto my lawn, I have a major snow fort.

208 Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:33:39pm

#202 Paladin

Oh, well, me neither. In fact, I am amused at evolutionists who will claim that their belief system is the "scientific" one, and who then make such a basic error as to suggest that amino acids would just polymerise in the ocean, even though this would contradict one of the most basic scientific principles in organic chemistry.

209 Lewis Can't Lose  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:34:18pm
I would 'ticket' people for ill-logic, and fine them as we now do for traffic violations. It would cost you money, personal production, and it would go on your permanent record.

Wow. That's some funny farking shiat, motherfarker.

Welcome to LGF, Mr. Spock. Live long and prosper, dude.

210 Ed Moran:Abu Shabu  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:35:32pm

200 Freedom of Religion means you are free to worship, or not worship, believe, or not believe in the divine being of your choice.


If I may also get New Testament Biblical with you, when Jesus sent out his disciples to preach, he told them if they were rejected to leave, and shake the dust off their shoes as a warning (NB, Jesus did not teach: "Fight the non-believers until they proclaim Jesus is Lord").


Even your most hardcore Bible Belt Baptist may cluck his tongue at you ( and try to keep you from opening an adult bookstore next to his/her church ), but they won't try to kill you.

211 Paladin  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:38:18pm

#208 TQC


What you said.

212 Westward Ho  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:39:21pm

#183,Kat.
Abu-I know I am superior because I am a child of God and you descended from apes,
Creationist cretin go peddle your snake oil elsewhere.

213 Camel Prophet  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:41:03pm

EE: The following will interest you. I downloaded this in the Fall of 2001, off Asian Times. AT's Che-gonzo, Pepe Escobar, interviews Pakistan's premier expert on muslim "jihad": Arif Jamal (Lahore)

PE: "What is the true meaning of jihad?"

AJ: "Jihad literally means 'holy struggle'. But in common
parlance, when people use the word jihad, it means jihad in the way of Allah - or 'holy war.' Prophet Muhammed stressed the concept of jihad all his life. And he fought jihad more than 20 times in his own life. The real objective of jihad in the life of Mohammed was to defeat the infidels and establish an Islamic state in Mecca, Medina and the Arabian island later on. This essential meaning of jihad emains even today. The main objective of jihad even today is to defeat the infidels and establish Islamic states all over the world.
Muslims believe that the Earth belongs to Allah and they should establish the system of Allah on Allah's earth. The infidel system must go."

PE: "What are the rewards of waging jihad?"

AJ: "Prophet Mohammed also offered a lot of incentives for those who would wage jihad in their lives. The mujahideen were assured of entering Paradise before the first drop of their blood fell to earth. The Holy Scriptures of Islam also say that houris (beautiful virgins of the Koranic Paradise) come down to Earth to take the spirit of the mujahid who is about to die before the first drop of his blood falls to earth. The martyrs are promised 72 houris in Paradise. These houris are more beautiful than all the beauties of the world combined. I have studied more than 600 wills of Pakistani mujahideen who were fighting in Kashmir. There is hardly any will that escapes this concept. All the mujahideen have mentioned the houris as an important iincentive for waging jihad. The paradise with houris is the prime objective of these mujahideen."

PE: "What is the Koranic view of 'infidels' especially Christians and Jews?"

AJ: "In the beginning Prophet Muhammed did try to evolve alliances with Jews of the Arabian island against the non-believers. But they did not prove long-lasting. And ultimately the Jews, Christians and non-believers were bracketed in the same fashion by the Prophet. Prophet Muhammed wanted to establish an Islamic state in the Arabian island. It was not possible by evolving alliances with non-Muslims in those days. They Holy Koran is very clear about Jews and Christians; it very clearly says in several places that Jews and Christians cannot be friends with Muslims. The mujahideen today are propagating this concept from every available pulpit. Prophet Muhammed also asked to throw Christians and Jews out of the Arabian island. And this is the foundation of the concept of jihad of Osama bin Laden. Osama's contention is that it is un-Islamic to have the Christians and Jewish army of the United States of America in the Arabian island. He wants them out. Many of his close associates say that if the American troops leave Saudi Arabia, Osama bin Laden can be convinced to appear before an Islamic court of law. This shows that his jihad is based on the saying of Prophet Muhammed. A big problem is that jihad has intensified the hatred between Muslims and Christians and Jews."

PE: "Could we say that Osama's jihad is a misinterpretation of jihad, according to Prophet Muhammed?"

AJ: "I don't think it is a misinterpretation of the Islamic
concept of jihad. It may be a narrow interpretation of the concept."

(sections by-passed)

PE: "The concept of jihad itself was elaborated in seventh century Arabia. In your opinion, what is the relevance of such a concept to the 21st century?

AJ: "Jihad as we know it now started only after the CIA and ISI (Inter-Service Intelligence of Pakistan) started jihad in Afghanistan. Before that, jihad was a dormant concept, and Muslims were waging mostly nationalistic struggles. In the last two decades, jihad has come to mean 'armed struggle.' After the collapse of the Soviet Union and its Eastern European empire, jihad has been adopted by the have-nots in Muslim countries. And these have-nots are waging a sort of class struggle against the Western haves. Jihad has become a sort of thermonuclear bomb in the hand of the have-nots in Muslim states. So if Marx were alive today he would say that the new class struggle is the Islamic have-nots against the Western haves. Probably Marx would not agree with this because he was in favor of a class struggle without the involvement of religion. But this is one form of class war, yes."

PE: "Who is entitled to start and wage a jihad?

AJ: "According to the Holy Scriptures, it is the Commander of the Faithful - the Amir ul-Munimeen - who is entitled to declare jihad. But in the absence of a commander-in-chief any Muslim can wage jihad. The Holy Scriptures say that jihad will continue until the Day of Judgement. This means that the mujahideen will not revert to ordinary life. You cannot simply abandon jihad. Once you get training to wage jihad, and you wage jihad, you only change locations, but you have to continue the struggle. That is why the mujahideen from Afghanistan were directed to Kashmir."

PE: "So how do you internalize jihad?

AJ: "Apparently once you start waging jihad, your whole
world-view is subordinated to jihad. Everything else is not important. Even if you have to kill innocent people, this is subordinated to the higher purpose of jihad. When you start jihad, it starts dominating you, because it gives you power over the rest of the world. All other things become subordinated to jihad. Even the concept of Islam boils down to jihad for the mujahideen. All
other Islamic concepts - even when they are important - become subordinated to jihad. Jihad becomes the ultimate end even for the Islamic belief system...They say jihad is the summit of Islam. So if you have found the summit, you have found the whole thing. This is what they are taught. They believe ihad will bring them honor in the world, they will become powerful. The heroes of the mujahideen have always been generals. No Muslim scientist, or intellectual, or artist has ever become a hero. It is a military tradition that dominates the mujahideen."

"Some influential Muslim scholars say that the great problem with Islam is that unlike Christianity, it did not go through a Renaissance and a Reformation. Something to this effect has been said by the Italian Minister Berlusconi. Regarding your question, I think this is an influence of Christian scholars on Muslim scholars. I think the West developed only after it abandoned Christianity and adopted science. It did not develop because it had Renaissance and Reformation. They developed only after they abandoned Jewish and
Christian dogmas and adopted science as a way of life. I think this is the only solution for Muslim societies as well...

(Sections by-passed)

PE: "Is there any substantial difference between Deoband (a sub-continental sect of Islam) practiced by the Taliban, and Deoband practiced by these religious parties in Pakistan?"

AJ: "There's very little difference. In Pakistan they cannot practice their version of Islam the way the Taliban can in Afghanistan. Given freedom in Pakistan, they would behave in the same way as the Taliban do. And this is exactly what they are striving for. And their influence is of course increasing day by day."

(Part 1)

214 Delapore  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:41:05pm

#206 "Abu Reason"

America is doomed.

(x3)

Yeah, yeah, we're all doomed. You'd better head over to France, home of the "Temple of Reason," pretty quickly, so you're not caught in the crossfire of irrationality.

215 Jay  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:41:29pm

#203 Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Thanks for the input!

also,the full article site I sent [#190] is a bit old and probably in need of some updating.

Regards

216 Camel Prophet  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:45:24pm

#213 Part 2

PE: "What is the future direction of jihad?"

AJ: "Jihad has tremendously affected Pakistani society. With increasing poverty, most people have very little to do with their lives. In this uneducated society, they have found a solution - an irrational solution - to their problems. They don't want to labor to find better solutions. They think if they wage jihad all their problems will be solved. It is very interesting: all their problems are worldly, and the solution is spiritual. But when they join jihad, they forget about their worldly problems. The Kalashnikov in their hands gives them respect, power and raison d'etre. Somebody who has nothing in life and nothing to lose, who has been for many years idling away his time in the streets of a Pakistani village, suddenly finds a cause to live for in a jihadi camp. And this gives him not only spiritual power but also practical power over one of the biggest armies in the world. He is almost intoxicated with that power. And he will do everything to retain that power. These
guerrillas very often praise themselves for winning against the Soviet Union - a former superpower. They have turned the Indian army - a big conventional army - into a wreck. And they believe they can defeat the sole superpower today - the United States. And they believe they are the intermediaries who can establish the rule of Allah on Allah's Earth."

FIN

ANYONE FOR A JIHADI BARBECUE?

217 quark2  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:45:39pm

@191

Apparantly this person has very volatile buttons to be pushed. You would make an admirably efficient communist in the now defunct USSR.

Oh and by the way as I am not a lesbian, it's impossible for me to be a mother fucker.

218 Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:45:43pm

#206 Abu Un-Reason

If you cannot defend America, the West, and your freedom on objective, scientific, rational grounds, then you intellectually are no better than the head-slashing crazies -- and America is doomed.

You have betrayed what this country stood for. You are parasites living of the dying glory that was once America.

And I quote,

"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitles them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights..." (Declaration of Independence)

Speaking of the success of the American revolution, Madison wrote,

"It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution." (James Madison, Federalist No. 37)

Those founding fathers, what a bunch of irrational maroons with no concept of freedom!

219 Lewis Can't Lose  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:46:44pm

#210 Ed

Yep. That's why I think all the LLLs who spout off about America's Religious Right being just as dangerous as Moslem Fundamentalists are on coke.

Jehovas Witnesses I can handle. I can tell them I'm busy, or mock them relentlessly as I chose.

People who bomb office buildings are a whole 'nother level of annoying.

Also, when Falwell says something idiotic, moderate Christians come out of the woodwork to denounce his words, and the newspapers rip him a new one.

When a big time Iman or Mullah or whatever issues the latest call for violence in the Mosque, I can hear the crickets chirping in the Arab world from here.

220 Geepers  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:47:06pm

This is a bit of interesting wording from the NYTimes:

Car Bomber Kills British Peacekeeper in Kabul

The "peacekeeper" is a British soldier. Does anyone who follows the NYTimes know if they generally refer to US troops in Afghanistan as "peacekeepers"? Or are we always "soldiers"

Six American soldiers of the coalition force involved in counterterrorism have also been wounded in two incidents since Monday, a United States military spokesman said.
221 Ed Moran:Abu Shabu  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:47:27pm

cba


Maybe once every other winter, as a wee lad in NY, we would get a snow fluffy enough you could sweep it with a broom.

Usually, NY metro snow, being coastal snow, would fall at or even a bit above freezing, and would be rather full of water. It packed well for snowball fights, but was heavy and difficult to shovel. Also, as NYC area temps ran close to freezing most winter days when snow was on the ground, the sun would melt a thin layer on top of the snow, which would re-freeze at night or during cold snaps, leaving a thin icy layer to fall through when walking, which served as an effective transport mechanism for placing bits of icy water inside my socks.


My one and only visit to Canada (Montreal, Quebec, 1984, driving up from Saratoga Springs, NY one Sunday afternoon while the Jets were getting blown out, and we had a four day weekend from the D1G prototype), the Canadian border guards really searched my 1976 Chrysler Cordoba, made a big deal over the fact that we had picked up a six of LaBatts in NY in honor of our Canadian road trip, and really freaked when they found my package of DexaTrim (I was dieting even then).

We got in, after they emptied my trunk. I heard a lot of "cocaine, acid" spoken in a French accent, we saw the place where the Canadiens play, we couldn't ride the subway, it was on strike, but back then the exchange rate was favorable and we could get table dances for US $5.

Mind you, I'm married now, and except for the two bachelor parties for my wife's cousins ( and my wife gave me permission provided I didn't look) I don't do topless bars anymore.

222 Kat  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:49:53pm

#212   Westward Ho
Monkey man go peddle your snake oil elsewhere.

223 "mount" evariste  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:51:53pm

b,

Oh, yuckety, yuck, yuck!

You are on to something.

Oh brave soul, go back and scratch your balls.

You are brave, you are mount everiste!

If all your reasoning was this high-quality, we could really have a conversation!
By the way, nice try, but it's spelled everest.
Abu Reason, you're trolling.

If you guys are the best of what America has to offer, then America is doomed.

Who said we were the best of what America has to offer? And who made you the American Cassandra? A red herring.

If you think that the answer to the Islamists' wild irrationality and subjugation of the individual to a wrathful god should be answered by ... orgainized irrationality and subjugation of the individual to a pleasant god, then America is doomed.

Your argument is weak. For one thing, Judaism and Christianity together are responsible for the coevolution of the very notion of the individual, the individual's personal responsibility, the individual's salvation, and the individual's personal rights. All of which are intricately woven into the Western conception of the individual. For another, if your poorly-phrased and poorly-thought-out claim was true, Christian nations would seek to either kill or convert muslim nations, not allow them to continue as muslims and try to bring them into democracy.

If you cannot defend America, the West, and your freedom on objective, scientific, rational grounds, then you intellectually are no better than the head-slashing crazies -- and America is doomed.

We can, as could and did the Founding Fathers of this country, defend freedom on rational grounds, but that's besides the point. The point is that you're claiming that Christianity and Judaism are enemies of America, the West and freedom itself; really, one of the most preposterous things I've ever read.
Again, what the fuck are you talking about with this, "America is doomed"? We're less religious today than ever before in the history of this nation, weren't we even more doomed during Puritan times? Victorian times?

If that is your position, you do not deserve the freedom you cannot comprehend and the values you had you part in creating.
You have betrayed what this country stood for. You are parasites living of the dying glory that was once America.

God help America.

Why do I get the feeling you're fantasizing about America's doom so you can say, I told you so! Religion is baaad!
Nobody's betrayed what this country once stood for because what this country stands for is standing for the freedom of its people to believe what they want to believe without interference from the government.
You're an idiot, you and b should fuck off. You're making thoughtful atheists like me look bad. Quit preaching and evangelizing! We fucking get the point! You hate religion, okay! Why does it have so much power over you that you can't shut the fuck up about it? It seems to me like you're more religious than most "religious" people, you just belong to an exotic rejectionist cult.
Goddamn, you two are annoying.

224 Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:52:56pm

D'oh! Preview would like to be my friend.

#215 Jay

No prob, I always like to point out Islam for what it really is ;)

#211 Paladin

Basically, I'm just saying that the whole "sludge to Drudge" evolutionary theory is bunk.

225 quark2  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:53:05pm

@206

*LOL!

God Help America!

Are you RWC?

226 smokey  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:53:06pm

Allah is a clever synthesis of an old pagan moon god and Abraham's god. It ain't the same thing.

227 b  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:54:23pm

#197

This is for the 'thought crimes' guy.

I don't want to call you stupid, or be rude.

But, what you lack is an imagination, and that is an understatement.

What we have to prepare for, in an age of weapons of mass destruction, is a new science, a new physics.

When each man has at his disposal, the knowledge to split the planet into pieces, we will have to deal with this reality.

And this reality will require a standard not now conceivable. But it will happen, if normal or even sub-normal trends continue.

You can call me nuts, but this is happening, and it's there for anyone who wishes to look.

Unfortunately your God isn't going to give you any comfort or advice in this matter. So you will be forced to think, perhaps for the first time in your life.

And when you think, you will see magnificent benefits and horrible dangers in the newness.

You will be faced with a real life, dichotomy. You will have to make a decision.

And how will you do this? Will you do it by commandment from God? Or will you use another method?

You have a choice and your life will depend on it.


Well, OK. I don't know what's going to happen. But we'll all know soon enough.

Good luck to us all.


(This is our choice, reason or death. We've had this for a while now. And so far, in American tradition, we've chosen life. But it isn't guaranteed or certain that we will continue with this.)

228 Q  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:56:55pm
I assume you believe homo sapiens evolved from lower animals?

Well, yeah, that's pretty much what happened. Denying the fact of evolution (not the driving force, which to some extent can be open to discussion, but the fact) is not religiousity, it's obscurantism.

Those who don't want the two to be considered one and the same, would really do themsleves a great service by leaving evolution -- and rational science in general -- alone. Y'know, "render unto ceasar..." and all that.

229 Abu Reason  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:57:14pm

TQC: you are so full of shit, from your pretentious nickname to your pseudo-scientific posturing (#208) to your cynical, nihilistic bullshit:


Atheism such as yours is the product of an irrational, foolish mind which is incapable of understanding logic, much less of employing it in any meaningful way. As such, people of your low calibre of thinking have to resort to meaningless platitudes which they don't understand (whining about "moral relativism" while completely failing to understand their opponent's argument), useless rants about "religion", and non sequitur arguments based on hand-waving.

We used to laugh at people like you in grad school.

Why am I not surprised you're an academic. Well, I guess you had to get your lobotomy somewhere.

The reason they seem like non-sequitors to you is you are too dense -- and too consumed by trying to appear clever -- to make the logical connections.

Why don't you figure out what all those words mean before you use them. You'll discover that, unlike what you learned in grad scholl, that they have precise, objective meaning.

I re-state my #206 above.

230 Ed Moran:Abu Thinks "b" is L Ron Hubbard  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 6:58:04pm

227

"b", are you a Scientolgist, or are you just getting delusional after a three day meth binge?

231 Ed Moran:Abu Thinks  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 7:00:00pm

"b"


I'd watch out, the body thetans are after you!

232 Ed Moran:Abu Thinks  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 7:01:40pm

Alarm clock goes off in a little over six hours.


Good night, all, and "b", I think you need another electrometer reading.

233 evariste  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 7:08:06pm

Ed Moran, LOL! Good night.

234 Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 7:10:02pm

#229 Abu Un-Reason

TQC: you are so full of *Dean*, from your pretentious nickname to your pseudo-scientific posturing (#208) to your cynical, nihilistic *Clinton*

Ahem. Re: post #208, are you suggesting that a condensation reaction which produces water as a product of the reaction would take place spontaneously in a big ocean full of...water?

My my, you seem to be coming a bit unhinged. But then again, I'd be cynical and nihilistic if I were to ask you if you were going to cry, now wouldn't I?

#227 b

You will be faced with a real life, dichotomy. You will have to make a decision.

Now isn't that cute? I taught him a new word. Good b, here's a peanut.

235 Tasty Beverage  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 7:10:49pm

#174 Camel Prophet

Actually, the Black Stone is considerably bigger than a 9" around. See the pickies:

What's this remind you of?
Pet the kitty


Thumbnails

Could muslims be venerating god-shit? That must really stick to your shoes.

LOL

236 aesmlue  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 7:13:51pm

181 evariste

id have to agree with you. America is one of the most religious countries in the world - but by "religious", i mean simply that a large (majority) percentage of the populace believe in some form of god, and that this faith tends more often than not to be expressed a belief in the saving grace of the man from Nazareth. This fact that separates them from, lets say, er, Europe or Canada where there are far fewer practicing Christians (percentage wise). i will stick with america.

I think the problem is, when people try to conceive of a “religious" country, they think of nations held hostage to one specific set of stagnant beliefs and who reject all others out of hand simply for being different. Thus one can perhaps turn to contemporary Saudi Arabia (insert any Muslim theocracy here), or perhaps medieval Spain during the inquisition.

I don’t think it is a stretch to describe contemporary America as a Christian country – or at least a Western Country that truly recognizes its Judaeo-Christian heritage and is not intent on abandoning it anytime soon. But America is not a nation of zealots, feverishly attempting to enforce some form of religious orthodoxy. What the people “believed” is by no means uniform. The country was founded by individuals who represented a variety of creeds (well, different kinds of Protestants anyway) and therefore they all had to agree that there would never be a “national” church and they accepted the existence of a plurality of interpretations and beliefs. but they all remained quite devoted to thier god. Thus today’s Baptists tend not to blow themselves up over at the local Calvinist church. Each person has historically been free to choose his or her own way to worship. Seems to have worked pretty well.

It is no accident that the USA has been the safest place for the Jews of the world since the end of WWII (sadly, safer than Europe and even Israel). Throughout history, Jews tended to thrive and prosper in dynamic, free-thinking and at least somewhat religious regimes. These include at least sporadic periods under Muslim rule during the middle ages (i.e. Babylonian academies, periods under the Umayyad’s in Spain – until the fanatical AlMohades show up).

summing up,

at least a little religion tends to be good.

and for Diaspora jews:

Some religion = good. No religion = Nazis or nihilism/postmodernism/Europe. Too much religion = Spanish inquisition/almohades.

237 norar  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 7:15:54pm

AFAIK, media is calling Allah 'Allah' because Muslims Use 'Allah' when refering to God, and Muslim papers and websites show for this, as well as English translations of Koran made by native Arabic speakers. Kearney's attempt to persuade media to use 'God' is just another exercise in sophistics that attempts to prescribe behavior to the public rather than report news about public's behavior.

Also, prescribing terminology is censorship, any way you look at it and regardless from the reasons produced.

238 Q  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 7:16:51pm

I must say, Kat, for a Christian, you're displaying remarkable arrogance and mean-spiritedness.

What happenned to "turn the other buttock"? What would Y'shua say?

239 Westward Ho  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 7:16:54pm

#222, Kat
My snake oil has has a small lable called scientific acceptance on it, I am not so anthropocentrically arrogant to think that my exquisite self could only have been created by an Infinite Being who then infused me with an eternal soul!! - & this is called religious humility LOL.

240 b  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 7:17:30pm

#230

I don't know if 'meth' is an upper or a downer, but I do know that religion is destroying our little planet.

And if anyone thinks the pilgrims were a driving force over survival itself, they are mistaken.

The original escapees to the new world of America were driven by and sustained from Reason personified.

And anyone who doubts this can try and find Virginia Dare's corpse.

America, is the result of the enlightenment, of reason, of Saint Thomas Aquinas, of Aristotle.

And you can kiss my ass if you think differently. Please kiss my big fat American man-ass.

I don't care if you believe this or not. But we're on the cusp of another dark age or a nano-technological miracle age.

And your religion can fuck it up or let it pass, to your benefit, I might add.

So, you have a choice, keep harping on your religious bullshit, or shut the fuck up.

Make your decision, and suffer the consequences.

241 fiery celt  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 7:18:44pm

THERE IS NO DOUBT...OUR FOUNDING FATHERS INTENDED THAT JUDEO-CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES WERE TO BE THE BASIS AND FOUNDATION OF THIS COUNTRY...

The God who gave us life gave us liberty... Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction... That these liberties are the gift of God? The bible is the cornerstone for American liberty." -Thomas Jefferson

"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." -John Quincy Adams

"We've staked our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all our heart." -James Madison

"You can't have national morality apart from religious principle." -George Washington

"Our country was founded on the Gospel of Jesus Christ." -Patrick Henry

"The longer I live the more convinced I become that God governs in the affairs of men. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance." -Benjamin Franklin

"While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader." -Samuel Adams

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion." -John Adams

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly implore His protection, aid and favors... Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these states to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the Beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country, and for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us. George Washington, 1789.

242 Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 7:22:58pm

Well, goodnight all. The clock shall soon be ringing.

243 Abu Reason  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 7:28:19pm

b: you're as much of an idiot as these other losers.

TQC: don't flatter yourself. your posts don't "unhinge" me any more than a fly walking accross my screen.

Kat and the other creationsit idiot: yeah, I once saw a good tv show against evolution ... on Saudi TV

evariste: you should know better.

The guy with the 5K biblical quotations: give it a rest.

-- Abu Reason out

244 Westward Ho  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 7:29:46pm

#241, fiery Celts,
Most of the founding fathers were Deists i.e. they beleived that God created the world & let it run its course without interfering & the world is lucky that they were because the seperation of church & state would have never taken place without the watered down religious beleifs of the founding fathers

245 b  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 7:36:34pm

#243


b: you're as much of an idiot as these other losers.


Thanks for pointing that out.

Adios buddy!

246 Right Wing Conspirator  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 7:38:09pm

#235 Tasty Beverage

I better win a Nobel Prize for this, but I know exactly what the [bigoted word]s need. A little bit of this mixed with a little of this and add a touch of this. Because for what its worth, if this looked like what I was worshipping, then I might be a little pis*ed also.
** ALERT ** I am officially warning those who are pregnant, and/or with high blood pressure or are susceptible to motion sickness DO NOT CLICK ON THE LAST LINK.

of course, that is just like the news telling you to turn away :-)

247 quark2  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 7:39:45pm

Well when you others who are neither Jewish or christian get your butts in a crack, we'll see how long you stay atheists.

There's an old WWII saying..."nobody's an atheist in a foxhole".

As I posted earlier, as a believer in Christ I have absolutely nothing to lose and all to gain.

And that's even when there is no rational reason for having galaxies with out globular clusters. :)

248 Chuck Pelto  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 7:45:50pm

TO: Abu Reason
RE: Projection, Anyone?

"b: you're as much of an idiot as these other losers" -- Abu Reason

You even have b's writing style in #243. But look on the bright side, you don't seem to be on some kind of bad drug trip.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

249 Right Wing Conspirator  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 7:48:20pm

#225 quark 2

Now that is just mean :-(

Just kidding. Nope, not me. I am glad someone else noticed that an (I am assuming atheist, I could be wrong) has stated 'God help America.'

250 Barkin at the Moon  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 7:49:19pm

#240 b

I don't wish to embarass you, but are you on some kind of psych medication? If not, you may consider it to your advantage to see a doctor for help...

251 fiery celt  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 7:51:34pm

Westward Ho;

The God who gave us life gave us liberty...
The bible is the cornerstone for American liberty...
We've staked our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all our heart."...
Our country was founded on the Gospel of Jesus Christ...
Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly implore His protection, aid and favors...
...the Beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country, and for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us. George Washington, 1789.

Yep...The aforemented surely does reflect "watered down" beliefs in an "uninvolved" , 'non-interfering Deity...
/sarcasm off


But then I think good ole' Ben Franklin" said it best...The longer I live the more convinced I become that God governs in the affairs of men. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance." -

252 ibrodsky  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 7:52:04pm

I'm coming to this thread late, so I apologize if my theory is old news...

The issue is not whether Jews, Christians, and Muslims are all referring to the same God.

When Muslims say "There is no God but God" what most are really saying, as I understand it, is that Christians and Jews are polytheists and, therefore, infidels.

This is also analogous to their claims regarding Jerusalem. Jerusalem *is* very important to Muslims. But it's not because of Mohammed's supposedly miraculous journey.

Jerusalem is important to Muslims because Jerusalem is important to Jews and Christians. Many Muslims want to see Jerusalem under Muslim control for only one reason: because it would symbolize Islam's dominance over Judaism and Christianity.

This is why people who think we should "share" sovereignty of Jerusalem with Muslims are fools. They will never be happy until they control the entire city and until they are free to destroy and/or restrict access to Jewish and Christian holy sites, because that is there ambition.

I don't agree that all Muslims think this way, but many do and those who dissent learned long ago to keep quiet.

253 John Gibbon  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 7:52:51pm

Evening RWC! Looks like we stepped on to a deserted battlefield and the smoke has barely cleared...

I've seen some pretty ugly things in my life but what the HECK was that in your last link?

254 Lewis Can't Lose  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 7:54:05pm
I have absolutely nothing to lose and all to gain.

Ah, Pascal's Wager.
Feh.
Just like those goofs who bang their heads on a rug five times a day have nothing to lose and all to gain.

I've got better things to do with my time.

Maybe worshipping globular clusters would be a good place to start.

It seems like each and every religion claims for itself the sole path to salvation.

What's an outsider to do to determine which one is correct? Spin a big wheel, maybe.

255 Chuck Pelto  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 7:57:57pm

TO: Quark2
RE: Old Adages

"There's an old WWII saying..."nobody's an atheist in a foxhole"." -- Quark2

Actually, I think it's that...

There are no atheists under an artillary barrage.

If you've ever had a 155 projo impact only a few yards away from where you were [Note: It was a short round. Some bozo put too few bags in the shell.] you'll understand.

Never been under a directed barrage. And I pray to God I never am...

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Incoming artillary has right-of-way.]

256 Tasty Beverage  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 7:58:21pm

#246 Right Wing Conspirator

LOL What I want to know is, why, in that last picture (of the "impacted" Marduk-poop), is the specimen outside? I assume that came from a human...guess when that thing came knockin', there was no refusing the call. How embarrassing.

257 gymnast  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 7:58:28pm

#252, ibrodski. I think you drove that nail with one stroke. Bravo.

258 Lewis Can't Lose  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 8:03:28pm
When Muslims say "There is no God but God" what most are really saying, as I understand it, is that Christians and Jews are polytheists and, therefore, infidels.

Okay, I get how Christians could be viewed as polytheists (what with Jesus and all), but I don't understand the basis for that charge against Jews.

Little help, anyone?

259 Chuck Pelto  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 8:03:58pm

TO: Lewis Can't Lose
RE: What's a Fella To Do?

"What's an outsider to do to determine which one is correct?" -- Lewis Can't Lose

Seek and ye shall find. Ask and it shall be given unto you.

Or so I was told. So I sought. And I found. Even when I wasn't seeking, looking back on it all, He was there watching out for me...even when I came screaming in out of a black sky with a malfunctioning parachute. Three words spoken as clear as if someone was standing in the air with me, "Prepare to land." I snapped into the landing position and impacted two seconds later. Got up and walked away.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[God is alive. And airborne-ranger qualified.]

260 Right Wing Conspirator  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 8:05:17pm

#253 John Gibbon

Evening. I know, I still smell the faint smell of gunpowder and napalm. But heck, either this thread with creationism vs. evolution and judeo christian vs. wannabe atheists or the other thread with 'Reggie.' Me thinks I shall stick here and post more pics of impacted stool.

#256 Tasty Beverage

Yep, came from a human. And there were a couple more but I have some discretion. Maybe.

*** at least now I know who the rubber-neckers are on the highway. ;-)

261 Chuck Pelto  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 8:07:13pm

TO: Lewis Can't Lose
RE: Why the Jews?

"I don't understand the basis for that charge against Jews." -- Lewis Can't Lose

I think it has to do with their sibling rivalry thing. Been going on since Issac and Ishmael.

Ishmael was born first to Abraham, but Issac got the blessings and the inheritance. Been bad blood between the kids ever since.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

262 Lewis Can't Lose  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 8:13:37pm

#261

Huh? I don't get it.
In what way does Islam infer that Judaism is polytheistic?

263 Right Wing Conspirator  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 8:13:51pm

G'nite all.

264 A.S.K.  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 8:15:35pm

#259 CP

Isa 30:21 And thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying, This is the way, walk ye in it, when ye turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the left.

265 quark2  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 8:17:13pm

@249 RWC


Yeah, I know. But the screaming meemies that have been pasting vitriole all over this thread made me do it. *lol


@254 Lewis Can't Lose...didn't know it was lost

I said nothing in reference to banging my head on the ground 5 times a day with my butt bared to the wind.

I have nothing to lose in believing and all to gain. That does not mean in any fashion that this is to be forced on anyone else. You breach the line of saying for those who believe are in danger of being penalized because you don't like it.
In believing takes nothing from anyone else, it doesn't even pollute the air you breathe.
If I am wrong then all I've done is use up my mortality in the fashion I chose through my individual freedom.

266 John Gibbon  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 8:18:16pm

Zee Bed is Calling and I've got to fight a simulated battle tomorrow. I'll have to imagine the smell of cordite as our CPUs burn hot...

G'nite

I'll remember to say my prayers to some God before I go to bed. thanks for the potential nightmares Tasty Beverage and RWC! Those images will haunt me!

267 Chuck Pelto  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 8:28:40pm

TO: Lewis Can't Lose
RE: Don't Get It?

"In what way does Islam infer that Judaism is polytheistic?" -- Lewis Doesn't Understand

Polytheism is not the root of the problem. It's jealousy. A familial feud that has gone on for millenia. And logic has nothing to do with it. Polytheism has nothing to do with it.

Any excuse will do for them to kill a Jew.

Heck it was even prophesized in Genesis...

"And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction. And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren." Gen 16:11-12

That's a pretty fair description of the current state of affairs with respect to Ishmael's kids.

The Arabs will call Jews "infidel" for any reason. It doesn't have to be 'polytheism'. An infidel is one who doesn't agree with them about Allah or Mohammed.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

268 Sick 'em Duke...  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 8:29:43pm

Perhaps a little OT:


[Link: israpundit.com...]

Two articles by Louis Rene Beres

Following are two recent articles by Louis Rene Beres. The articles were e-mailed by the Freeman Center. The first article is co-authored with Dr Michael Messing.

Louis Rene Beres is Professor of International Law, Department of Political Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette IN 47907, USA
E MAIL BERES@POLSCI.PURDUE.EDU

Michael Messing is from the Department of Radiology, Evanston Northwestern Healthcare, Highland Park Hospital, Highland Park, IL 60035, USA

WHAT HAPPENS TO THE "MERELY WOUNDED" THE RADIOLOGY OF SUICIDE BOMBING TERRORISM

27 January 2004

By Louis Rene Beres, Ph.D. and Michael L. Messing, M.D.

There are times on this endlessly bleeding planet where the survivors of terror-violence must surely envy the dead. One such time is the recurring occasion of Palestinian suicide bombing. Finding heroism and sacredness in the exploded bodies of despised "infidels," the Palestinian suicide bomber absolutely abhors any sense of humane civilizational limits.

For him or for her, "God's Will" is now easily discovered in the broken and charred corpses of "enemy" women and children.

But what, exactly, does the Palestinian suicide bomber really seek?

Consider this: He wants, above all, to transform Jewish pain into Islamic power.

For the Palestinian suicide bomber, violence and the sacred are unambiguously intertwined.

This homicidal terrorist believes without hesitation that there can be no greater glory for a Muslim than inflicting measureless pain upon all Jews.

With such a profane belief, even the most elementary standards of armed conflict are easily set aside in favor of purely sadistic violence and celebrations of mass murder.

269 Lewis Can't Lose  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 8:31:23pm

#265 quark2

That does not mean in any fashion that this is to be forced on anyone else. You breach the line of saying for those who believe are in danger of being penalized because you don't like it.

I don't believe I ever said that, in #254 or anywhere else.

Those who believe are in danger of nothing more than a waste of their time and effort; they've certainly got nothing to fear from me.

Blah. Even though I'm convinced that jeebus ain't up there, I'm equally convinced that spirituality and prayer can have positive effects for the faithful. So, I suppose, that even in the absence of jeebus, prayer ain't necessarily a waste of time.

Who knows? Something may be out there, I just doubt it conforms to any major religion's concept of "God."

270 gb  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 8:33:23pm

#258 Lewis

"With regard to the religion of democracy and association [of other deities with Allah, i.e. polytheism], those who worship it say 'Judge between them by that which the people wish; be wary of deviating from what they want, desire, and legislate'. This is what they say, and thus it is determined that democracy is unbelief and association [of other deities with Allah] if it is implemented.

From Contemporary Islamist Ideology Permitting Genocidal Murder

Any philosophy or method of social organization other than that which is defined by Islam is considered be a form of polytheism as it is not the way of the deity, (i.e. Allah).

271 Lewis Can't Lose  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 8:37:15pm

#267 Chuck Pelto

Yes, I'm aware that the problems that Muslims have with Jews go far beyond the "polytheism" charge.

But that's one I've heard several times on this board. There must be a basis for it in Islamic theology, and I wondered if anyone present knew what it was.

272 Chuck Pelto  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 8:37:38pm

TO: A.S.K.
RE: Ain't It the Truth

Isa 30:21.

Been there. Done that. Literally.

And it works.

Keep up the Go(o)d work!

Regards,

Chuck(le)

273 alexbmn  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 8:43:46pm

wow excellent thread but as it was said those two give atheists a bad name. The fact that religion pretty much gave Western civilisation its values is indisputble. Who said that "if a man believes in nothing he will believe in anything"?

274 Ben F  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 8:44:08pm

#37 Yehudit sez--

"Allah." "Yah." Not that different. Big deal.

Try telling that to this fellow, who explains that God has only one real name, that God never revealed that name to any of the Biblical prophets (including Jesus), and it's the name that was revealed to Mohamet.

So apparently Maulana Abdul Haq Vidyarthi's claim is that non-Arabic-speaking Jews and Christians worship Allah, but incorrectly, since they don't use God's name.

275 deja vu  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 8:49:09pm

b, abu reason:

"Atheism is essentially a religion based on blind faith - it takes greater faith to be an atheist. To be an atheist you must accept the impossible, believe the ridiculous and trust the absurd. From a logical point of view it is impossible to disprove God:

Observe the irrationality of the atheistic premise. The only way for the atheist to be absolutely certain that there is no God, the atheist must know everything about reality. He must know all facts and truth of existence. This would imply that an atheist must have a knowledge which only God could possess - infinite knowledge throughout time, be everywhere at the same time and be absolutely sure of everything. In reality the atheist must be omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. In which case the atheist must become God in order to prove there is no God. In fact he has to become the very God he is seeking to disprove."
Athesim is untimately self-refuting.
From: Christianity for Skeptics - Dr Steve Kumar

276 QueenEsther  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 8:52:55pm

A very thoughtful history professor I know once told me that if the world had followed the 10 Commandments, the Holocaust would not have happened.

The simple truth fascinates me.

277 I'm going to be sorry....  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 8:53:10pm

#271 LCL

My friend, I'm going to be sorry that I even said BOO on this thread...but here goes, according to my understanding. First you need a little knowledge about the Bible. In the beginning you have two brothers, Cain & Able. They, I believe a representation of many things, one of which 'true' faith and 'imitation' faith. Cain is jealous and kills 'true' faith (Able). Unfourtunatley for Cain, God sees what's goin down and isn't pleased. The same happen's with that dirty sneak Jacob vs. Esau when Jacob rips off his brother; and Isaac vs. Ishmael., where one is the result of a promise from God while the other is the works of mans hands. And the list could go on and on. It seems, from the bible that God makes certain promises and then backs them up, and screw mankind if he tries to mess with God...look at Moses in egypt. Anyway, it goes even deeper than that... You've got this enity roaming around that most men don't want to admit too...and that is satan! Satan is a nasty old turd who likes to use God's creation against it's Creator; i.e. wars, murders, lies, jealeousy, etc. you get the picture. I've said all this to say THIS; The ME is and the Islamic WOT is probably 90% spiritual, with man as the pawn. the saddest part is that most won't admit (out of pride and arrogance) that they're being manipulated one way or the other. Forgive the rotten spelling.

278 Lewis Can't Lose  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 8:56:49pm

#270

Yeesh, that's messed up. Fortunately, that's not mainstream Islamic theology there. Not that many tenets of Islam considered to be mainstream don't really, really suck anyways.

279 Lewis Can't Lose  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 9:02:32pm
the saddest part is that most won't admit (out of pride and arrogance) that they're being manipulated one way or the other.

Yeah, as a big backer of the war on terror, I am kind of loathe to admit that I'm being manipulated by God. Or is it the devil? Oh well, one or the other. As long as we've established that I'm being manipulated by supernatural forces...

Whatever, dude.

280 Westward Ho  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 9:05:53pm

#273 alexbmn,
Let's not forget that these values once Burnt Giordano Bruno at stake & threatened to roast Galelio, & was an implacable enemy of free thought till free thought neutered the church, the glorious thing about western civilization is not christianity but the agnostic,atheistic,empirical,materialistic world view - no other civilization intellectual Balls to look at the terrifying infinity of the cosmos without covering itself with the comforting blanket of religion

281 Carl in Jerusalem  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 9:07:14pm

OT - Israel Radio is reporting that an explosion occurred a few minutes ago in a bus at the corner of Azza and Arlozorov Streets (earlier they said Azza and Balfour) in Jerusalem. "Tens" of wounded.

Another Pali has found the virgins...

282 I knew it...  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 9:10:51pm

I spent to many years living in street missions to give a rip any more about trying to sound 'smart' or 'intellectual'. If that's what yer lookin for, someone to give you a nice wordy arguement I'm not the dude for it. How am I supposed to compress a few thousand years of spiritual history in less then 500 words? Telepathy perhaps. Listen pal, apparently you've a back pocket full of words...divise your own justification and rational...but put down the bottle first, before you pick up that pistol and start shootin up the hood...soneone might get hurt.

283 deja vu  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 9:11:57pm

Sorry about the typos in 275 - of course it should be:
Atheism is ultimately self-refuting.

Found this quote from Plato: 'Atheism is a disease of the soul before it is an error of the mind.'

284 zulubaby  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 9:13:18pm

Oh no.

285 Colt  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 9:13:52pm

First report of dozens of casualties, including fatalities, in explosion on bus in central Jerusalem – corner Gaza-Balfour streets near prime minister’s residence. Bus wrecked.

Too late to get the prisoners back and shoot them all, I suppose.

286 Colt  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 9:14:49pm

Haaretz says at least 3 dead.

287 Ms. Andi  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 9:14:57pm

Carl

They said on the radio here in the states that it was near Sharon's home. Is that true?

288 zulubaby  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 9:15:10pm
289 Carl in Jerusalem  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 9:15:35pm

Further details on Jerusalem bus. #19 bus. At least three dead. About thirty wounded (so far - those numbers unfortunately tend to rise), of which eight are "anush" (critical with life in danger)...

It's morning rush hour here - 9:15 AM

290 Motti  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 9:15:37pm

Re: Suicide bombing

[Link: www.haaretzdaily.com...]

291 Colt  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 9:16:51pm

Over 30 wounded - three critically.

292 fiery celt  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 9:19:32pm

alexbmn.

It was GK Chesterton's observation that when a man ceases to believe inGod,
it's not that he believes nothing, it's that he will believe anything. ...

293 Alex F  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 9:19:55pm

Is the No. 19 bus the same bus line that always gets hit?

Also, has LGF been laggy for anyone else today?

294 zulubaby  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 9:20:36pm

And at the same time the whole prisoner exchange is taking place. It's like watching a bad movie.

295 zulubaby  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 9:22:08pm

Alex F (#293)

Yes, very laggy, terribly slow.

296 Westward Ho  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 9:23:21pm

#275, Deja Vu,
Atheists don't have to prove anything since you are Positing an entity for which i have no sound evidence that it exists, the burden of proof is on you, you are making extraordinary claims. Proof please
Using your line of reasoning i could say mountains with wings or any absurdity exists, since to prove me wrong one would have to scan the whole cosmos simultaneously.

297 zulubaby  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 9:25:14pm

Kill Arafat now.

298 zulubaby  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 9:28:11pm

According to Ha'aretz the bomber was a woman.

299 Shiplord Kirel  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 9:29:33pm

#281
US media reporting now, few details.

It is time for decisive and, if need be, independent action. For two years now the Bush administration has joined the enemy-sponsored leftist fifth column in pretending that Israel's war on terrorism and our own are two entirely unrelated conflicts rather than different fronts in the same global war.

As Benjamin Netanyahu said, the US sent its forces to the ends of the Earth, literally to the highest moutains, to root out and destroy the enemy after 9-11.
Yet, State Department appeasers and fifth columnists restrain the IDF from hitting the terror-lords in their forward bases at Beirut and Damascus, let alone at the heart of their lair in Tehran.

300 davey  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 9:29:39pm

Haaretz saying it was apparently a "woman."

301 zulubaby  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 9:30:00pm

Fox is selling the "seeking revenge" line.

302 Ms. Andi  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 9:30:24pm

And Kofi Annan is worried about the status of the PA.

Please kill yourself Arafat!

303 Mojo Jojo  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 9:31:06pm

Hizballah help set this whole thing up. The Israeli government is being made a fool off. They deserve it for being a bunch of schmucks.

304 Tasty Beverage  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 9:31:14pm

It's at least five now according to Fox.

305 Carl in Jerusalem  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 9:33:24pm

# 287 Ms. Andi

Yes. The explosion was a block or two from Sharon's official residence (he's not there) and a block away from Cafe Moment, which was victimized by a suicide bombing in March 2002.

Israel Radio is now reporting at least 8 killed and 10 seriously wounded. Bus left Hadassah Ein Kerem Hospital (where my daughter goes to school!) at 8:20.

# 293 Alex F

This is the first time I can recall the 19 being hit. You may be thinking of the 18, which was hit twice in eight days in 1996.

# 297 Zulubaby

(By the way, are you in Israel?)

More than kill Arafat. Flatten the Mukhata. There are thirty more terrorists hiding out there.

306 davey  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 9:35:54pm

Eight, according to Haaretz.

Wanted men are holed up in Arafat's HQ, and innocent people are being murdered in Jerusalem. Fuck this.

307 zulubaby  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 9:36:18pm

Mojo Jojo, you're disgusting!!

308 Carl in Jerusalem  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 9:37:01pm

# 301 Zulubaby

Israel Radio claims that the Pali's are pissed off at their people being mostly excluded from the prisoner release, and are trying to remind everyone that they exist.

# 304 Tasty Beverage

Israel Radio reports that they have now completed the evacuation of wounded. At least eight dead. Thirty-three wounded of which ten are "serious", thirteen are "moderate" and ten are "lightly" wounded. The latter number will rise when all the people in shock make their own way to the hospital.

My daughter was half a block from Sbarro when it blew up two and a half years ago. She couldn't talk about it for weeks (and she was physically unhurt)

309 Bastards!  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 9:38:04pm

[Link: www.haaretzdaily.com...]

Last Update: 29/01/2004 09:33
At least 8 killed in suicide bombing on Jerusalem bus
By Haaretz Staff and Agencies

At least eight people were killed and over 30 were wounded in a suicide bombing on a bus in central Jerusalem, shortly before 9 A.M. Thursday.

310 zulubaby  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 9:39:39pm

Carl in Jerusalem (#305)

I'm in Los Angeles. I was sleeping and wish I hadn't woken up. I'm in a state now. I have a few nieces and nephews in Jerusalem. I take it your daughter is safe?

Flatten the Mukhata.

I said the same thing earlier. I'm ready to go there and do it myself at this point.

311 Claudia  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 9:42:42pm

I laugh when I remember a conversation I once had with a Bedouin employee of ours. He had worked for us since the age of 17 or so and was completely at home in our house. When he was a soldier, he would often sleep over at our house when it was convenient for him.

The conversation occured when he was about 27 or so. He asked me if I believed there was more than one God. Of course, he probably meant: Did I believe that "Allah" and the Jewish "Elohim" or "Yahwe" were one and the same?

I think I totally "blew his mind" when I suggested that maybe we were just an experiment of an extra-terrestial - let's call him God - and I went on to discribe the possibilities of this. Of course I was just playing, Sci-Fi fan like... But he didn't have enough literary experience to realise I was having fun. I had to reasure him that, yes... if there is a God (for him this is a certainty) it's probably one and the same... I didn't want to confuse him more.

C.

Oh dear, I just heard there was another bomb in Jerusalem so Bye, I must turn on the TV>

C.

312 zulubaby  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 9:43:50pm

Carl in Jerusalem (#308)

Like they need an excuse! Fox News were droning on about how it's in retaliation for the 8 Palestinians killed by the IDF.

313 Carl in Jerusalem  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 9:44:40pm

# 310 Zulubaby

My daughter is fine (as are all my other children and my wife, thank G-d). None of them were anywhere near there. My daughter had not left for school yet when it happened.

Just when we were getting used to living normally...

314 davey  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 9:46:04pm
PA slams Jerusalem attack; chief negotiator Saeb Erekat: vicious cycle can only be broken by renewal of meaningful peace process (AP)

Actually, Saeb, you worthless sack of shit, this "cycle" could be broken if Palestinians would stop blowing themselves up on buses. Now go and do you resignation song-and-dance. What an asshole.

315 zulubaby  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 9:47:06pm
Following the explosion, disoriented people were seen milling around, some were seen on the scene walking around with pieces of human flesh on them. A great deal of blood was seen on the ground, and broken glass littered the streets.

G-d help us.

316 Dom  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 9:47:09pm

#296 Westward Ho,

Not that anybody has to prove anything but I take Deja Vu's point that atheism is definitionally a position of faith, more than agnosticism. I think it is often a sincere belief but no more a proven one than belief in God. Using your line of reasoning it should be as simple to compare this God with a few others to see if postulates hold true, as it would be to check for any mountains with wings. The thing is, even from an atheist standpoint 'God' implies supremacy over everything we don't know. Impossible to check.

317 zulubaby  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 9:48:37pm

davey (#314)

Exactly.

Carl in Jerusalem, thank G-d your family's safe.

318 Westward Ho  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 9:50:41pm

And this thread exists to debate whether Christians & Jews worship the same god as these animals, an explosive no, as an atheist i refuse to raise the demented fantasies of mass murderors to the status of a God even if to disbeleive in, Allah is not even worthy of disbeleif.

319 Carl in Jerusalem  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 9:51:29pm

# 317 Zulubaby

Thanks.

Someone said earlier that HaAretz (which I usually call by its Arabic name - Al Ard) said that the bomber was a woman. Israel Radio is reporting that is still being checked.

320 Chuck Pelto  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 9:53:48pm

TO: Westward Ho
RE: Proof Please (#296)

"...i have no sound evidence that it [God] exists, the burden of proof is on you, you are making extraordinary claims. Proof please" -- Westward Ho

How about prophesy?

How is it that a man in a cave almost 2000 years ago, describes, in words his contemporaries would understand, and names, with a proper noun, a runaway nuclear reactor?

Regards,

Chuck(le)

321 Carl in Jerusalem  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 9:55:02pm

Israel Radio is now reporting ten dead.

322 zulubaby  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 9:56:06pm

10 dead now, according to Al Ard (thanks Carl in Jerusalem, it should be called by its Arabic name).

323 zulubaby  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 9:58:04pm

Westward Ho (#318)

And this thread exists to debate whether Christians & Jews worship the same god as these animals ...

I think not.

324 Hamas replacing PA?  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 9:58:28pm

[Link: www.haaretzdaily.com...]

Last Update: 29/01/2004 09:52
At least 10 killed in suicide bombing on Jerusalem bus
By Haaretz Staff and Agencies

At least 10 people were killed and 45 others were wounded in a suicide bombing on a bus in central Jerusalem, shortly before 9 A.M. Thursday.
The blast took place on Egged bus no. 19, on the corners of Arlozorov and Gaza streets, very close to the official residence of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who is currently at his Negev ranch

325 Tasty Beverage  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 10:02:27pm

#308 Carl in Jerusalem

Thank God your daughter was not hurt in the Sbarro suicide bombing.

Now the cable news media are back to playing reruns of the earlier politics-shows---giving a summation of the news right before commercial break---so no footage about the latest terrorist attack.

I should go to bed.

---

Israeli LGFers:

We're thinking of you. We love you.

326 Ms. Andi  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 10:03:24pm

Carl

I am happy your daughter and the rest of your family is safe.


Now the number is ten. F*ing savages.

327 alexbmn  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 10:04:25pm

i wish there was a coup' d'etat in Israel or something.

328 Carl in Jerusalem  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 10:05:40pm

# 322 Zulubaby

It's not my line (although I use it all the time). I first heard it from Professor Steven Plaut in Haifa. He also refers to Al Ard as "Israel's Hebrew Palestinian newspaper." An apt description.

329 zulubaby  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 10:06:06pm

Ms. Andi (#326)

Hopefully you'll get your car swarm sometime soon.

330 Dom  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 10:06:32pm

#323 Zulubaby,

I hope so and may it be to them an eternal shock.

331 zulubaby  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 10:10:19pm

Carl in Jerusalem (#328)

Steven Plaut is great. You know he has a blog?

332 zulubaby  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 10:13:31pm
"It's indescribable," he said. "It's a real nightmare, you can smell the blood." He said there was heavy traffic and the bus was driving slow at the time.

Up to 50 wounded.

333 Claudia  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 10:15:04pm

# 36 RayA

It my shock you to know that Irani, Iraqi and Syrian jews also do the same. Actually, it was a practice started by Judaism and maintained by Jews outside of Israel and thus its passing on to Christian converts in the middle east by St Thomas... (well, some of the converts were Jews so they maintained the practice). In fact, we still say the original Aramaic sayings when we sacrifice the lambs

Actually, pagans sacrificed animals way before Judaism... The injunction to not kill a kid and cook it in its mother's milk was an injunction against worship of pagan gods, in this case Pan and his mother (if I'm not mistaken "Althea") which was quite prevalent in Canaan. Also the injunctions against eating pork was to prohibit worship of Maya, also prevalent in ancient Egypt and Canaan. After all, people didn't eat meat on a regular basis then. Animals were used as sacrifice to most pagan gods.

Let's also remember that in Christianity, Jesus is often called the "lamb" in that he was "sacrificed"... When Catholics take communion, do they not drink wine instead of the blood of Christ and eat a wafer (ostia) instead of the body of Christ?

C.

334 zulubaby  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 10:15:31pm
Sharon's spokesman, Ra'anan Gissin, said the attack illustrated why Israel is building the separation fence in the West Bank, which it says is needed to keep suicide bombers out of Israel.

"The rest of the world should sit back and let us do what we need to do to defend ourselves," Gissin said.

Fox News says the blast was so powerful people were found down the street after being blown out of the bus.

335 Carl in Jerusalem  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 10:15:56pm

# 331 Zulubaby

If I get onto another blog, I'll never do any work :-) But Plaut sends me all his stuff by email.

If you go to the Jerusalem Post Home Page, one of the pictures they are alternating on the home page is of the bus. It was torn apart...

336 Carl in Jerusalem  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 10:18:06pm

This is a relatively recent update.

337 Ms. Andi  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 10:19:04pm

#329 zulubaby

I hope so, though I wish the circumstances were different. This breaks my heart.

My prayers for Israel.

338 zulubaby  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 10:19:42pm

Carl in Jerusalem (#335)

They're showing very close-up footage it on Fox News. There's practically nothing left of the bus.

339 Avi W  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 10:22:14pm

Re: alexbmn

That's what it's going to take to end this. A democracy cannot win in this type of war. Now is the time to decide where you'll stand when Israel ceases being a democracy and starts waging war against the Palestinians.

340 Carl in Jerusalem  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 10:24:50pm

Israel Radio just played a tape from Al-Manar. Lots of music with a Nasrallah speech in the background. Whoever supposedly stuck a stick up Dirani's butt (so he claimed in court this week), should have stuck it in further.

341 zulubaby  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 10:30:43pm

Carl in Jerusalem, look after yourself. I'm going back to bed, hopefully I'll be able to sleep.

G'night Ms. Andi, night all.

342 swede  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 10:35:50pm

It not going to work as long Israeli regard Whorestinians as some kind of people...

Look at Russia and do the same: kill nonstopp and do not listen to USA or Europe, just kill everyone without merci, then ask what was a name...

Israel have to live to hers enemy names: and really kill every known supporter of Hamas or another Whorestinians organisation...

Chechens finish to attack Moscow after Putin went hard on every villiage and city where somebody spote some kind of recistance...

It is important to kill NOW Arafat and Yassin, and Rantizzi and and and...nonstop...

343 Not enough....  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 10:35:59pm

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

Army Plans a Temporary Force Increase
By REUTERS

Published: January 29, 2004

WASHINGTON, Jan. 28 — The United States Army, strained by operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, will increase its forces by 30,000 through emergency authority that it expects to last four years, the Army's chief of staff, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, told Congress on Wednesday.

But General Schoomaker, testifying before the House Armed Services Committee, rejected calls from lawmakers for a permanent increase in forces, saying it would undermine efforts to streamline and modernize the Army rejected calls

344 Ms. Andi  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 10:37:29pm

Good night zulu. Well I am off to bed too.

Carl and all Israeli LGFers, we're with you.

nite all.

345 Dom  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 10:57:34pm

Look at this son of a bitch here, Tim Llewellyn. His problem, about which he would like people to flood Mr Sambrook with letters, is that although the Palestinian struggle is graphically portrayed, Israel is allowed to comment. Make that:

“Israel” – that is to say, the Israeli-occupied Palestinian Territories.

I note he has to beg politeness from his readers.

346 swede  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 11:01:03pm

number 343, Not enough

The army against muslims must not include people under 25 years...

It was why Russians lose in Afganistan, they took 18 years boys directly from schools where multikulti bullshit was on scheme...

Afgan killers was men of 45+, who newer read one book apart shitty Koran, and they get to war as lifestyle and opportunity to kill as they did before but get money for slaughter...


America need to stop send young people with peaceful mind and send to all of muslim countries those who know how to fight ugly, always lying muslims...with their own weapon - kill everyone, not matter of sex and age...

Muslims are like Hitler, and the only remedy which exist - it is total war without pardon.

347 Shamai  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 11:01:15pm

#36 RayA
#333 Claudia

Haven't read the whole thread but I thought I'd share something I just heard that I found truly shocking.

I live in Israel, and find nothing shocking about slaughtering sheep for Id Al Adha as long as it's done humanely. After all the meat is eaten afterwards, so what's the difference if it's done also for a religious reason.

What I find shocking is something I just heard from an Israeli Arab Moslem. This guy is a well-educated professional. He told me that for religious reasons the sheep is supposed to be slaughtered on Sunday, the day of the holiday. On that day he will take his children---ages five and under---to see his sheep being slaughtered. He told me that actually seeing the sheep slaughtered is not a religious requirement but it is a well accepted custom. If I did something like that my wife would file for sole custodianship of our child.

It really gives you an insight into the culture. Makes you understand things you didn't understand before.

348 Jheka  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 11:50:40pm

Called the family in Jerusalem. The blast blew out the windows and shook the walls of my cousin's son's high school. Luckily, they are all OK. I'm going to bed now. There will be time tomorrow to think about this. Right now, I'm just glad my loved ones are unharmed. This time.

349 JAPAM  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 11:52:27pm

Apoligies for the Hebrew all, but it says it all for me.

Acheinu Kol beit Yisrael,
Ha'netunim betzara ubeshivha,
ha'omdim bein bayam ubein bayabasha,
hamakon yerachem aleihem,
veyotziehm mitzara lirvacha,
ume'aphela leorah umishibud lige'ula,
hashtah beagala uvizman kariv
venomar AMEIN

To those that believe in prayer, please recite Psalm 20 every morning and evening.

I am glad Israel is not sending their envoy to the Hague. In times like this the Europeans choose to discuss the legitimacy of a security fence!

Bastards.

To all Israeli LGFers, and to all LGFers that have loved ones in Israel, we are all thinking of you. I have a best friend in Jerusalem at the moment studying at Yeshivah. I pray that he is ok.

350 Mr Pol  Wed, Jan 28, 2004 11:58:08pm

#120 Abu Reason

I see. You don't have any evidence, yet jumped to a conclusion. An act of faith.

351 JAPAM  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 12:03:15am

OT
The prisoner swap
All i hear on the radio is that the bomb has come at a time on a prisoner swap between Israel and Hizbullah.

The Israelis being held were kidnapped. They were not put in jail because of crimes they committed.
The Palestinian and Hizbullah prisoners were jailed because of crimes committed against Israel. By calling it a prisoner swap the impression of equality is being created.

352 Chris J.  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 12:08:26am

Not The Same

I can sit and recite prayers with people of the Jewish faith. I can read and enjoy the scriptures with Jewish people. (I'm assuming we're not venturing outside of the Old Testament here.)

I can (and certainly DO) affirm the Shema:

"Sh'ma Yisrael Adonai Elohaynu Adonai Echad."
"Hear, Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One."

I can do all this and still remain a committed Christian who has not compromised any of my beliefs. Christianity was birthed by Judaism. Almost all the early Christians were Jews. Jesus was Jewish.

However, I could NEVER AFFIRM THAT MOHAMMED WAS A PROPHET OF GOD's. Doing this would compromise my beliefs. I believe IF Mohammed was a prophet at all, he was a false prophet.

I don't recognize the god named Allah as revealed in the Quran. This god, Allah, doesn't resemble the God revealed throughout the Bible, Old and New Testaments.
Allah is NOT the God spoken of in the Bible.

Muslims should have no problem with a Christian stating this as they believe we have misinterpreted things anyway and need to be brought, by force if necessary, to see the error of our ways.

353 Mr Pol  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 12:27:17am

#296 Westward Ho

Atheists don't have to prove anything since you are Positing an entity for which i have no sound evidence that it exists, the burden of proof is on you, you are making extraordinary claims. Proof please

Wrong. As long as nobody is attempting to convert you, there is no burden of proof. When a couple of atheists want to 'teach' me how my faith is 'ridiculous', the burden of proof is on them.

354 Jewels (aka Julian)  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 12:46:08am

OT: Blood and Souls for Arioch...er, ALLAH!

[Link: www.jpost.com...]

355 Westward Ho  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 1:01:24am

#353 Mr. Pol,
'Wrong'.
I don't think so.
You are the one asserting the existence of an Ontologically different being, one,which has no parallels in the real world, its an extraordinary claim, back it up with incontrovertible evidence.
What about the gist of today's thread, the passengers who boarded those flights on 9/11 prayed to god for a safe flight while those hijackers prayed to god that may crash those planes into densly populated areas thereby killing those passengers & many others.
BTW i think b & Abu Reason made complete asses of themselves. But there were impolite folks on the other side also like Kat.

356 Westward Ho  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 1:08:27am

To all the Israelis specially the ones from Jerusalem,
My deepest sympathies, what a fierce will to live you people have as those savages have such a fierce will to kill. What unimaginable pressure must it be for Jews in Israel... any other people would have cracked long back.

357 Mr Pol  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 1:13:49am

#355 Westward Ho

Wrong again. I'm not asserting anything, nor claiming anything. Why would I? My faith is a private matter.

358 Claudia  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 1:14:18am

# 183 Kat

I know I am superior because I am a child of God and you descended from apes

It's funny how people think that what they believe makes it so for themselves... I've also heard people talk about their perception of heaven as opposed to others' perception of heaven... and that each would go to their own heaven etc.. If that were so, then gee, we should all believe only the nicest of things... thereby making it so.

C.

359 Pooh  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 1:15:24am

#302 Ms. Andi

Kofi Annan is married to Raoul Wallenberg's niece. That is as if the niece were permanently squatting over Wallenberg's grave and p*ss*ng on it.

360 ask akbar  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 1:16:40am

Dear Akbar:

Some Kafir told my son in school that in two thousand years Islam has contributed nothing to civilization. Please tell of the great accomplishments of Islam.

Concerned Father

Dear Concerned FAther:

In two thousand years Islam has learned to count, o,1,2,3,4,5,6...

If Alibaba kills two Kafir and Alibobo kills 3 Kafir, how many Kafir have been killed?

Akbar

361 Westward Ho  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 1:49:02am

#357 Mr Pol,
Good for you, but all the major faiths think otherwise for them it is a very public Multi billion dollar affair where incredible claims are made on the authority of texts thousands of years old & these are force fed on children, which would be OK if these children on growing up did not start blowing themselves in accordance with the murderous nonsense written in those texts.

362 Mr Pol  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 1:57:26am

#361 Westward Ho

My point is, whoever opened this can of worms must now close it. Talking about 'burden of proof' is bullshit. Atheists opened it in this thread. Go on, close it. :-)

363 Morgan  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 2:02:56am

The Palestinian State news service has a website. Today the official government newsmedia in the Palestinian territories published an article by a neo-nazi that repeats every slander, lie and defamation against the Jewish people imaginable. Here is a small portion of the discussion on the Holocaust:

"In some countries it is illegal to challenge the dogmas of this new religion, and in other countries where it may still be legal, an individual engaging in any scholarly study that wanders outside the parameters which have been rigidly established by the High Priests of Holocaustism is sure to be victim to an inquisition of sorts. It may result in something as dramatic as losing one’s livelihood or even losing one’s life. One thing is for certain though, which is that there will be Hell to pay for the individual who jeopardizes the ground which the bludgeon of Holocaustism has gained for Israel and for the interests of Marxist Zionism."

[Link: www.ipc.gov.ps...]

This is not a random nutjob ranting on a street corner - it is the government of the Palestinians (note the .gov in the address).

364 The Law Student  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 2:09:40am

Exterminate Islam Now!

365 Ed Moran:Abu Kill Arafat  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 2:10:09am

I don't by any "revenge" line, as the 8 dead terrorists only happened the day before, and from what I understand these things take more time than that. Unless the savages have a person on immediate standby, suicide vest as the ready.

There is no way the "god" that promises eternal sex with virgins for killing woman and children in the G-d of Abraham. That G-d tested Abraham's faith, but did not want an actual human sacrifice.

I hope Israel does something more significant than bombing a Hezbollah ammo dump in Lebanon.

366 Carl in Jerusalem  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 2:10:51am

Get a load of this headline in the Washington Post. HELLO??? Ten people were murdered and you jerks think that only a bus was destroyed???

#349 JAPAM

The area where the bombing took place is not one where there are many Yeshivot. I don't know where your friend is, but if he was in Yeshiva at the time, he probably wasn't near there.

# 351 JAPAM

I cannot begin to tell you how bizarre it is to be listening to alternating reports between the bombing and the 'prisoner exchange' on the radio.

And that putz Tannenbaum... although I can't find it now, I saw a report this morning that he complained about why no one came to get him sooner.

If you can to read a sad account from the brother of a terror victim whose murderer was released, it's at that link. Singer is a regular writer for the JPost.

367 Claudia  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 2:13:01am

#296 Westward Ho

Atheists don't have to prove anything since you are Positing an entity for which i have no sound evidence that it exists, the burden of proof is on you, you are making extraordinary claims. Proof please

One G-d, many gods... same God? Monotheists look down on polytheists... why? If I can conceive of one G-d, what is so terrible about conceiving of many gods? I don't mean disrespect, but as Westward Ho said above,

you are Positing an entity for which i have no sound evidence

C.

368 donna  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 2:14:13am

Only if I can hear the Palis say, "This land is your land".

369 centaur  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 2:15:25am

Kill them. Yesterday they hid amongst their own civilians during a gun fight. Today they they blow up an Israeli civilian bus. Today their official government mouthpiece published the neo-nazi crap posted in #363. These are the norms. This is not a society that deserves a state any more that the Klan deserved a state after Reconstruction of the American South.

Like Grant did with the Klan, the palis must be crushed, militarily and thoroughly. There is no other option at this point and to delude ourselves otherwsie is suicide.

370 Ed Moran:Abu Kill Arafat  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 2:19:00am
Daniel Taub – a spokesman for the Israeli foreign office told the BBC, "this particular attack took place on a bus that runs between two hospitals and there is no depth to which these terrorists are not prepared to sink."

"The people whose job it is to stop these attacks, that is the Palestinian leadership," he said, "is doing nothing whatsoever. Their aim is to blow up every single Israeli and Jew alive. In recent attacks entire families have been murdered.

Knesset Security and Foreign Affairs committee chairman Yuval Steinitz said the attack is aimed at "embarrassing" Israel and making the release of 400 terrorists even more painful than it already is. Israel's reaction, he said, should be to immediately banish Yasser Arafat to Tunisia for his responsibility for suicide attacks.

MK Ehud Yatom said the attack is a response by "Hassan Nasrallah, Arafat, Yassin and the Iranian rulers to Israel's weakness as evident in the prisoner swap."

Agriculture Minister Yisrael Katz said he had just discussed with Ariel Sharon the need to banish Arafat, in accordance with a cabinet decision from four months ago.

JPost

371 rajan r  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 2:20:36am

#352: While this site may inferuate some Jews, and cause eye-rollings on other Jews, I found this site rather informative on your believes, which is closer to Messianic Judaism than your average Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox church.

372 scaramouche  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 2:32:16am

Sullivan and Simon both posted this piece by Paul Berman. It is a superb repudiation of willful leftist blindness:

[Link: www.dissentmagazine.org...]

373 Pooh  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 2:39:45am

Satan Speaks!

Annan's reaction to the bus bombing:

14:18 Annan: road map in distress but not dead, Israel and Palestinians must take steps to end cycle of violence (Reuters)

374 lizzy  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 2:49:32am

hi all, we are all safe... this bombing turned me into a figure that cant be trusted...i have been trying to convince the girls to take the 19 bus for over a year, as it goes right by our house and the school, so i wont have to take them by taxi,,, eden said she'd try it next week...and now this.,, seems every time you try and find some semblance of normalcy, this happens.
our good friends down the street, where we often go for Shabbat , were very shaken up, as their 17 year old rides the 19 bus everyday to school in the city, but she was on an earlier bus.
shaken up, but life goes on.

375 Westward Ho  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 2:49:46am

#362 Mr Pol ,
A discussion on the epistemological foundations of religion is 'Bullshit' for you in an age of religious warfare - wow - i am in awe of your dialectical prowess -and will close the can of worms in light of your uncivility of tone.
BTW i wonder if the bomber of the bus today had any religious indoctrination

376 lizzy  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 2:52:57am

hope you understood the untrustworthy bit,, if mommy says the bussess are safe, we have to move on and cant be scared, and the very bus you want to fobyour two litle girls ongets blown up, what are you?
post attack guilt thoughts

377 Westward Ho  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 2:56:10am

Glad you made it Lizzy, what unimaginable terror, I really admire the strength of you Jews.

378 Pooh  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 2:56:12am

#363 Morgan

For heaven's sake, do not forward that Jew hater's article to the BBC, for as we all know they're in need of a new Chairman, and if they get wind that someone as promising as the author might be available...

379 Pooh  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 3:05:52am

#376 lizzy 1/29/2004 04:52AM PST
"hope you understood the untrustworthy bit,, if mommy says the bussess are safe, we have to move on and cant be scared, and the very bus you want to fobyour two litle girls ongets blown up, what are you?
post attack guilt thoughts"

We Jews in the Diaspora who frequent LGF should pay for your kids to take a taxi every single day of the school year. And this is NOT charity - this is a moral responsibility; a responsibility compounded by the fact that while you are in the front lines, we live in security and prosperity observing from the sidelines.

380 Leftylass  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 3:17:07am

Folks - Check out Daniel Pipes' newest blog...

Militant Islamic Intentions for the United States

I frequently meet with disbelief when I explain that the Islamist goal is to take over the United States and replace the Constitution with the Koran. Well, as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words, and here is that picture, culled from "The American Muslim" website:

God. help. us.

381 ibrodsky  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 3:18:55am

Given that:

a. In any military action against the racist, barbaric Palestinians, it takes surgical precision to kill an innocent person, and

b. No action Israel has taken to date has proved sufficient to discourage Palestinians from mass murdering Israelis.

then we are forced to conclude:

c. It is time to launch a massive attack and not stop until the subhuman "Palestinians" beg for mercy.

No rewarding terrorism with a state!

Transfer the majority of Palestinians back to the Arab homeland where they can live among their fellow barbarians!

Annex the West Bank!

No Death Cult sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem!

382 Robert  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 3:20:52am

I scrolled to bottom so forgive me if this link has already been posted.

Hezbollah planning mass celebration. Videotape documenting abduction of the 3 [Israeli] soldiers expected to air for the first time.

Iran has sent a delegation to Beirut to 'welcome' the Hizb prisoners.

Hizb, Iran and the Syrians celebrating in Beirut while Israel licks its wounds.

Coincidince?

383 Robert  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 3:23:10am

I scrolled to bottom so forgive me if this link has already been posted.

Hezbollah planning mass celebration. Videotape documenting abduction of the 3 [Israeli] soldiers expected to air for the first time.

Iran has sent a delegation to Beirut to 'welcome' the Hizb prisoners and oversee secon round of prisoner exchange. Said to have info on Arad.

Hizb, Iran and the Syrians celebrating in Beirut while Israel licks its wounds.

Coincidence?

384 Robert  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 3:24:57am

ooops, sorry about the double post.

385 ibrodsky  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 3:27:13am

#380 Leftylass

Don't worry, those of us who support the Second Amendment would fight them long before it gets to that extreme.

386 mark  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 3:27:21am

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam do not worship the same God. This is a liberal delusion, like Islam is a religion of peace or the answer to terrorism is appeasement. If you believe as Abraham believed you will believe in Jesus Christ.

They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing what Abraham did, but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. You are doing what your father did.” They said to him, “We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father—even God.” Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”

387 Kat  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 3:31:04am

Q--I don't mean to be mean spirited--I believe in live and let live. If you want to be an atheist be one--don't shove your beliefs by labelling mine as stupid. If you want to believe your ancestors were monkeys, feel free--don't expect me to. Don't tell me how wonderful and rational atheism is unless you can name ONE officially atheistic regime which did not slaughter its people nor subvert their right to religious liberty? Problem with atheism is that some atheists are aristocratic and believe in the idea of a great Being that watches over oppressed innocence and punishes triumphant crime. They make themselves into intellectual 'gods' where anyone who disagrees with them is stupid and living a fairy tale--and needs to be destroyed. So they worship Marx.
And turning the other buttocks gets you a scimitar or a machete in your back these days. I believe in just war.

388 ördög  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 3:37:32am

Had a bit of absence. First too sick, then too busy. Things seems to be more or less the same as two months ago. Well, some things change... even things that one would not expect at all.

OT - From PLO Terrorist to Lover of Zion

I know, it is an exception, but it is encouraging that they do happen.

389 Miss Trixie the Five-Pound Yorkie aka Leftylass  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 3:39:02am

My husband is military and in the future, he may well have a tour of duty in Afghanistan.

Courtesy of Damien Penny:


Why we fight

In a heartbreaking twist to the death of Cpl. Jamie Martin, the National Post reports that his mother had begged him not to join the army:
Cpl. Jamie Martin did not die for nothing. But if we leave Afghanistan without finishing the job, then he will have died for nothing.
390 EE  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 3:56:02am

OT
New terrorist massacre in Israel, on a bus that runs between two hospitals.
[Link: www.jpost.com...]
By Arafat's own splodeydopes, the Fatah Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.
Coming on the heels of Israel's release of 400 terrorists, the purpose is to further embarass Israel, and add to the pain of the release of 400 terrorists.

Those who talk of a cycle of violence have it all wrong. The attacks continue because Arafat wants them to, and sees them as an important part of his announced generations-long war to wipe out Israel.

The timing is made for the maximum political benefit, to demoralize Israelis and to encourage bloodthirstiness among the Palis.

I suppose now the Euros will insist even more that Israel should not build any fence to protect its children from terrorists, should not engage in laser-like war against the terrorist infrastructure, and should just surrender to the terrorists and reward them.

391 scaramouche  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 3:59:02am

# 389

I heard the poor woman being interviewed on the radio Tuesday. Her son was supposed to be coming home February 5, and the family was counting the days till his return. It's tragic when any soldier doesn't come home and I can understand the sorrow of a bereft mother, but if we don't prevail over the fascist threat it will engulf and destroy us all.

392 Ben F  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 4:04:43am

I don't think that we can generalize regarding the God worshipped by all Muslims. However, all evidence indicates that the national religion of the Palestinian Arabs is Molech worship.

393 scaramouche  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 4:06:04am

#390 EE

A radio report this morning described the al-Asshole Splodeydupes Brigade as being "loosely associated" with Yasser Arafat. It also said that the Palestinian Authority had condemned the attack. Oh, and what would a report of this kind be without the phrase "cycle of violence"? Sickening. Just sickening.

394 Smit  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 4:10:05am

Yet another evil bombing in Jerusalem. My thoughts & sympathies are with the victims families. lizzie & Carl,I am so glad you and yours are safe. Stay safe.

To anyone who says Israel 'deserved' this because of the prisoner release program, I say STFU.

OT - BBC director general Dyke stands down

Mr Dyke's decision to step down follows BBC chairman Gavyn Davies' resignation on Wednesday, shortly after the law lord's report was published.
395 Smitty  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 4:11:27am

#393 scaramouche

Must have been a CBC/BBC/NPR reporter...

396 Bubbaman  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 4:17:20am

The Road Map to Hell is paved with Israeli bodies-

When are we going to wake up and smell the coffee? Will it occur before we're knee deep in blood?

Today's murderer was a cop from Bet Lechem (Bethlehem). So much for the liberal rationalization of the cycle of poverty breeds resentment and dispair argument.

Equally as horrific is the emergence of the wackadoo lefties in this country. Today, the old prune O'Dowd scraped a new low in her article equating Saddam with Bush:

"The awful part is that George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein were both staring into the same cracked spook- house mirror.

Thanks to David Kay, we now have an amazing image of the president and the dictator, both divorced from reality over weapons, glaring at each other from opposite sides of bizarro, paranoid universes where fiction trumped fact."

Time for this
old bat to get new glasses and a new brain as she can't comprehend the distinction between a moral leader of the free world and a murdering, sadistic, tyrranist.

397 abu-Hoo-Hoo  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 4:21:19am

well if we worship the same God, then why do muslim's object to christian's, jew's or any other faith worshipping that God in their mosques?

Hey Mr. Mullah, can i come to mecca and read the bible while you read your book of whatever? what crap!

I'm sickened by today's bombing but there won't be an end until we offensively deal with islam. let the euro placation, pc policy of bullsheet be their downfall, not ours. Battle Cry

398 Chuck Pelto  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 4:33:52am

TO: Westward Ho
RE: Back It Up

"You are the one asserting the existence of an Ontologically different being, one,which has no parallels in the real world, its an extraordinary claim, back it up with incontrovertible evidence." -- Westward Ho

Did you skip #320?

Or did you see it and change the earlier request for "proof" to "incontrovertible evidence"?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Nothing like raising the bar, when people give you what you asked for and you don't like it.]

399 scaramouche  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 4:36:40am

#395 Smitty

CBC, actually. No surprise there.

400 JAPAM  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 4:38:19am

Re: poo 379

You correct. The Jews in the diaspora should be paying for them to use taxis. I am trying to look into what the best charities for Israel are. The UIA seems very good -United Israel Appeal...

I dont have much money as it is in Rands and I have only been working for 2 years, but every little cent counts.

401 Pooh  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 4:42:56am

Meanwhile, in Holland:

JPost Letters

Gretta Duisenberg and the holy Palestine

Kees van Woerden Voorburg South-Holland The Netherlands (29 Jan 2004)
Woerden@wanadoo.nl

Gretta Duisenberg was on Dutch tv yesterday, visiting her beloved Palestines, like a mayor of a town close to the wall. And a father who lost his son in the intifada.

She was hailed as a champion of the Palestinian case and quoted by the Palestinian authorities saying she had the courage to say that the Israeli "occupation" was worse then the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands in WW II. Gretta visibly enjoyed and drunk this praise in like an elderly G-d's Word.

She was also smuggled into Nablus past the Israeli checkpoint in an ambulance pretending to be a patient. showing that the Palestinians use ambulances to smuggle contrabande. She spoke with a father who lost a child in the intifada.

Later that day she spoke with "Wim" on the phone telling she had a great day. The father was a saint and held no grudge whatever to the Israelies. Only love pooured out of the berieved father for his ennemies.

In short Israel was demonized in this program and the Palestinians were the saints.

Pity that the reporter was completely overruled by Miss Duisenberg and barely asked one critical question, whereas the intent of the show is to actually show the stupidity of the subject in question.

In the light of the current rise of anti-semitism in Europe I felt sad that this program may fuel these abject sentiments.

To me however one thing is crystal clear. Israel will overcome!!

[Link: www.jpost.com...]

402 westward ho  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 4:44:00am

#396 Bubbaman,
Bush=Hitler & Bush=Saddam therefore Saddam=Hitler & therefore Bush=Saddam=Hitler, GW2 is a science fiction movie with five story lines - Bush beats his evil clone Bush the president of Iraq or Hitler the POTUS beats his evil clone the president of Iraq or Saddam the POTUS beats his evil clone the president of Iraq!! or Saddam POTUS beats Bush the president of Iraq or Saddam Potus beats Hitler president of Iraq
She must be smoking PolPot - deranged sh*t

403 Lizardoid Minion #32603 Maine Coon Cat  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 4:46:50am

#275

Atheists don't necessarily believe that there is no god (though there are some that do). You are correct that such a position is untenable - at least if it is taken as Truth rather than as a reasonable working assumption.

But the basic tenet of atheism is merely lack of belief in a god, which is an entirely different matter.

404 Mr Pol  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 4:47:07am

#375 Westward Ho

Fuck incivility. A discussion on the existence or non-existence of G-d has no relevance whatsoever to the current religious warfare: like it or not, the death cultists do believe in their moon god, and are not interested in your arguments.

By the way, lessons in civility from people who think their ignorance allows them to ridicule other people's faiths? Fuck you...

405 Joel  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 4:47:52am

Anyone want to palce a bet on the weenie Isreali response.

I say that the bombers house will be destroyed today after his family evacuates all their possessions. That will teach them!

406 Chuck Pelto  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 4:48:28am

TO: Ben F
RE: Molech?

"... all evidence indicates that the national religion of the Palestinian Arabs is Molech worship." -- Ben F

An INTERESTING observation. Gladly killing their own children as an act of worship to their god. Even so far as to preparing them for their death and getting them to desire it.

Yes...I see the parallel. And it does come VERY close.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Only the names have been changed to confuse the unwary.]

407 Carl in Jerusalem  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 4:51:57am

I have been told (have not checked it out yet) that there is graphic footage of today's Palestinian terror attack online. It allegedly takes a while to download, so I am waiting to do it tonight (my home computer has eight times the memory of my office computer).

408 Frank IBC, Abu Dadi Heytzmi  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 4:52:55am

#403 Lizardoid Minion -

I think you're confusing atheism and agnosticism.

409 Ben F  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 4:54:23am

#386 mark--

please spew your spawn of satan garbage elsewhere. it has been responsible for the death of more jews than any of muhammad's teachings.

the idea of satan as a force of evil independent of God is not a part of the religion of Abraham, but derives from zoroastrianism, the religion of ancient Persia. God sets the Persian king cyrus straight in the opening verses of chapter 45 of Isaiah:

Thus saith the Lord to His anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him, and to loose the loins of kings; to open the doors before him, and that the gates may not be shut:

I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight; I will break in pieces the doors of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron;

And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I am the Lord, who call thee by thy name, even the God of Israel.

For the sake of Jacob My servant, and Israel Mine elect, I have called thee by thy name, I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known Me.

I am the Lord, and there is none else, beside Me there is no God; I have girded thee, though thou hast not known Me;

That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside Me; I am the Lord; and there is none else;

I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am the Lord, that doeth all these things.

this is extremely clear language, especially in context. God declares that He is the author of all, even of evil, lest His choice to rebuild the Temple through the agency of a just king who follows a false religion (and thus knows Him not) be understood as an endorsement of the duality principle of zoroastrianism.

If Jesus actually said that his opponents were of Satan and not of God, then Jesus was a zoroastrian. I think it more likely that your text is corrupt.

410 SoCalJustice  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 5:01:11am

By the way, the Reuters and AP captions for today's suicide bombing don't even mention the word "Palestinian." They just say "a suicide bomber" or "a suicide attack." AFP is the only wire service today that's chosen to label this as a "Palestinian suicide attack" or a "Palestinian suicide bomber."

AP: A wounded person is carried to an ambulance at the site where a suicide bomber blew up on a bus, background, in downtown Jerusalem. (AP/Lefteris Pitarakis)

Reuters: Israeli rescue workers search the wreckage of a destroyed bus following an explosion in Jerusalem January 29, 2004. At least 10 people were killed when a suicide bomber blew himself up on a bus near Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's official residence in Jerusalem, security sources said. (Nili Bassan/Reuters)

AFP: An Israeli wounded woman is evacuated from the place where a Palestinian suicide bomber blew himself up in Jerusalem. At least eleven people were killed on board a bus close to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's official residence in Jerusalem.(AFP/Eitan Abramovich)

Just another subtle way in which certain news organizations have gone out of their way to protect the Palestinians. I wonder why the AFP didn't get the memo on omitting the nationality/ethnicity of the shaheed. Looks like they have an Israeli photographer on the beat.

411 Lizardoid Minion #32603 Maine Coon Cat  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 5:02:49am

#408 Frank IBC

No, actually. Agnosticism holds that we can have no knowledge of god (that god is fundamentally unknowable).

Though those saying "I don't know" in answer to the god-question are commonly labelled agnostics, that's something of a misuse of the term.

Many atheists use the term atheism exactly as I have described. Not suprisingly, they are unimpressed by the "There is no god" type of atheist.

412 SoCalJustice  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 5:08:31am

And of course the Washington Post, a client of AP and Reuters, picks up the AP slant without question.

From their front page on the website:

A wounded woman is carried to an ambulance after a suicide attack on a bus in Jerusalem. (AP) (time sensitive link)

And their headlines is: Jerusalem Blast Kills 10; Explosion on bus near Prime Minister Sharon's residence also injures 50.

No mention of the words "Palestinian" or "Arab."

413 Miss Trixie the Five-Pound Yorkie aka Leftylass  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 5:08:58am

I suggest to those of you who wish to email your facts, comments, and anti-dhimmitudism do so:

jkk25@columbia.edu

I have - in spades! Hell hath no fury... And this er, man, desperately needs waking up or a good smack upside his head.

414 sharona  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 5:13:03am

After this morning's events, I would like to see Southern Lebanon carpet bombed. If we won't allow Israel to do it, we should be doing it for them. How anyone can think Hezbollah is anything but a terrorist organization when they commit this atrocity (esp. on the eve of having one of their outrageous demands met) is beyond nonsensical to me. Perhaps it should be a new diagnosis factor in the DSM-IV for insanity?

Speaking of insanity, I can't for the life of me understand why Ariel Sharon would go ahead with the 'terrorists for remains' swap after this atrocious act. If I were an Israeli, I would have absolutely no faith in my government.

415 Thom  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 5:14:28am

At the end of the day, and as today's terror attack proves¹, even if they all do worship the same G-d², what the hell difference does it make to anyone whose main concern is not appeasing mohammedans?

¹ And all of the other occurrences of mohammedan atrocities.

² I do not believe they do.

416 abu-Hoo-Hoo  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 5:15:53am

just in case any of the editors of the ah-pee, al-rotten and al-frawnce propagada should drop by and read post #410; truth in honest reporting would indicate the headline should have been written as follows:
Palestinian Cop, Member of Arafat's Fatah Murders 10 In Bus Suicide Bombing

417 Lewis Can't Lose  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 5:21:29am

Good morning all! Be we believers or unbelievers, it matters not.

The important thing is that we're all part of the International Zionist Conspiracy, and therefor know the secret handshake and get those coupons for 10% off the price of matzos every month.,

Cheers!

Oh, and death to the enemies of civilization. Of course, only a tiny handfull of violent extremists in Palestine fit that description... riiight. Die Arafat, die.

418 westward ho  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 5:21:49am

#404 PolPot,
Bullshit & fuck off is the RoP's way of debating you bigot & from your paranoid request asking Reaganite to not come to Israel insinuating that American troops might want to cause harm to Israel you gave us a frightening glimpse into your head so go back & stick your head into a dead prophet or prophets arses - reality is infinitely more complex then the decaying anus of a prophet - bigot.
And you drew first blood.

419 TobaccoTom  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 5:27:04am

My first thought is why in hell would Israel release the prisoners after this bombing.

My second thought is we can't let terrorism dictate our actions. If the prisoner exchange (400:4!!!) was canceled, the terrorists would have gotten just what they wanted, a deciding vote over Israeli government policy.


My third thought after reading this

"We are releasing another 400 Palestinians with a very heavy heart, because we know that these 400 will return very quickly to the cycle of violence," Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Jonathan Peled said in Jerusalem.

What idiocy would cause you, in the first place, to release prisoners who want to kill your people. Would the US exchange all Gitmo prisoners for a captured GI in Iraq? I don't think it would.

I admit that I don't understand all the intricacies of diplomacy and prisoner exchange, but this whole deal seems ridiculous to me.

420 SoCalJustice  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 5:32:22am
421 Lizardoid Minion #32603 Maine Coon Cat  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 5:32:28am

#418 westward ho and the sooner the better

Thanks very much for your insightful commentary.

422 rusty shackleford  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 5:34:55am

The next time I need an agent to negotiate my next movie deal remind me to drop the jew and hire a German.

www.mypetjawa.blogspot.com

423 Pooh  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 5:37:38am

386 mark

Yeah, and if your Jewish god had been born in Europe in the 20th century, you people would still have murdered him along with the rest of us.

424 ibrodsky  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 5:38:26am

#417 Lewis Can't Lose

I think you asked last night about why Muslims consider Jews polytheists.

The excuse I believe is that they consider a Messiah to be a "partner" to God.

But as we see by the behavior of these barbarians, any excuse to kill, rape, pillage, and destroy will do.

425 Smitty  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 5:39:05am

I see much "Blue on Blue" fighting on this thread. Most unfortunate.

I think we should call a halt to the friendly fire. It's a small world folks, and we're all in the shit together.

426 Lewis Can't Lose  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 5:41:01am

#419 TobaccoTom

I admit that I don't understand all the intricacies of diplomacy and prisoner exchange, but this whole deal seems ridiculous to me.

Um, yeah, Allah thinks so too.

427 WriterMom  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 5:48:05am

Lizzy, Claudia, Carl and other Israeli LGF readers, I'm glad to see you and your families are alright.

#373 Pooh.

Tthanks for posting that shit head Annan's comments: "14:18 Annan: road map in distress but not dead, Israel and Palestinians must take steps to end cycle of violence (Reuters)"

It's quite telling that he says the road map isn't dead, but forgot about who is dead today? More innocent children, mothers, fathers, siblings.

428 Lewis Can't Lose  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 5:52:23am

#424 ibrodsky

So, lemme see...
Judaism holds that God will oneday send the Messiah to Earth, and that equates to polytheism...?

Do I have that right?

If so, that's kooky.

P.S., I liked your post #252, explaining wussup wit Islam's "Third Holiest Site" bullshiat. Makes sense to me. These assholes never fail to get engorged over the prospect of pissing on someone else's religion.

429 logger phd  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 5:57:42am

#252 ibrodsky

(and I have not read all the post thereafter yet):

You make some very good points. When I was in a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, our guide (a Jesuit priest) said that a lot of evengelicals have asked him, "Why do you Catholics and Orthodox keep building churches and shrines on top of these holy sites? Why couldn't you have just left them as they were historically and naturally?"

Hi reply to them: "Because if we didn't then the Arabs would build a mosque there."

Interesting . . .

430 westward ho  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 5:58:35am

#421 Lizardoid Minion,
Thanks a Zillion it was a lonely fight here - b & Abu reason my compatriots acted like such intellectually superior abusive assholes that they were shat upon & flushed down - Evariste (Fellow atheist did it because of their bad manners - I asupport evariste)- Kat came up with Creationist Bull which i could not swallow - & then Pol came and started the descent into abuse -


"#418 westward ho and the sooner the better" - this is the best compliment i have got - what we got to show is that there are Right Wing Atheists.

431 Chuck Pelto  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 6:03:42am

TO: Ben F
RE: Not To Get TOO OT Here...

"...the idea of satan as a force of evil independent of God is not a part of the religion of Abraham..." -- Ben F

Explain Genesis 3, 1 Chronicles 21, the first part of Job, to me, from your understanding.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. I am aware of God's creating everything.

432 Frank IBC, Abu Dadi Heytzmi  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 6:04:03am

#409 Ben F -

Fascinating! A lot of Christian fundamentalists need to read those verses.

#411 Lizardoid Minion -

"Atheist" = "A" (="no") + "Theos" ("god") + ist.

I think the term you and the others really mean is "not religious", or "secular", or {jarring organ chord} "secular humanist".

#418 Westward Ho -

Most of the time you are capable of clear logic and insight. I suggest you focus on your strengths rather than your weaknesses, as well as focusing on who your real enemies are.

433 Dean Douthat  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 6:08:32am

Actually, Mohammedism tends to slip up frequently and reveal true aspects of itself.

For example, the famous "Night Journey". Isn't it interesting that, in order to reach heaven, Mo had to leave Mecca and first go to Jerusalem? Thus does the Prophet instruct us that Jerusalem is the gateway to heaven. To what is Mecca the gateway?

434 Ariel  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 6:12:39am

Carl, lizzy, and others - glad to hear that you're OK.

I hope that Israel finally decides to do what is necessary. In an election year, it's going to be hard for anyone here to do much to stop them. And it's about time that they start up their engines.

435 Frank IBC, Abu Dadi Heytzmi  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 6:14:20am

#431 Chuck Pelto -

There is no mention of "Satan" in Genesis 3. Just "the serpent". The serpent is a specific animal, not a supernatural entity, similar to Balaam's Ass. Note that G-d curses the serpent by condemning him to "crawl on his belly", rather than casting him into Hell.

436 The Sanity Inspector  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 6:14:48am

The whole bit about Jews, Muslims, and Christians all worshipping the same deity reminds me of a crack that someone at National Review Online got off recently. How can we all worship the same god, if we could have a gay couple be married by an Episcopalian cleric, and then have a Taliban cleric topple a wall on top of the newlyweds?

437 Chuck Pelto  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 6:25:32am

TO: Frank IBC
RE: Genesis 3

Yes, I see the 'serpent'. But then again in the new part there's that business about "Satan, that old serpent".

Besides, what good would it do a mere snake to confound man's relationship with God? Unless that snake was more than a mere snake...

RE: 1 Chronicles and Job 1

How come you don't address those as well?

Regards,

Chuck(le)

438 ibrodsky  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 6:25:32am

#434 Ariel

I hope that Israel finally decides to do what is necessary.

I second that motion.

439 Lizardoid Minion #32603 Maine Coon Cat  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 6:26:23am

#420 westward ho

Sorry, that was sarcasm; I did not appreciate your little rant at Mr Pol. There's no call for abuse in this particular debate - save it for the next thread up.

As #425 Smitty said, we're all in this together. We may disagree, but they want to kill us. Remember that.

440 Frank IBC, Abu Dadi Heytzmi  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 6:28:05am

#424 Ibrodsky -

I think you asked last night about why Muslims consider Jews polytheists.

The excuse I believe is that they consider a Messiah to be a "partner" to God.

Interesting. It would seem that Muslims are using the Christian definition of "Messiah" (ie, second person of a Holy Trinity and Redeemer , through dying, harrowing hell, and rising again, of Mankind) and presuming that that is the Jewish belief, which is of course very different.

#431 Chuck Pelto -

Continuing my previous post...

Although you didn't mention Isaiah - the passage which refers to "Lucifer being cast out of heaven", is actually a reference to the Morning Star (Ayalet Ha-Shahar), which rises quickly, shines very brightly for a brief time, then fades abruptly as the Sun rises. It was used as a metaphor for an actual historical figure, contemporary with Isaiah, who quickly rose to prominence, but then burned out just as quickly.

441 Geepers  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 6:32:09am

scaramouche (#393),

Oh, and what would a report of this kind be without the phrase "cycle of violence"? Sickening. Just sickening.

Smitty (#395),

#393 scaramouche

Must have been a CBC/BBC/NPR reporter...


Or the Israeli Foreign Ministry ?

"We are releasing another 400 Palestinians with a very heavy heart, because we know that these 400 will return very quickly to the cycle of violence," Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Jonathan Peled said

What's up with that?

442 Frank IBC, Abu Dadi Heytzmi  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 6:38:00am

#437 Chuck Pelto -

Yes, I see the 'serpent'. But then again in the new part there's that business about "Satan, that old serpent".

Yes, as you say, the reference to Satan is in the new part, not the old part. Precisely my point.

1 Chronicles and Job 1

How come you don't address those as well?

I don't have Chronicles 1 in front of me, so that will have to wait until I get home.

Re Job - Satan in this context is an angel who is putting Job to the extreme test, to test his faith to G-d - he is actually doing G-d's work (regardless of how harsh it may sound) in this case. It is not the same "Satan" who is an evil mirror image of G-d, as in Christian belief.

443 Lizardoid Minion #32603 Maine Coon Cat  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 6:39:43am

#432 Frank IBC

atheist

A"the*ist, n. [Gr. ? without god; 'a priv. + ? god: cf. F. ath['e]iste.] 1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.

atheism

n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: godlessness] [ant: theism] 2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

Okay, we can play duelling dictionaries here :) But as I said, many atheists use the term atheist or atheism just as I have described, as per defintion 2 of atheism above - an absence of belief, rather than a belief of absence.

When I describe myself as an atheist, that's what I'm referring to, and I always make sure that people understand my meaning.

And yes, you can call me a secular humanist if you like. I'm tough, I can take it.

444 westward ho  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 6:40:06am

#432, Frank IBC,
We are on the sane & same side.
Wollah, I love the west and I love the Jews - the greatest story in History!! thats where my atheism withers & dies - through out their diaspora they have prayed for a return to ISRAEL - & it happened!! - though after the SHOAH - which Bigel told me is the word for the HOLOCAUST- they returned & bloomed the desert which the RoP have tried since the independence day of ISRAEL to turn into red soil - it goes on & I am sure the Jews will win as they always some how ( through supernatural will power ) managed to survive the superhuman odds. I bow my head to the Religious folks in this instance.
Good night.

445 Throbert McGee  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 6:41:32am

You are fools, where do you think right and wrong originated from? From some heathenistic cave dwelling aetheist? Right and wrong, crime and lawfulness have their base in the belief of being rewarded or punished by a greater being.

Really? I find that empathy for my neighbor -- my recognition that he has the same capacity as I do to feel suffering or joy -- is enough to restrain me from doing him harm, and to encourage me to treat him with goodwill.

But if you yourself, on the other hand, honestly need the threat of an eternal spanking in Hell to prevent you from slandering your neighbor's name, stealing his TV, or kidnapping his children, then I suppose it's a good thing someone thought up this Hellfire jive, to keep folks like you from running amok. ;-)

If there is no greater being then there is no right or wrong.

Quark2, meet Euthyphro's Dilemma:

EUTHYPHRO: Well, I should certainly say that what's holy is whatever all the gods approve of, and that its opposite, what all the gods disprove of, is unholy...

SOCRATES: We'll soon be in better position to judge, my good chap. Consider the following point: is the holy approved by the gods because it's holy, or is it holy because it's approved?'

446 Frank IBC, Abu Dadi Heytzmi  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 6:43:30am

cycle of violence

Er, is that the name of Charles' bike? ;)

447 Frank IBC, Abu Dadi Heytzmi  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 6:51:24am

Lizardoid Minion -

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.

Er, that seems to imply that there are people who believe in a supreme being that is not necessarily intelligent? Kinda scary thought... {ducking thunderbolt}

What do I call myself? Not sure - I think the best I can come up with is "secular monist".

Westward Ho -

Good night, my friend.

448 Thom  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 6:55:46am

OK. Finally finished reading the thread.

It is self-evident that the 3 religions do not worship the same G-d. There may be only one G-d (or none), but there are 3 distinct conceptions of It - hence the existence of 2 distinct religions and one pagan death cult. Jews do not accept the New Testament, and mohammedans reject the Bible in toto (although they pretend otherwise), and Christians and Jews certainly do not accept the koran (except for that idiot apostate bishop in Wash. DC).

#27 Dean Douthat

Interestingly, on the Hudaybiyah treaty, Muhammed bin Abdallah is how the Prophet was named. This means, Muhammed, son of Abdallah and Abdallah means "slave of Allah". Now this is interesting since Muhammed's father was, by definition, a polytheistic pagan.

Excellent! Add that to the pile of mohammedan absurdities.

#30 gadfly

1. Jews have been known to make some animal sacrifices of their own. Remember the Temple? There are remnants of it today too among some orthodox Jews.

I have no problem with animal sacrifice. It's an ancient practice and has no place in anti-mohammedan polemics, unless, of course, the mohammedan version is notably violent, painful, or otherwise depraved (and wouldn't I be shocked to learn that this is indeed the case).

2. The word for God in Greek and Latin is derived from the word for Zeus. Something similar is probably true of God's name in Hebrew too.

No way. I'm not an expert on Hebrew etymology but hopefully someone will put this falsehood to rest. AFAIK, YHWH means "I am who Am" or something like that (but don't take my word for that).

Neither of these facts seem to be damning to Chrisitianity or Judaism, so why should similar things be damning to Islam.

This is more than an issue of linguistics. Allah is a repackaged version of a pagan god worshipped by arab polytheists who want to murder us. G-d is the personal being who spoke to Abraham and Moses. These are not the same beings.

#84 Abu Reason

You're fighting a losing battle. In order to derive your rational morality, you have to start with some premises, don't you? What are your premises and why are they objectively true and "better" than a different set of premises?

{That oughta keep your jaw gaping for a while.}

#93 andrew

#84 Abu Reason
I used to think all that stuff too - then I grew up, got married, had kids...

LOL. Yeah. Life has a way of demolishing onanistic theorizing like Abu Reason's.

#105 b

If you have one little bag of rice. God says you must share that with your neighbor and let your wife starve.

Idiotic strawmen like that make atheists like you an embarrassment to atheists like me. You really are a thoughtless goon.

#208 Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Oh, well, me neither. In fact, I am amused at evolutionists who will claim that their belief system is the "scientific" one, and who then make such a basic error as to suggest that amino acids would just polymerise in the ocean, even though this would contradict one of the most basic scientific principles in organic chemistry.

What principle is that?!

#275 deja vu

That quote is one of the dumbest things I have ever read. Ever.

#292 fiery celt

It was GK Chesterton's observation that when a man ceases to believe inGod, it's not that he believes nothing, it's that he will believe anything. ...

And that quote isn't much better.

I hate quote wars.

#353 Mr Pol

Wrong. As long as nobody is attempting to convert you, there is no burden of proof. When a couple of atheists want to 'teach' me how my faith is 'ridiculous', the burden of proof is on them.

Bingo! I wish I had put it that way. I really hope the proselytizing atheists (b and abu reason) think deeply on that. Thanks.

449 Throbert McGee  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 6:58:51am
But as I said, many atheists use the term atheist or atheism just as I have described, as per defintion 2 of atheism above - an absence of belief, rather than a belief of absence.

Also, one may encounter the term strong atheism to describe "belief of absence," versus weak atheism to describe "absence of belief." Moreover, it's possible to be both a strong atheist and a weak atheist simultaneously, with respect to different conceptions of deity. For instance, a person might feel confident enough to emphatically deny the existence of the Christian God, on the grounds that this deity's three-in-one nature is logically incoherent, while taking a softer, "weakly atheistic" position with regards to the possibility of some loosely-defined Supreme Entity.

On the web, the divine personage of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (PBUH) is used as a humorous illustration of the strong/weak distinction. Since something that is invisible cannot simultaneously have a color, "strong atheism" is justified with respect to the self-contradictory Invisible Pink Unicorn (PBUH). However, one cannot be quite so certain about the non-existence of either invisible unicorns, or pink unicorns.

450 Lizardoid Minion #32603 Maine Coon Cat  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 6:59:54am

#447 Frank IBC

Er, that seems to imply that there are people who believe in a supreme being that is not necessarily intelligent? Kinda scary thought...

Yes, there are indeed people who believe in a supreme being that is not intelligent (or not recognisably intelligent). You dream up some crazy belief, it's probably already got an entry in The Skeptics Dictionary.

451 Throbert McGee  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 7:07:06am

There may be only one G-d (or none), but there are 3 distinct conceptions of It

Let's see -- there was the evil clown, the giant spider, and... what was the third, again?

452 quark2  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 7:11:37am

@225 Throbert McGee

You have completely taken my post out of context...deliberately.
I have only to look at the documented history of secular humanists to see how well they have succeeded. If you are basing your belief in man then you are certainly doomed to see the extinction of man come upon us all.
Man on his own strength does not in the majority stand a chance of doing what is 'right' or 'good' for his neighbour.
Small children do not know the difference of right or wrong until they are taught such. In other words children are born just as wild in nature as are any other wild animal.
So where did the influence and the inspiration of doing what's right originate from? Man in himself is base...it's documented over and over.
It seems to me that I have witnessed over and over attacks on those who profess religious beliefs who post here. You seem to go out of your way to stir that pot. I don't make it a habit to profess my beliefs on those who are resistant, that is not how I was taught to spread my Lords teachings. Jesus was a gentleman, he did not return to where he was unwelcomed and instructed his disciples to shake the dust off of their feet from those plaes and to leave.
The accusations of saying that 'religion' is bad and should be done away with is posted here often. G-d made man with free will, and yet the hostilities blame Him for the actions of man. If and I use that word strongly man were to base his actions and decisions on the commonsense instructions He blessed us with, there would be less war, disease and suffering.
I will pray that YOUR soul will ultimately be saved before this world of scalled humanist civilization comes tumbling down upon us all.

453 ibrodsky  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 7:17:47am

Immanuel Kant said, as I recall, that morality requires belief in three things:

1. There is a purpose to life,
2. The soul is immortal, and
3. There is a Supreme Being

Or as Voltaire said, if there weren't a God we would have had to invent him.

As a non-observant Jew, I am heartened by the emergence in recent years of conservative Atheists who strongly sympathize with the goals of religion.

Arguing about the existence of God is pointless. We must believe in moral absolutes and that, in the end, Evil is punished and Good rewarded.

454 Lizardoid Minion #32603 Maine Coon Cat  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 7:18:08am

#449 Throbert McGee

Indeed.

#451 Throbert McGee

Heh.

455 Throbert McGee  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 7:23:53am
I really hope the proselytizing atheists (b and abu reason) think deeply on that.

I dunno what to make of Abu Reason. On the one hand, he is intellectually arrogant far out of proportion to the actual persuasive force of his writing. On the other hand, he comes across as a college student who just finished reading Atlas Shrugged ("Abu Reason" = "A.R.," geddit?), for which reason I have to feel a sort of avuncular fondness towards him. (Of course, he might be older than me, for all I know.)

I'd say his head's in the right place, but he'd benefit from a little more life experience. And a little more humility about the rightness of his premises, as Thom suggested.

456 Lewis Can't Lose  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 7:25:32am

#452 quark2

The accusations of saying that 'religion' is bad and should be done away with is posted here often.

Yeah, but not by Throbert. He himself is taking up the beanie, haven't you heard?

Man in himself is base

Hoo boy. You hate secular humanists all right then. They actually have the audacity to have faith in man.

457 Flaming Sword  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 7:27:04am

Westward Ho:

Unless somebody here tried to CONVERT you, why would they owe you anything in the form of a defense of their beliefs? You crossed the line in this thread, and I could pretend its the first time I've encountered a RABID atheist, but that's all it would be--pretend.

458 Frank IBC, Abu Dadi Heytzmi  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 7:27:05am

Chuck Pelto -

I just found an online Bible - could you specify to which part(s) of 1 Chronicles you refer?

#450 Lizardoid Minion -

Reminds me of Catch-22. Yossarian was having an argument regarding the nature of god. Yossarian was a theist who believed in an evil, even "scatological" god. The girlfriend was an athiest who told him he should be ashamed of himself for having such horrible thoughts about god.

459 zulubaby  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 7:32:36am

ördög (#388)

I know, it is an exception, but it is encouraging that they do happen.

SoCalJustice and I discussed Walid Shoebat yesterday and as I pointed out, he only became reasonable after he left Islam. It's a terrific story but it's almost guaranteed that if he had not converted to Christianity he would still be involved in terrorism.

460 Lizardoid Minion #32603 Maine Coon Cat  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 7:35:46am

#453 ibrodsky

We must believe in moral absolutes and that, in the end, Evil is punished and Good rewarded.

I disagree completely.

We must see to it that evil is punished and good rewarded. Now, right here, ourselves.

461 Frank IBC, Abu Dadi Heytzmi  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 7:41:07am

Premise #1: Man is base.

Premise #2: All of your base are belong to us.

Deduction: Man are belong to us.

462 Throbert McGee  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 7:51:27am

Reminds me of Catch-22. Yossarian was having an argument regarding the nature of god. Yossarian was a theist who believed in an evil, even "scatological" god. The girlfriend was an athiest who told him he should be ashamed of himself for having such horrible thoughts about god.

Actually, I believe they were both professed atheists; Yossarian remarked that if there were a God, He must've been incredibly stupid, incompetent, and/or evil to have created a Universe with so much awfulness in it. (This is in fact a restatement of the familiar Problem Of Evil, which claims: If there is a God who is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good, there shouldn't be as much evil/suffering as we in fact observe every day.)

The girlfriend gets upset to the point of tears on hearing his rude invective towards the Man Upstairs, and Yossarian asks:

"Whattsamatta, I thought you were an atheist and didn't believe in God?"

"I don't, but the God I don't believe in is a good God, a just God, a merciful God, not the mean and hateful God you make Him out to be!"

(or words to that effect... one of my favorite passages in the book)

463 Ben F  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 7:52:06am

To Chuck Pelto--

The hebrew word Shaitan is best translated as "advocate." The Shaitan is clearly acting as God's agent in Job, where he tests the protagonist at God's direction. 1 Chron 21:1 echos the theme by portraying Shaitan as testing one whom God had favored. Admittedly the author of 1 Chron. does not state whether Shaitan acted on his own, and this ambiguity may signify the influence of Zoroastrianism on Judaism during the period when that book was composed.

The text that mark cites in #386 is an instance of the "innovative" approach, not found in the Hebrew scriptures, of stigmatizing one's opponents by branding them partners with the personified enemy of God Himself.

Elaine Pagels' "The Origin of Satan" traces the consequences of the Babylonian exile, where the Jews were first exposed to Zoroastrian concepts, and the subsequent evolution (mutation might be a better word) of the idea of Satan in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It's a good read. If you Google for reviews of the book, you will find many that comment on the challenges that the book poses for Christians, but Pagels' examination of Islam is no less noteworthy.

464 Claudia  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 7:57:13am

#433 Dean Douthat

For example, the famous "Night Journey". Isn't it interesting that, in order to reach heaven, Mo had to leave Mecca and first go to Jerusalem? Thus does the Prophet instruct us that Jerusalem is the gateway to heaven. To what is Mecca the gateway?

Thank you Dean. I like that. BTW, Muslims first were told by Big Mo to pray facing Jerusalem. It was only when the Jews of Arabia refused to join the Muslims that he became angry, and changed the direction of prayer towards Mecca.

C.

465 Chuck Pelto  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 8:07:00am

TO: Frank IBC
RE: What Part of Chronicles?

"I just found an online Bible - could you specify to which part(s) of 1 Chronicles you refer?" -- Frank IBC

1 Chronicles 21:1

And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

Don't forget Job.

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
Job 1:7 And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.
Job 1:8 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?
Job 1:9 Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?
Job 1:12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.
Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
Job 2:2 And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.
Job 2:3 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.
Job 2:4 And Satan answered the LORD, and said, Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life.
Job 2:6 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, he is in thine hand; but save his life.
Job 2:7 So went Satan forth from the presence of the LORD, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown.

Not to mention Psalms and Zechariah.

RE: Reflections on a Dark Visage

Personally, I get the distinct impression that there is a Satan/Lucifer/Dragon/Serpent character. From more than mere readings. And I think it IS independent of God. Created by Him, but like us, with free will, and has gone rebel, like many of us here.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

466 Throbert ''Twikki'' McGee  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 8:07:04am

Premise #1: Man is base.

Premise #2: All of your base are belong to us.

Deduction: Man are belong to us.

Ooooh, dibs on Gil Gerard!

467 Frank IBC, Abu Dadi Heytzmi  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 8:09:33am

1 Chron 21:1

And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

Interesting - a single-line reference to Satan, but with no further development - seems to have been added almost as an afterthought.

Thank G-d my cousin just retired from the Bureau of the Census!

468 Frank IBC, Abu Dadi Heytzmi  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 8:16:08am

Chuck Pelto -

The relationship between G-d and and Satan in Job does not sound at all like one between two adversaries. G-d is clearly using Satan as his agent. For lack of a better analogy, it sounds like The Pointy-Haired Boss talking to Catbert.

469 Chuck Pelto  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 8:16:18am

TO: Ben F
RE: Shaitan?

"The hebrew word Shaitan is best translated as "advocate." -- Ben F

What are you using as a reference?

When I google "shaitan" I get this sort of thingie...

SYLLABICATION:
shai·tan

NOUN:
1. often Shaitan Islam The Devil; Satan. 2. An evil spirit; a fiend.

Now, if you think that a 'fiend' is an 'advocate', I can imagine what he's advocating.

And by the way, your source says this is 'Hebrew'?

According to the etymology, only distantly so and that from "satan".

See: [Link: www.bartleby.com...]

[Note: Strange characters wouldn't copy and paste properly to here. Sorry, otherwise I'd not make you seek it out.]

Regards.

Chuck(le)
[A clash of doctrines is not a disaster. It's an opportunity.]

470 quark2  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 8:16:37am

@456 Lewis Can't Lose

"Hoo boy. You hate secular humanists all right then. They actually have the audacity to have faith in man."


I never posted that I hate secular humanists. You are free to believe in any form or fashion as you so desire. You were formed and created with a free will I expect everyone to use it.
But I have yet to see a shining example of a secular humanist successfully lead any group to a moral and just stand. And I have yet to see any examples of the orgination of good and evil where the secular humanist is concerned. If we were to step back in time to cave man where was the law as we know it now? What was the inspiration that was used to create laws?
When I stated man is base, and he is...you have but to look around you now...I did not state that in hatred.
But today you are blessed as I intend to add you to my prayer list too. :)

471 Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 8:24:33am

#448 Thom

Oh, well, me neither. In fact, I am amused at evolutionists who will claim that their belief system is the "scientific" one, and who then make such a basic error as to suggest that amino acids would just polymerise in the ocean, even though this would contradict one of the most basic scientific principles in organic chemistry.

---

What principle is that?!

Le Chatelier's Principle for Dynamic Equilibria

472 Thom  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 8:34:48am

#471 Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Omigawd. You can't be serious?!

473 b  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 9:09:31am

#353

#296 Westward Ho


Atheists don't have to prove anything since you are Positing an entity for which i have no sound evidence that it exists, the burden of proof is on you, you are making extraordinary claims. Proof please

Wrong. As long as nobody is attempting to convert you, there is no burden of proof. When a couple of atheists want to 'teach' me how my faith is 'ridiculous', the burden of proof is on them.


Regarding the bottom quote,
ignoring the incoherent first part,
I'm not trying to convert anyone.

But I guess I do think your 'faith' is ridiculous,
and this is how...

Look at the priests and the pedophiles, Look!
Look at the exploding muslims, Look!
Look at the Jews lovingly release their enemies, Look!

Do you need more proof here, chief? Do you know what proof is?
This is not a big intellectual exercise, it's right before your very eyes,
in your face.

Preying on the innocent and irresponsibly endangering everyone's safety. And openly preaching holy war. This is religion circa 2004.

Honest, real world, scrutiny is all that is required. Diligence too, maybe.

474 Thom  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 9:10:50am

Let me strike #472. I'm reading your web site, and, yes - you really are serious.

Oof.

475 Frank IBC, Abu Dadi Heytzmi  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 9:10:57am

Chuck Pelto -

I think the crux of the problem here is that you're basing your interpretation of the Old Testament/Tanakh use of "Satan", by working backwards from the New Testament's and/or the Qur'an's use of the term. From a religion/faith perspective, this is OK, but if you're going to argue on a strictly logical basis you're better off by dealing with "original intent" of the Old Testament/Tanakh, which was written 500-1000 years before the New Testament and Qur'an.

476 Chuck Pelto  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 9:25:46am

TO: Frank IBC
RE: Source Data

"From a religion/faith perspective, this is OK, but if you're going to argue on a strictly logical basis you're better off by dealing with "original intent" of the Old Testament/Tanakh, which was written 500-1000 years before the New Testament and Qur'an." -- Frank IBC

My understanding is that the KJV of the Old Testament is as close a translation of the original source documents as one can get in English. This was substantiated by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and academic/theological examinations.

As for "original intent", there's a bag of worms. Ever see the discussions about 'original intent' surrounding the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States?

I think the KJV serves well as a source document for we English-speaking folks. Interpretations are another matter.

Case in point. Do you believe the Universe, and specifically this world, was created in six days? Literally?

I believe that the one who was given the information interpreted the vision that way. But what was the Author's 'original intent'?

Regards,

Chuck(le)

477 Frank IBC, Abu Dadi Heytzmi  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 9:30:10am

#474 Thom -

A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Sheesh.

(And stop calling me "Shirley".)

478 Flaming Sword  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 9:32:13am

#473 b:

Mighty simplistic of you isn't it?

What, you didn't also notice that all of those groups rely on oxygen?

Perhaps its reliance upon oxygen that's really the culprit! Oh, but wait a minute, if we reach that conclusion, you're misguided smugness would no longer be appropriate!

Then I suppose we'd best just continue blaming ALL forms of religion.

479 Flaming Sword  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 9:50:34am

#112 b 1/28/2004 06:49PM PST

The irrational deserve no courtesy.

They deserve blunt trama, and nothing else!

I guess that means that you spend a lot of time looking over your shoulder, eh?

480 westward ho  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 9:52:31am

#Thom,# 462 Throbert,
We are afloat in the wilderness of the Spatially infinite cosmos atleast!!, will atleast use our retarded heads to know the fly's truth in the shit of existense - if you both think that the nanosecond you both spend in the evolution of the cosmos is significant enough to posit the existense of infinite being - think otherwise i have slapped you both of your life on my butt - bloody flies.
Gonna have a bath now-bloody flies.

481 Throbert McGee  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 9:57:46am

on a strictly logical basis you're better off by dealing with "original intent" of the Old Testament/Tanakh, which was written 500-1000 years before the New Testament and Qur'an.

Or, to put it another way: As far as the author of Genesis 3 was concerned, "the serpent" was just your basic everyday talking snake, akin to the talking bugs, beasts, and birds of Aesop. He didn't tell Eve to eat the apple because he was the Prince of Darkness, the Author of Lies; he told her to eat the apple because someone had to move the plot along. (It could just as well have been a hamster that put the idea in Eve's head, and G-d's curse would've been "thou shalt eatest thy children and run around in little wheels.")

At the time of the story's composition, the serpent didn't represent anything bigger. It was only later that Christians noticed, "Hey, when the Big Guy said And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, that could be read as a prophesy of Our Lord Jesus (who was born of woman) coming to smite Satan!!"

But the original text can be likened to one of Rudyard Kipling's Just-So stories -- in all probability, the writer had no "prophetic" intent; G-d's curse on the serpent simply serves to explain why snakes are what they are.

482 Thom  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 9:59:01am

#480 westward ho

LOL. What the hell was that? Are you drunk?

/loudspeaker on

Back slowly away from the vodka ...

/loudspeaker off

483 westward ho  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 10:11:42am

Thom iam drunk so goodnight and forgive me my drunkeness please... whatever gibberish i have uttered...sorry..goodnight.

484 Thom  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 10:17:52am

#483 westward ho

No prob. Just remember the 11th Commandment:

Thou shalt not post when intoxicated.

485 Yehudit  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 10:23:02am
My understanding is that the KJV of the Old Testament is as close a translation of the original source documents as one can get in English. This was substantiated by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and academic/theological examinations.

I don't know where you heard that, but the JPS translation is much more based on the original Hebrew, and so is the Everett Fox translation, although that one aims more for capturing the original rhythm and cadences of the language.

486 evariste  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 10:40:22am

Frank IBC-

cycle of violence

Er, is that the name of Charles' bike? ;)

Premise #1: Man is base.

Premise #2: All of your base are belong to us.

Deduction: Man are belong to us.

G-d is clearly using Satan as his agent. For lack of a better analogy, it sounds like The Pointy-Haired Boss talking to Catbert.

ROFLMAO
You've been cracking me up!

487 ploome  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 10:51:44am

#469 Chuck Pelto

I always thought the 'devil' was the evil inclination

[Link: www.temple-emanuel.org...]

[Link: www.google.com...]

488 Frank IBC, Abu Dadi Heytzmi  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 11:01:31am

#433 Dean Douthat -

Actually, it's not clear that "the furthest mosque" (al-Masjidu-'l-Aqsa) of Muhammad's magical journey on his hobbyhorse actually refers to Jerusalem.

This interpretation did not start until Caliph Umar conquered Jerusalem, and needed a scriptural interpretation to retroactively justify it.

#486 Evariste -

Glad I could be of service. ;)

489 Chuck Pelto  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 11:21:42am

TO: Thorbert McGee
RE: Oh My God!!!

"But the original text can be likened to one of Rudyard Kipling's Just-So stories -- in all probability, the writer had no "prophetic" intent; G-d's curse on the serpent simply serves to explain why snakes are what they are." -- Thorbert McGee

Very good.

Wonderful. Glad you contributed that. I'll have to keep it in my archives of all time great fiskings.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Talking hamsters, indeed.]

490 Frank IBC, Abu Dadi Heytzmi  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 11:33:06am

Throbert -

It will take a while to get the image of the Talking Tempting Hamster out of my head. Nice one.

Although a Chipmunk or a Chihuahua would have been equally delightful. Too bad there's no such thing as a Burrito tree. ;)

491 Chuck Pelto  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 11:38:05am

TO: ploome
RE: Evil Inclination or Incarnate?

"I always thought the 'devil' was the evil inclination." -- ploome

I thought as much myself, some time back. But I've had more experience since then.

Now I know better and things make more sense. Now I see Satan not as man's rebellious nature, but as another entity with free will of his own. And a rebel to boot. As a result the concept of hell makes more sense.

RE: What IS "Hell"?

According to what little I understand...

Hell is the place, outside of heaven, where he makes his home-away-from-Home. And God lets him, as He gave him free will and allows him to exercise it, as we exercise it here.

So someone passes beyond this existance and goes to Heaven's door. But because they fouled up, God doesn't let them in. So they are in the 'outer darkness' where there is 'weeping and wailing and nashing of teethies'.

Along comes Satan, prowling about as a 'roaring lion' and picks up on the disenfranchised. Tots him off to hell.

Now, what do you think Satan's going to do with one of those 'people' who got him cross-wise with God? Put him up in a corner penthouse overlooking Hell's Park Avenue?

God doesn't consign people to Hell, as far as I can tell. He just doesn't let them into His protection. Satan does the rest out of shear cussidness. [Note: Now I could be all fouled up about this. But everyone has been too polite to point out just how...to date. In fact one devote Roman Catholic said it made good sense out of confusion to him too.]

As for the lake of fire...

...well, that's another story...

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[There are things that go 'bump in the night'. And some of them are distinctly unfriendly.]

492 Frank IBC, Abu Dadi Heytzmi  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 11:57:19am

Throbert -

Actually the symbolism of the Serpent goes a little deeper than simply a character in a morality play.

The image of a serpent (or dragon) surrounding the "world tree" is a common one in mythology. Examples include Drago guarding the Golden Apple Tree in the Garden of the Hesperides in Greek myth, and Nidhogg(r) chewing at the roots of Yggdrasil in Norse myth.

It's no coincidence that the constellation of Draco coils around the Ecliptic North Pole, like a serpent around a tree. The Ecliptic North Pole represents the gateway to the realm of the gods in many myths.

Suggested reading: "Hamlet's Mill", by Santillana and Dechend.

493 Lizardoid Minion #32603 Maine Coon Cat  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 12:48:01pm

#470 quark2

You keep stating that "Man is base".

What do you mean?

494 Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 12:54:25pm

#474 Thom

Yes, I am serious.

495 Thom  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 1:50:05pm

#494 Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

I noticed that. I'm not sure how you got an MA in chemistry - especially with that misapplication/interpretation of LeChatelier's principle, but - whatever. I had a PhD biology teacher in high school (A PhD teaching high school sophomores!? Yes, he was a loser) who was also a Creationist so this strange phenomenon of degreed scientists rejecting/ignoring science and embracing Biblical literalism is not unknown.

496 Dean Douthat  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 3:05:25pm

#488 Frank IBC:

Yes, I'm aware that the Jerusalem locale for the "Farthest Mosque" was a late addition; I just wanted to reference the best known version.

In any case, as the ride proved, the gateway to heaven is a long way from Mecca.

497 Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 4:11:42pm

#495 Thom

I noticed that. I'm not sure how you got an MA in chemistry - especially with that misapplication/interpretation of LeChatelier's principle, but - whatever.

Well, Thom, let's take a look at the basics of the matter. Basically, Le Chatelier's principle says that a system in equilibrium, when disturbed, will act in such a way so as to reduce the inbalance (stress) and restore the equilibrium.

If you disturb the concentration of a species on one side of the equation, the system will seek to reestablish this equilibrium by driving the reversible reaction towards whichever side, product or reactant, will reestablish the equlibrium.

Hence, in the condensation reaction of amino acids to form proteins (essentially polymers of amino acids), we see the reaction of two amino acids (reactants) to form the peptide plus a molecule of water (products).

Now, considering that water is a product of the reaction, why do you think that there is going to be a favourable push to the products side of this reversible reaction? Le Chatelier's force will push the reaction towards the reactant side due to the overwhelming presence of water in the proposed reaction site. The synthesis of peptides is thermodynamically unfavourable on the order of a delta G of +10 kJ/mol. This is why their synthesis is carried out in the presence of catalysing agents, whether enzymatic (in the case of living systems) or through other reactions which can provide a source of energy to overcome the energetic unfavourability.

Care to explain your reasoning for rejecting this, all of which is pretty basic biochem? Indeed, I'd be really interested in hearing how you think that amino acids in an ocean could polymerise into peptides, in spite of the thermodynamics working against such a process. Do tell, Thom.

498 Frank IBC  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 4:25:55pm

Lizardoid Minion:

You keep stating that "Man is base".

What do you mean?

I think it's a reference to Genesis 1:27:

God created man in his own image

#405 Ben F -

Thus saith the Lord to His anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him, and to loose the loins of kings...

Er, what the hay does "loose the loins of kings" mean? I'm trying to think of an alternative, but the only interpretation I can think of is "to scare them $---less".

499 Frank IBC  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 4:31:43pm

Thom -

I had a PhD biology teacher in high school

Hmmm...sounds familiar! His name wasn't Brother Lapp, was it?

500 Lizardoid Minion #32603 Little Green Frog  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 5:41:37pm

#497 TQC

I'd be really interested in hearing how you think that amino acids in an ocean could polymerise into peptides, in spite of the thermodynamics working against such a process.

Are you trying to tell us that amino acids in an ocean can't polymerise into peptides?

501 anubis_soundwave  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 5:53:55pm

Abu Reason and b are textbook cases of DEIPHOBIA. [I mentioned this the other day on another thread.]

You think THEISM-—all theism—is inherently evil based on the criminal acts of clergy from one SECT of one monotheistic religion; the terrorism committed by the spiritual children of Arab culture/the Thuggee cult from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom(and yes, there really WAS a Thuggee cult in India: they worshipped Kali, sacrificed human males, and gave us the word “thug”.), and your piteous efforts to belittle...

I’m trying too hard to explain what a deiphobe is. And I’ll try again.

The deiphobe thinks that RELIGION itself is the source of all evil, and mankind’s only hope is ATHEISM.(I think that explains it.)

= = =

As far as His name and His goals vis a vis the WoT/ME crisis:

1. ...I can safely say it ain’t Allah.

2. Personally, all of the other deities(mythological or current) would probably want Allah taken out for causing entire peoples to be pathologically focused on obliterating civilization, which they(purportedly, perhaps) had a hand in shaping.

Just me, though.

WWJD: Honestly, I’m not sure what Jesus would do here, were he living in today’s Israel. IDF, or no?

= = =

Back to atheism:

Did we just make up G-d? Did we build civilization ourselves? Did the universe bring itself about, completely at random?

These are fair questions, and the atheists have decided that for them, the answer is yes. That is fine. Theists have decided that no is their conclusion. Also fine.

The problem comes in when any one theistic system, or any atheistic system, systematically forbids other means of thought.

I think free will was explained nicely in Joshua 24:15. It and America’s founding principles are similar:

Josh 24:15 - It’s your choice. Believe whatever you wish; I’ll believe what I believe.

USA-FP – Believe what you want.

= = =

At any rate, in most modern democracies, most theists and most atheists tend to live peaceably when each grants the other the right to be wrong. [in a Christian example, all we can do is tell a nonbeliever what we believe and why. if a nonbeliever says “nuts to you!”, we say, “just give it some thought” and leave it to the nonbeliever to determine.]

But right now, we’re dealing with a theist ideology that wants to cram itself down EVERYONE’s throat: Islam.

Islam strips away every tenet of human dignity and compassion. Children can’t have teddy bears. Women can’t drive. A person’s worth is determined by how many people he/she murders. Heaven in the mind of a Muslim--in its most banal state—-is a place where a dead warrior gets a bowl of raisins. Hell is a place where women are punished for existing.

Islam is a love of nihilism. It’s a black hole in the soul.

I cannot hate the Palestinians(whether they deserve that name or not, they have it for the time being), because they’ve been indoctrinated in Islam. I am disgusted by the people that perpetuated it in the past, never letting them see other points of view.

But that brings us back to Islam itself, doesn’t it? It—-Allah, the Quran, and Mohammed—-is like Despero(Justice League cartoon reference): “...the beginning...the end...all.” Islam is PERFECT(yeah, right). It doesn’t want other points of view.

= = =

To the deiphobes:

I suppose the PROTESTANT REFORMATION and the CATHOLIC COUNTERREFORMATION have no meaning for you, if you think religion is unreasonable and therefore EVIL. [the heart has its reasons, whereof reason knows nothing.] Happened around the 1500s, I think.

While there were secular, political reasons for the REFORMATIONS, theological grounds also stood.

Did the Church try to kill Galileo? Wow! You know what? The Church tried to kill Martin Luther too! Whodathunkit—the Catholic Church trying to execute a theologically-concerned monk for heresy!? Perhaps because the Church was CORRUPT, not reflecting the teachings of their deity. The high clergy thought themselves to be G-d incarnate.

= = =

What makes man “base”? Human flaws. Our mistakes. Our weaknesses, our vices. The elements of ourselves that causes man’s inhumanity to man. Some call it human nature, some call it sin.

But humanity’s goal has always been to push ourselves to be better people than we are—-in this life. To consider others as well as ourselves[NOT, as deiphobes tend to state, INSTEAD of ourselves]. The only tools we have are our minds and our cultures; our minds are shaped in large part by our cultures.

Human beings are flawed, but together we can come up with ideas that can raise our consciousness. This becomes culture. However, we can also concoct ideas that drag us down to our baser nature. This too, is culture.

What is good, then, but that which continually improves and perfects human nature during the course of life? And what is evil, but that which debases human nature, making a mockery of humans’ sentient minds?

If all religion is evil, then explain Buddha, Gandhi, or Dr. King. Explain the OlT(tanakh?) proverbs in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. [particularly the latter, which is someone musing over his life. doesn’t seem too evil to me...]

Let me try another tack: If you plant a lima bean, will you get strawberries? Unlikely. Let’s say that we humans did in fact create our gods. Consider this, then: If you’re a flawed but decent person, you’d probably want to avoid creating a monster like Allah; if you’re as wicked as Mohammed was, you wouldn’t create a god that advises you to forgo earthly pleasures for inner spiritual peace.

= = =

I...think I’m done.

502 Pixy Misa  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 6:20:35pm

Let’s say that we humans did in fact create our gods. Consider this, then: If you’re a flawed but decent person, you’d probably want to avoid creating a monster like Allah; if you’re as wicked as Mohammed was, you wouldn’t create a god that advises you to forgo earthly pleasures for inner spiritual peace.

Yeah, but the rules didn't apply to Mohammed.

Anyway, it's quite clear that he was making it up as he went along. New situations called for new rules, and if they contradicted the old rules, well, so what?

503 Ben F  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 6:52:34pm

#476 Chuck Pelto--

You're speaking like a true "goy."

And there is no insult intended.

Judaism, like Islam, holds that no translation of scripture is adequate. There is even a technical term for a translation of scripture--it's called a targum. The Targum refers to a particular translation--that of Onkelos, into Aramaic. But all translation is targum, and all targum is interpretation, and the handiwork of man, whereas the Torah is infinite, with layers upon layers of meaning that cannot but be lost in even the best of translations.

Christianity has no concept of targum. The Church did not even preserve, in verbatim form, the utterances of G-d Incarnate. To a Jew this is incomprehensible. But I understand that from your perspective it is the Jewish/Islamic notion that is alien, because translations of Scripture are undertaken with the aid of the Holy Spirit and are thus no less divine in origin than their sources.

This is not intended as an argument, just an observation.

504 Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 7:20:05pm

#500 Lizardoid Minion

Are you trying to tell us that amino acids in an ocean can't polymerise into peptides?

Not by themselves. Are you suggesting they can?

505 Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 7:22:04pm

#500 Lizardoid Minion

Are you trying to tell us that amino acids in an ocean can't polymerise into peptides?

Not by themselves. Are you suggesting they can?

506 Lizardoid Minion #32603 Cute Fuzzy Puppy Of Doom  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 7:58:01pm

#505 TQC

It depends on exactly what you mean by "not by themselves".

It's more likely to occur on a surface (a shoreline, or even the sea bed in shallow water) than in open water.

But yes.

507 ördög  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 8:54:37pm

TQC:

Not by themselves. Are you suggesting they can?

Well, yes they can, provided that there is a scaffolding in place of mono/bi-atomic, energetically encapsulated heavy elements (This fact is not presently acknowledged by science, but it may be mere 50 years when it will become a part of the edifice). That is why you sometimes find aminoacids polymerized into peptides in meteoritic material. However, the polymers that are produced are nothing like ordered RNA/DNA chains. There is a bunch of amino acids beyond the basic ACGT fingerprint that is a building block of known living structures. So, the results are pretty random peptidic chains that do not display any particularly organic characteristics, in the true sense, except by association.

Say that by some odd chance, a segment of RNA chains together, when one shakes the equivalent of amino soup in a glass container for an adequate chunk of time. So what? Do we get a living creature? Hardly. What we would need in order to have a viable organism even of the lowest order is a magic of kind that no one is able to reproduce yet. You would need to encapsulate the RNA within a cell membrane to procect it from harmfull environment. Then assure that the transformation of 'food' and expulsion of waste is provided, another snippets of RNA (rRNA) that are able to read the instruction chain, tRNA snippets that would be able to transfer the copy of the original chain segment, some form of a factory that could synthetize the proper proteins translated from the copy.
Perhaps it sounds doable, but there are things that boggle mind. For instance, the DNA is weaved into dense ropes that are wrapped around with a protein string, packed together in an inpenetrable knot. Say that the cell needs to produce a specific protein. Watch what happens: The rRNA is "sent" to to this DNA knot, it almost never "hesitates", what part of the DNA has to unpack, it unpack the segment that "is to be read", the external wrapper first, then the particular rope of packed DNA an then the actual code for the desired sequence, nothing more. It happens at a speed that would be an rquivalent of 1000mph huricane!

If I were to anthropomorphize this process, I would state that the rRNA "knows" what particular segment needs to be unpacked, read and copied.

And, that, my dear TQC, is nothing but pure magic. At least from the standpoint of our present reductionist science, provided that they would not be in denial to admit it. That is not the only "magic" example of processes within even a cell on the lowest step of the complexity ladder, but I think one example suffices.

If I were to summarize the above in some succint format, it would probably be that I am not able to envision such structural complexity and interplay without the design first, as a prerequisite.

508 Ben F  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 9:13:32pm

#469 Chuck Pelto--

Compare 1 Chron. 21:1 with the parallel rendition at 2 Sam. 24:1. There are several ways to harmonize the two accounts. One is to posit that G-d is acting through Satan. The other possibility is that שטן is simply being used by the Chronicler as a figure of speech.

By contrast, in Job and in Zech. 3:1-2, the term used is השטן , that is, "the Satan." Not even a proper noun. The sense is "the accuser," "the adversary," or "the prosecutor."

509 therien  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 10:20:24pm

I see some friendly fire here too.
Abu Reason might be redeemable, "b" is a total loss, but both seem to be taking the same First Quarter classes in Rhetoric or Comparative Morality in English.

I came across much same stuff while struggling through a Post-Bac in English with a bunch of underclassmen. It's just too easy to buy mindless reductionism common in the post-structural studies. You know, the whole bit about how Nietzsche proved nothing is real--while ignoring how Nietzsche demanded a grounding in the subjective; or how all "moral" judgments are inherently false, etc etc.
It's all argument from the negative. You don't have to claim anything, all you have to do is poke sticks in other people's eyes. This is false, that is false, you're all wrong...

510 therien  Thu, Jan 29, 2004 10:42:04pm

Chuck / Frank / Throbert /pardon if I've missed or accidentally included anyone-

How do you guys feel about the Documentary Hypothesis?
Specifically as laid out by Friedman (not Thomas) in "Who Wrote the Bible?"
I don't agree with his conclusion that Ezra re-wrote everything up to the Captivity, but it's very interesting nonetheless.
On dualism, I've found it interesting that Satan takes a very minor role--almost as a jokester--until after the contact with Zoroastrianism. Then we get the stark dichotomy between God/Satan, especially in the contest for men. Christianity takes this to extremes, but not nearly as extreme as in Islam.
Well, OK, there's a difference. In Christianity Satan can lead the soul into damnation, but in Islam God uses Satan to tempt men toward damnation, and in Islam God already knows the outcome. Eerily reminiscent of early Calvinist predestination, really.
As to whether Satan is a force outside the purview of God, it seems both religions take a number of different perspectives on this. I'm a bit too tired to provide cites beyond claims, but I don't think even the Zoroastrians grant the possibility of Ahriman's victory over God.

511 Thom  Fri, Jan 30, 2004 2:38:51am

#497 Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Look. You're a Creationist and there's nothing I can say to change your mind - even about chemistry. So let me just say that you're assuming that

1) "the system" was in equilibrium;
2) "the system" went straight from amino acids to polypeptides.

Those assumptions are rather extraordinary.

512 Frank IBC, Abu Dadi Heytzmi  Fri, Jan 30, 2004 4:50:53am

Therien -

I'm a big fan of Friedman (the Bible scholar, not the NY Times idiot). I have both "Who Wrote The Bible" and "The Hidden Book in the Bible".

513 Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus  Fri, Jan 30, 2004 4:56:31am

#511 Thom

That's fine. You're an evolutionist who appears not to know much about science, and are relying upon what others have told you, so it's doubtful that your mind will be changed, but...

1) "the system" was in equilibrium;

That's why the principle deals with dynamic equilibria. A system need not start at equilibrium to be dealt with by Le Chatelier's.

2) "the system" went straight from amino acids to polypeptides.

Considering that a polypeptide is simply a string of amino acids (technically, a dipeptide could be considered a "polypeptide"), and that the process of polymerisation is stepwise (meaning that you necessarily have to start with a dipeptide and grow the chain from there, hence using the same reaction over and over again), I fail to see what's so "extraordinary" about the proposition.

#506 Lizardoid Minion

Well, it wouldn't happen in open water, that's the main point. On a surface it is, in theory, possible, except that the experimental testing of these theories has yielded less than inspiring results for any set of conditions which reasonably approximate real-life conditions. Most of the experimentation to date into various inorganic systems of catalysing the polymerisation process have used grossly unrealistic experimental conditions (even according to the theories which evolutionists themselves have for the conditions in the early earth) to "force" the science to work. Further, there's still the issue of the enantiomeric selectivity, which no proposed directing system has yet to overcome.

#507 Ordog (sorry, no umlauts)

Thank you for demonstrating my case. As I said, amino acids won't polymerise by themselves, due to the thermodynamically unfavourable energetics of the reaction. This is why you need the energetically encapsulated heavy metals (and other means of overcoming the thermodynamic problem). Of course, when the reaction is treated in this fashion, the amino acids are no longer polymerising by themselves, but rather with the alteration of the reaction conditions. And even then, the best that experimentation in the lab has been able to do, even with grossly unrealistic experimental conditions, is to produce chains on the order of hexa- or heptapeptides.

One thing I would point out, though, is that RNA and DNA are built from nucleotides, not amino acids (though the same problem of enantiomeric selectivity rules here, and is just as big a problem for evolutionists). I agree with you basic thesis, however, which is that the whole biochemical system built around RNA and DNA are nothing short of "magical", and almost by necessity need for pre-existing order to have given them order to "kick off" the whole scheme.

514 Thom  Fri, Jan 30, 2004 5:32:58am

#513 Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

LOL. Whatever. Coming from someone who believes that the universe was created in 6 days, that the earth is a few thousand years old (created on the 23rd of October, 4004 BC, at 9 am?), that Roman Catholics are pagans, and Pokemon are tools of Satan, I'll be sure to give your appraisal of my scientific background and your pseudo-scientific beliefs their due consideration.

515 Frank IBC, Abu Dadi Heytzmi  Fri, Jan 30, 2004 5:42:10am

As I said a while back...

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

{sigh}

516 Thom  Fri, Jan 30, 2004 5:44:54am

#515 Frank IBC, Abu Dadi Heytzmi

Yes, but why are you saying it?

517 Frank IBC, Abu Dadi Heytzmi  Fri, Jan 30, 2004 6:19:27am

Thom -

I went to the website you are discussing - what an incredible waste of intellect.

518 Thom  Fri, Jan 30, 2004 6:26:47am

#517 Frank IBC, Abu Dadi Heytzmi

I've seen so many sites like that. It's an amazing amount of effort, to be sure.

519 Frank IBC, Abu Dadi Heytzmi  Fri, Jan 30, 2004 6:27:51am

Next I suppose he'll argue that Joshua's ability to make the Sun stand still does not contradict modern Astronomy.

Although I am curious to hear him explain how the Serpent moved about prior to G-d condemning him to crawl on his belly.

To everyone else - I have no problem with anyone's religious beliefs (as long as they don't call for harming me or those I love). What I DO have a problem with is people trying to use scientific arguments to justify religious beliefs, i.e., FAITH. Oil and water. Sorry.

520 Thom  Fri, Jan 30, 2004 6:31:16am

Dang, I hit post too fast. Anyway, further to Frank #517:

The capo di tutti capi of KJV sites: Balaam's Ass.

521 Frank IBC, Abu Dadi Heytzmi  Fri, Jan 30, 2004 7:07:20am

Baalam's Ass

How appropriately named.

522 Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus  Fri, Jan 30, 2004 7:55:01am

#514 Thom

LOL. Whatever. Coming from someone who believes that the universe was created in 6 days, that the earth is a few thousand years old (created on the 23rd of October, 4004 BC, at 9 am?), that Roman Catholics are pagans, and Pokemon are tools of Satan, I'll be sure to give your appraisal of my scientific background and your pseudo-scientific beliefs their due consideration.

As I'm sure the more intelligent and astute readers of this forum (which would not, apparently, include either yourself or Frank IBC), your comment above isn't actually a refutation of anything I have argued here. You challenged my discussion concerning Le Chatelier's principle and how it demonstrates that evolutionary abiogenesis is not feasible. I answered your challenge using well-known scientific knowledge, and asked you to provide a reason why you though my reliance upon Le Chatelier's was wrong. You have, thus far, completely failed to provide your reasoning for your statements, and have only provided some very general statements about "extraordinary assumptions' which only served to show that you grasp neither the thermodynamic argument behind the principle, nor do you seem to understand the basic amide synthesis reaction underlying amino acid polymerisation. Instead, you have chosen to opt for casting aspersions against me for being a "Creationist" (which I shan't deny) and for items found on my website which are completely unrelated to the discussion at hand.

As such, you appear to be nothing but an uninformed gasbag. So, I'd ask you again wrt the Le Chatelier's argument which you seemed to want to make a while back, quoting the estimable John Major: put up or shut up, lad.

523 Thom  Fri, Jan 30, 2004 8:20:36am

#522 Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

As I'm sure the more intelligent and astute readers of this forum (which would not, apparently, include either yourself or Frank IBC), your comment above isn't actually a refutation of anything I have argued here.

Ah. You thought I was trying to refute you? LOL. No wonder you're confused.

I'm not trying to refute you. I gave up arguing about stuff like this with people like you long ago.

I can't recall anyone invoking Le Chatelier's Principle to "refute" abiogenesis. Is that idea original with you? Usually creationists of a "scientific" bent just trot out probability "arguments" or the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Instead, you have chosen to opt for casting aspersions against me for being a "Creationist" (which I shan't deny) and for items found on my website which are completely unrelated to the discussion at hand.

This is absolutely true. But I brought up those things to illustrate the mindset you would have me argue with. Sometimes it's quicker just to cut through the BS and get to the nub of the matter.

524 Chuck Pelto  Fri, Jan 30, 2004 9:48:56am

TO: Ben F
RE: A 'Figure' of 'Speech'?

"Compare 1 Chron. 21:1 with the parallel rendition at 2 Sam. 24:1. There are several ways to harmonize the two accounts. One is to posit that G-d is acting through Satan. The other possibility is that ??? is simply being used by the Chronicler as a figure of speech." -- Ben F

Between the two accounts, and thank you for pointing that other out to me, it looks to me as if God turned His face from the Israelites and allowed Satan free play in the area. Not so much a 'figure of speech' as, perhaps, an omission.

But this brings up a question...

...do you think there is such a creature as Satan? An independent entity? With 'free will'?

RE: THE Satan

"By contrast, in Job and in Zech. 3:1-2, the term used is ??? , that is, "the Satan." Not even a proper noun. The sense is "the accuser," "the adversary," or "the prosecutor".

I'll have to take your word on that "the" business. However as a counter-weight in the discussion, the KJV doesn't use it. It just says "Satan". However, in the new part, Satan is also given the title of The Accusor and The Adversary.

RE: An Aside

Do you think there is such a thing as the resurrection?

Regards,

Chuck(le)

525 Frank IBC, Abu Dadi Heytzmi  Fri, Jan 30, 2004 9:59:24am

As I'm sure the more intelligent and astute readers of this forum (which would not, apparently, include either yourself or Frank IBC), your comment above isn't actually a refutation of anything I have argued here

I made no claims of trying to refute anything you have argued, either.

Refutations relate to matters of science and logic. What you have presented is a statement of your faith, fancied up with lots of pretty scientific-sounding statements, which is designed to "prove" the foregone conclusion that the Bible is inerrant.

(Just curious - which account of creation do you believe - the one in Genesis 1, or the one in Genesis 2?)

526 Chuck Pelto  Fri, Jan 30, 2004 1:26:37pm

TO: Frank IBC
RE: Since You Ask...

"Just curious - which account of creation do you believe - the one in Genesis 1, or the one in Genesis 2?" -- Frank IBC

Both.

Is there a problem with that? If so, what?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[A clash of doctrines is not a disaster...]

527 Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus  Fri, Jan 30, 2004 3:07:41pm

#523 Thom

Good to see that you've admitted that you can't argue the matter, and won't even try. Saves me the time of having to handhold you through the science. Besides, your turning into exhibit 1-A of the old dictum that prerequisite for being a rabid evolutionist is having a sharp tongue, not a sharp mind.

Ah yes, the good ol' 2nd law of thermo. I'll bet you think that, since the earth is an open system, this means the input of random energy will decrease the entropy of the earth system and allow evolution to happen, right?

And besides, I'd STILL be interested in hearing why you think that I'm wrong about Le Chatelier's as it is applied in this discussion.

#525 Frank IBC

(Just curious - which account of creation do you believe - the one in Genesis 1, or the one in Genesis 2?)

Both, why do you ask? ;)

Refutations relate to matters of science and logic. What you have presented is a statement of your faith, fancied up with lots of pretty scientific-sounding statements, which is designed to "prove" the foregone conclusion that the Bible is inerrant.

Ah yes, the usual appeal by the evolutionist to "science" and "logic", even though the evolutionist then proceeds to dismiss both out of hand when they don't support his evolutionism. Typical. Care to actually demonstrate my arguments incorrect, from a logical and scientific perspective?

528 Chuck Pelto  Fri, Jan 30, 2004 3:56:35pm

TO:  Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Kind of curious, the 'box' Frank tries to put people into?

I'm looking forward to his explanation about the Genesis 1 - Genesis 2 question.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

529 Frank IBC  Fri, Jan 30, 2004 7:00:41pm

The reason I ask "Just curious - which account of creation do you believe - the one in Genesis 1, or the one in Genesis 2?" is because they contradict each other.

Genesis 1 ("P Source") order of creation:
-Heavens
-Earth
-Plants
-Animals
-Man & Woman (called into being by spoken command)

Genesis 2 ("J Source") order of creation (starting at Genesis 2:4)
-Earth
-Heavens
-Man (molded from clay, life breathed into him)
-Plants
-Animals
-Woman

530 evariste:all out of cake now! cake or death?  Fri, Jan 30, 2004 8:27:49pm

Wow, this thread is still gong on? Amazing.
Anyway, TQC, I did a little net research because I was curious about this Le Chatelier and abiogenesis topic that you guys have been going back and forth on. What I found suggests the following: not that you are mistaken about Le Chatelier, but rather, that there are alternate hypotheses that do not depend on amino acids floating free in the ocean for long periods of time, that abiogenesis has long discarded such a premise, and that there are alternate hypotheses in various stages of refinement, called microspheres (liposomes) and clay-matrix development.
I don't have the expertise to refute what you are saying or even to understand what I looked up, but it does look to me as if you are attacking an already-discredited hypothesis.

531 Ben F  Fri, Jan 30, 2004 9:03:06pm

#524 Chuck Pelto--

The discrepancy (note that I did not say contradiction) between the Samuel and Chronicles texts on this point may be compared to similar discrepancies in the synoptic Gospels. And the question in each case is, why did each author choose what to say, and how to say it, and what to omit? For the author has an intention. But it is very hard for us, reading these texts over two millenia after they were written, to "get inside the heads" of those authors. (Especially for those books whose authorship, or even whose date of authorship, is disputed.)

We cannot interrogate the authors of Samuel and Chronicles, so we cannot know the significance of the discrepancies in their accounts. I cannot refute your gloss, just as I do not think that you can refute either of mine. We can only speculate.

When one studies the Torah, with the understanding that one is reading the actual words of G-d as dictated to Moses, one is dealing with a text of a wholly different nature. It is axiomatic that the human mind cannot fully comprehend the Author's intention. Every apparent anomaly in the text, whether it be a repetition, an omission, an ambiguity, an unusual word order or other grammatical oddity, a pun, or anything else that we can discern by means of intense study, by meditation, or even by methods or technologies which were unknown in Moses' day (gematria, statistical analysis, etc.) is presumptively fraught with meaning. Many of these anomalies are untranslatable, and many translations attempt to "smooth over" even more of them.

You might say that the United States of America has flourished under a Constitution that is over 225 years old, but you would be wrong, because the Constitution has been amended over the years to accommodate the country's maturation. The Torah is a source that sustains mankind for millennia, yet it is immutable.

Part of the secret is that the Torah contains so many messages that its teachings are inexhaustible and can speak to every age. Any targum, by contrast, is a man-made product that really cannot be expected to deliver the Torah's message to readers of a different era or a different culture than that of the targum's author(s).

I don't know much about Jewish mysticism, but I have read a book by someone who does—Adin Steinsaltz's The Thirteen-Petaled Rose. Rabbi Steinsaltz explains in that book that angels are messengers with no free will, who merely carry out G-d's instructions.

As for my belief in the resurrection, I frankly confess that I do not even understand the concept. I never knew my father as a child of 10 or a youth of 20. I have known him at age 30, 40, 50, 60, and 70, and G-d willing I will know him at age 75 and beyond. Which of my fathers would be resurrected? And how does resurrection work for widows or widowers who remarry? Do these faithful monogamists become polygamists in the afterlife? (And yes, I recognize that under Catholic canon law such people are properly viewed as bigamists.)

It is often said that there is no coherent Jewish theology. G-d assures us (Deut. 30:11-14) that we can understand the Torah's commandments, but also makes it clear (Ex. 30:20; cf. Job, chapters 38 and 39) that the big picture is beyond our grasp. That's not to say that Judaism has no theology. It has many conflicting and controversial theologies.

One of the most important Jewish theological constructs is the thirteen articles of faith formulated by Maimonides, the Rambam; the last of the bunch affirms a belief in the resurrection of the dead. Here is one take on the subject, and here is another.

As for me personally,

532 evariste:all out of cake now! cake or death?  Fri, Jan 30, 2004 9:14:07pm

#531 Ben F.-your link to Chapter 9 of Kohelet was busted, so I took the liberty of fixing it.

533 Chuck Pelto  Fri, Jan 30, 2004 11:09:47pm

TO: Frank IBC
RE: Contradictions?

"The reason I ask "Just curious - which account of creation do you believe - the one in Genesis 1, or the one in Genesis 2?" is because they contradict each other." -- Frank IBC

How about they are consecutive?

God creates the Universe, the Earth, the land and sea, the plants, the animals and then mankind in Genesis 1.

God makes a special place on Earth and He puts Adam, plants and animals and finally Eve in it, separate from the rest of mankind, in Genesis 2.

The events take place in sequential order.

That's the short of it.

No 'contradiction'.

Do we need to discuss the long of it? Consider where the Neanderthall have gone. And the Cro-magnon. Not to mention all the other plants and animals found in the fossil record but are not on the face of the Earth today.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

534 Ben F  Fri, Jan 30, 2004 11:10:42pm

#532 Evariste--

My, my, one never knows who reads these things. :-)

Thanks for fixing the busted Kohelet link, though you and I both know that Chuck(le) has no use for it. I'm even giving him KJV links for the English text instead of my usual JPS.

To me this is one of the great mysteries. The gap between Chuck(le)'s approach to the Bible and mine is massive. On an abstract level, Judaism and Islam are very close to one another, and very distant from Christianity. On a practical level, though, it is Islam that is the outsider.

Consider the comment of Vezzini in #50 above:

Jews consider themselves G-d’s People. Christians consider themselves G-d’s Children. Moslems consider themselves G-d’s Slaves.

I am guessing that Vezzzini is a Christian, because he is presenting a claim that is not true in a technical sense. For example, if you go back and read the Exodus story, you see over and over that G-d is not freeing the Israelites iso that they may live freely; He is freeing them so that they may serve Him.

The difference between G-d's servant and G-d's slave is more a matter of choice of translation than anything else. I would contend that this is another area where in some sense Judaism is closer to Islam than to Christianity.

In the end, I think that all of the apparent similarities between Judaism and Islam and the apparent differences between Judaism and Christianity may be outweighed by what these religions have to say about the other side of the equation. Judaism posits a direct, intimate relationship between G-d and the individual Jew. It comes through very clearly in the Torah and in the Psalms. Christianity posits a direct, intimate relationship between Jesus and his disciples, as well as between Jesus and today's Christians. And Christianity is very high on the "Old Testament" Psalms and Prophets, which stress communication between mankind and G-d.

But my sense of mainstream Islam is that it is different, in this respect, because Allah is depicted as being distant. In the Bible, G-d speaks to Adam and Eve, and to Noah, an Abraham, and Moses, and later to the Prophets. In the Qur'an, I believe that all communication between Allah and His prophets and messengers is via angelic intermediaries.

Whatever.

G'nite.

535 Chuck Pelto  Fri, Jan 30, 2004 11:16:56pm

P.S. I think it's fascinating that the process in Genesis 1 comes so close to our current understanding of events between what we call the Big Bang and the appearance of mankind on the face of the Earth.

"And the Lord said, 'Let there be light'", indeed.

536 Chuck Pelto  Fri, Jan 30, 2004 11:19:25pm

TO: Ben F
RE: Don't Be So Sure...

"Thanks for fixing the busted Kohelet link, though you and I both know that Chuck(le) has no use for it. I'm even giving him KJV links for the English text instead of my usual JPS." -- Ben F

It's too early in the morning and I've not had my coffee yet to read a tome such as you've posted here of late.

More later...

Regards,

Chuck(le)

537 evariste:all out of cake now! cake or death?  Fri, Jan 30, 2004 11:23:01pm

Ben F.-I'm insomniac tonight; I thought I'd respond. You posit that one of the most characteristic traits of Allah is that he is more distant, in several ways; this is very true. Donald Sensing addressed this ably last year; at the end of the article he links to pieces by Bill Hobbs and Michael Williams. There's no reason to visit the Michael Williams piece, it doesn't say anything that hasn't been said and DS only linked it because MW had beaten him to the commenting on it in the then-current context. The BH piece, though, is as excellent as DS's. Check it out.

538 Chuck Pelto  Fri, Jan 30, 2004 11:29:55pm

TO: Ben F
RE: Servants, Slaves and Children

"Consider the comment of Vezzini in #50 above:

Jews consider themselves G-d’s People. Christians consider themselves G-d’s Children. Moslems consider themselves G-d’s Slaves.

I am guessing that Vezzzini is a Christian, because he is presenting a claim that is not true in a technical sense. For example, if you go back and read the Exodus story, you see over and over that G-d is not freeing the Israelites iso that they may live freely; He is freeing them so that they may serve Him." -- Ben F

I think we're splitting hairs so finely here we'll need to start honing Occam's Razor in a bit, but I try not to handle such sharp objects until I've had more sleep and some coffee. But I will say this...

Everyone, as I understand it is expected to 'serve', be they His "People" or "Children" or "Servant" or "Slave".

I don't think He wants "slaves". If He did, He'd have made us so from the start, with no free will whatsoever.

[Note: I can think of one entity that wants slaves. Can you guess whom that might be?]

More later...

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The honor IS 'to serve'. -- LT Worf]

539 Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus  Sat, Jan 31, 2004 2:02:27am

#530 Evariste - cakeboy (yellowcake, that is)

In a sense, you are correct, I AM attacking a discredited theory. You are also correct that a number of alternate theories have been proposed to replace the original oceanic abiogenesis hypothesis. These theories also suffer from various deficiencies in the science and/or experimentation behind them, however. I addressed some of the more major of these as well in the article which Frank IBC and Thom were disgruntled with.

#529 Frank IBC

YOur mistake is in assuming that the people from a different culture and a different time will necessarily feel it to be imperative to frame their work in the same form as you would, or would have liked for it to have been done.

There's no need for both accounts to be step-by-step records, especially as the focus of the two chapters is not the same. Chapter 1 focuses on the act of creation itself, and the power of God exercised through His spoken Word (hence, why Adam is spoken into existence...the term itself refers as much to the actuation of an intention as it does the actual verbal action). Chapter 2 focuses on man himself, the pinnacle of God's creation. We'll note that there a few things in Ch. 2 that critics usually miss, such as that the calling forth of the various plants and whatnot when God created the garden for Adam is specifically referring to the garden, and is not thus a contradiction with the order given in Ch. 1. Also, the Hebrew structure behind the English translation that says that God "formed" the animals and brought them to Adam is more literally "God had formed", indicating a past event, though it doesn't come out well in the English translation.

540 Thom  Sat, Jan 31, 2004 4:08:47am

#527 Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Good to see that you've admitted that you can't argue the matter, and won't even try.

Hmm. You know - you're a pretty dishonest fellow. I did not "admit" that I cannot argue the matter, I simply stated that I will not.

Now, given that you would twist and turn my words on such a simple matter, what hope do you think I see in having an honest discussion with you on complex issues?

But, your personal dishonesty aside, on an even more fundamental level we have this situation:

Science is wedded, at least in principle, to the evidence. Creationism is unabashedly wedded to doctrine, as evidenced by the statements of belief required by various creationist organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationists. Because creationism is first and foremost a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. Authoritarian systems like creationism tend to instill in their adherents a peculiar view of truth.

[Link: www.talkorigins.org...]

Given that, again - what hope is there for a real discussion?

Now, if I wanted to refute what you're saying, I would start with the second sentence of the article you linked to ([Link: www.studytoanswer.net...] point out that you fucked up the definition of evolution, and conclude that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Evolution, as it is strictly intepreted in technical terms, deals with the suggested mechanisms for the progressive development of more complex lifeforms from simpler ones.

But, like I said, it's pointless to argue with you about this, for the reason noted above. For further evidence, I note that a Biblical literalist can actually "explain" how two different Creation stories can both be true (post #539). Simply amazing. That's the sort of nimble mentality that is immune to any countervailing argument or evidence.

541 Thom  Sat, Jan 31, 2004 5:39:57am

#540 Thom

... point out that you fucked up the definition of evolution, and conclude that you have no idea what you're talking about.

I should have added that the second option is that you do know what you're talking about, but have deliberately chosen to argue against a version of evolution not contemplated by scientists - in which case you are disingenuously setting up a strawman.

542 Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus  Sat, Jan 31, 2004 7:24:17am

Thom

I must admit that you are one of the more poorly informed evolutionists I've dealt with. You think that quoting someone's opinion from talkorigin.org is evidence? Fine, I'll quote someone from icr.org about evolutionists, and we're even.

Of course, in your world, disagreeing with you and presenting counter-evidence is equivalent to having a "nimble mentality that is immune to any countervailing argument or evidence"

Further, what exactly was incorrect about my definition of evolution, in the technical sense (as I specified)?

Evolution, as it is strictly intepreted in technical terms, deals with the suggested mechanisms for the progressive development of more complex lifeforms from simpler ones.

I quote from a page on talkorigins.com

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions." (Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986)

And again,

"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years." (Oxford Concise Science Dictionary)

Sounds a lot like my definition, no? Of course, considering that you think that quoting someone's opinion from a page off of talkorigins.org is "evidence", you apparently are unfamiliar with the definition of that term. I think that you're real deal is that you don't understand what this discussion is even about. You threw out a few "gotcha" posts, typical generalised attacks on creationists, and then when you got called on it to actually provide some evidential support for your statements, you got stuck on the flagpole without the ladder, and are now trying to weasel your way out.

Oh well, since you won't (and can't as the case probably is) even answer my original question to you about Le Chatelier's, I'm going to simply

*tap tap*

count coup on you and be done. You are my trophy.

Now GAZE.

543 Thom  Sat, Jan 31, 2004 7:42:17am

#542 Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Further, what exactly was incorrect about my definition of evolution, in the technical sense (as I specified)?

Because it specifically/intentionally neglects the other aspects mentioned in the quote you found and is therefore unnecessarily restrictive and simplistic. Evolution is not just "from simple to complex" as you would portray it.

Concerning the quote about differing attitudes between evolutionists and creationists, I see that you merely sidestep the issue that the basic reason it is pointless to argue with you is that for you the Bible is taken to be literal and inerrant and therefore scientific evidence is, at best, secondary, and that you will say anything at all in order to preserve your belief. That is why I pasted that quote. It is not evidence of anything at all - it is merely an observation. But you, in your now typically dishonest way, tried to portray the quote in such a way that I offered it as scientific evidence. You sir, are a liar.

Nice try at evasion there, but don't worry - I'll keep bringing it up until you address it or shut up.

At any rate we have yet another chasm to cross:

#540 Thom

#527 Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Good to see that you've admitted that you can't argue the matter, and won't even try.

Hmm. You know - you're a pretty dishonest fellow. I did not "admit" that I cannot argue the matter, I simply stated that I will not.

Now, given that you would twist and turn my words on such a simple matter, what hope do you think I see in having an honest discussion with you on complex issues?

Since you can't surmount your fundamental dishonesty, and chose not even to address it , maybe I'll just leave it here.

Counting coup indeed.

544 Frank IBC  Sat, Jan 31, 2004 7:55:45am

Your mistake is in assuming that the people from a different culture and a different time will necessarily feel it to be imperative to frame their work in the same form as you would, or would have liked for it to have been done.

Not quite sure what you mean by this. It sounds like you are claiming you have a better idea of what the biblical authors were trying to say, than they did themselves.

Someone once said that those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, actually believe in the inerrancy of their own interpretation of it. This is a perfect example of it.

got stuck on the flagpole without the ladder, and are now trying to weasel your way out

Nice mixed metaphor, that one.

545 Chuck Pelto  Sat, Jan 31, 2004 8:44:26am

TO: Ben F
RE: After More Sleep, Some Coffee and a Beer...

"The discrepancy (note that I did not say contradiction) between the Samuel and Chronicles texts on this point may be compared to similar discrepancies in the synoptic Gospels." -- Ben F

Agreed not a contradiction. But a difference. And why?

"And the question in each case is, why did each author choose what to say, and how to say it, and what to omit? For the author has an intention. But it is very hard for us, reading these texts over two millenia after they were written, to "get inside the heads" of those authors. (Especially for those books whose authorship, or even whose date of authorship, is disputed.)" -- Ben F

Possibly. But maybe the author didn't choose to 'omit'. Maybe it was all he could do to remember what he could and pass it on.

In the case of the discrepancy between 2 Sam and 1 Chron we are discussing, I don't see a contradiction. I think I said that earlier. I see differences and I don't think they are mutually exclusive.

The bottom line is that one says there is a Satan and the other doesn't mention him. If neither had mentioned him, you'd have a point with respect to these passages in that Book; there is no such thing as Satan. But as one does; not to mention all the other references I brought forth...

...we get back to a question I asked earlier, "Do you think such an independent and malevolent entity exists?"

All the rest of this tome you provided seems to be avoiding the basic question...

Does Satan exist?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The field behind rhetoric is oft mined with equivocation and obfuscation.]

546 Chuck Pelto  Sat, Jan 31, 2004 8:54:46am

P.S. Weren't you the one who mentioned "shaitan" in the in first place? Claiming he is an 'advocate'? And that the word was Hebrew?

547 Ben F  Sat, Jan 31, 2004 9:01:37am

#537 Evariste--

Yeah! Like I said! (I never claimed that the idea was my own.)

#538 Chuck Pelto--

I think we are all converging on something here. All of the traditions posit free will, and call upon man to choose to serve G-d. But perhaps the difference lies in the relationship.

Is there anything in the Qur'an to compare with Micah 6:8?

He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

Does a slave walk humbly with its Master? I am sure that there are many Muslims who would embrace Micah's vision. But I have no doubt that other Muslims would see blatant blasphemy, and I expect that the latter camp would have less difficulty in finding "surah and verse" to cite in their favor.

You seem to suggest that predestination is incompatible with free will. I disagree. Like many folks of a certain age, I was introduced to Newcomb's paradox decades ago by the inimitable Martin Gardner. Among the many interesting aspects of the problem is that both Gardner and its other most prominent popularizer, the philosopher Robert Nozick, insist that the proper choice is to pass up the big bucks by denying G-d.

This, I think, is what Emerson would call a foolish consistency. I myself am not that principled. :-)

548 Ben F  Sat, Jan 31, 2004 9:36:04am

# 545 Chuck Pelto--

See my ## 409, 531. Judaism is one framework through which I understand my world. Specifically, it's the framework that presupposes a Creator. I do not believe that a celestial being has been drawn to the dark side of the Force and is building an army to overthrow the Creator. I believe that, if there is a Creator, He is the creator of all, and imbued man with both a yetzer hatov and a yetzer hara.

Millions of words can be written (and have been) on the yetzer hatov (inclination towards the good) and the yetzer hara (inclination towards bad or evil), and on the necessity of both. Many argue that Freud derived his theory of personality from this body of thought, and reframed it for a gentile audience. The Interpretation of Dreams—a Septuagint for the 20th century. What a concept.

Do you love Delta blues music? I do. Do you think that Robert Johnson went down to the crossroads and sold his soul to the Devil in order to get his fiery licks? I don't. I think it was a combination of metaphor (cf. the usage in Chron.) and self-promotion.

549 Ben F  Sat, Jan 31, 2004 10:26:32am

#546 Chuck Pelto--

This is a variant of the Hanukkah / Chanuka or Mohamad / Muhammad problem. You are fixating on different transliterations of a semitic root word that appears in many languages, including Hebrew and Arabic, and trying to find meaning where none exists.

In Hebrew the three-letter root for Satan is shin tet nun. The Hebrew glyph for shin can be read as shin (phonetically sh) or sin (phonetically s).

Hebrew is written without vowels.

You say tomato, I say tomahto, you say Satan, I say Shaitan, . . . , Let's call the whole thing off. :-)

I understand that "shaitan" is also the Hindu word for adversary.

550 Chuck Pelto  Sat, Jan 31, 2004 11:01:58am

TO: Ben F
RE: Please...

...answer my question.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The field behind rhetoric is oft mined with obfuscation.]

551 evariste  Sat, Jan 31, 2004 11:31:17am

I'll answer the PS, Chuckle, and I'll let Ben F handle the question of whether he believes Satan exists. From the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, it seeems it is from Hebrew and it does mean adversary.
Ben F.-Oh, I didn't realize you'd read it the same place I had, I thought I was pointing you to more on the same subject! :-)

552 Chuck Pelto  Sat, Jan 31, 2004 11:48:55am

TO: Ben F
RE: Koran vs. Torah vs. Bible

"Is there anything in the Qur'an to compare with Micah 6:8?" -- Ben F

No idea. Is there a Muslim in the house?

"Does a slave walk humbly with its Master?" -- Ben F

Seldom, as far as I know. Most times, they follow or clear the way ahead.

But a 'friend' and a 'child'? Yes. Especially the latter.

Again, I point out that there is one who would have us as slaves.

RE: Predestination

"You seem to suggest that predestination is incompatible with free will. I disagree." -- Ben F

God only knows. But that's not my problem...thank God.

Let's get back to the matter at hand.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

553 Ben F  Sat, Jan 31, 2004 2:06:33pm

#552 Chuck(le) sez:

Let's get back to the matter at hand.Remarkably enough, especially in light of the length of this thread, I think we are on-topic. The matter at hand is, is Allah God. Those who answer by noting that Arabic-speaking Jews and Christians use Allah to refer to the deity are misconstruing the question.

The question is whether the God of the Jewish Tanakh is the God of the Christian Bible is the God of the Qur'an. And if the God of the Qur'an is aloof even from His prophets in a way that the God of the Bible and the Tanakh is not, then one can fairly answer "no" to this question IMHO.

554 Chuck Pelto  Sat, Jan 31, 2004 3:17:04pm

TO: Ben F
RE: Topically Speaking

"The question is whether the God of the Jewish Tanakh is the God of the Christian Bible is the God of the Qur'an. And if the God of the Qur'an is aloof even from His prophets in a way that the God of the Bible and the Tanakh is not, then one can fairly answer "no" to this question IMHO." -- Ben F

Agreed. It's a 'fair cop', as some Brit might say.

Personally, [Note: And I'm still waiting for an answer to my question.] I think they are dealing with that other fellow.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

555 Chuck Pelto  Sat, Jan 31, 2004 3:21:46pm

P.S. The greatest trick Satan pulled was convincing people he doesn't exist.

556 Chuck Pelto  Sat, Jan 31, 2004 3:35:28pm

TO: evariste
RE: Shaitan, Defined

"... it seeems it is from Hebrew and it does mean adversary." -- evariste

Interesting report, that.

I found it to be Arabic, derived, distantly, from Hebrew. [Note: I provided the url earlier in these discussions.] And the root was Hebrew, but in the root was, as it appears in the reference I cited, "satan".

So, I suspect that the old part of the Book does support the idea that Satan exists. As well as the new part. [Note: An important aspect of Christian beliefs and cross-referencing, is to find things in both parts of the Book.]

My concern is over Ben F's identification of Satan as the "advocate". Advocate for what?

Regards,

Chuck(le)

557 Ben F  Sat, Jan 31, 2004 3:48:40pm

## 554, 555--

I can't say you're wrong, of course, but . . .

Why, in your view, would G-d give His angels free will?

558 Chuck Pelto  Sat, Jan 31, 2004 4:08:48pm

TO: Ben F
RE: Why?

"Why, in your view, would G-d give His angels free will?" -- Ben F

For the same reason that He gave it to us. He doesn't want 'slaves'. He wants friends. Even 'children'.

Ever hear the phrase, "It's lonely at the top"? I've witnessed it, in the military. The higher you go in the structure, the lonlier you get. I can imagine what it's like up there. But probably not well enough to do it justice.

Personally?

I suspect it has something to do with the theory of a cyclical universe.

I know we don't have enough data to prove or disprove this theory, but I get the distinct impression that the Big Bang is the 'Let there be light' business and that the "Lake of Fire" is the coalescence of all matter and energy at the end of the cycle.

My personal opinion is that the angels are our predecessors from previous iterations. And they, as we do, have free will. And they, as we, can exercise it at any time.

To not be cast into the 'lake o fire' is to survive the recycle process and take part in the regeneration of the next iteration...as a servant/child of God, i.e., an angel.

Each cycle allows Him to develop something better. Lucifer's pride would not let him bow to a more improved form than his. So he opted-out and went renegade.

He apparently convinced a bunch of others he was right and God was wrong.

The only proof he can offer that he is right is to destroy the Plan.

I suspect that God has had to deal with this sort of situation in the past. Hence the cyclical theory. He can dispose of the riff-raff with each iteration. Keeping the creme of the crop for the next.

Just my thoughts...

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Life is boot camp. We are all expected to go out and be heroes.]

559 evariste:also a dogaholic  Sat, Jan 31, 2004 4:11:01pm

Chuckle-Apparently you don't understand the concept of semitic root-words. Hebrew, Arabic (I speak it fluently) and Aramaic, among a couple dozen other semitic languages, share this same basic structure: three-consonantal root-words, modified into derivative meanings with vowels, prefixes, and suffixes. Sh-T-N and S-T-N are the same word, IE Shaitan and Satan with the vowels left unwritten. That glyph you see when they're explaining the etymology, at the end,

from Hebrew śatan

. Pay attention. The n is the only letter that's actually text, the other letters are all images. The s-acute ś refers to an SH sound, not an S one. Got that?

560 evariste:also a dogaholic  Sat, Jan 31, 2004 4:13:29pm

Damn, lgf doesn't render the html for s-acute. At any rate, it's like the symbol on the e in café but on an s instead.

561 Ben F  Sat, Jan 31, 2004 4:38:10pm

#556 Chuck Pelto--

The only part of the Tanakh where you get any real picture at all of the Satan is in the first two chapters of Job. Job is a very difficult book. The theology is difficult, and so is the language—it contains a greater number of passages whose meaning we can only guess at than any other body of scripture.

In Job, Satan is the accuser, the advocate for the prosecution if you will.

If you click on Satan in my link above, you will find yourself at the corresponding entry in M.G. Easton's Bible Dictionary of 1897. That entry shows clearly that the meaning of Satan is transformed in the New Testament, where it is used as a synonym for Diabolos, the Devil.

I am not going to argue against your religion, at least as long as you don't try to pollute this thread with the kind of garbage that Mark spewed above. My faith rejects the dualism of Zoroaster, and of the New Testament, and of Islam. And I am blessed to live in a country where my right of "free exercise" is protected, no less than the rights of Zoroastrians, and of Christians, and of Muslims.

562 Frank IBC  Sat, Jan 31, 2004 5:03:10pm

Evariste -

Here ya go...

Š š

563 evariste:also a dogaholic  Sat, Jan 31, 2004 5:28:18pm

Frank IBC-Actually that's sort of a u/v-shape, that's not the right one. It's called s-caron. I believe it refers to the thick-s sound, almost a whistle with the tongue bunched in inside the mouth. The one I'm referring to is s-acute, which is the SH sound.

564 evariste:also a dogaholic  Sat, Jan 31, 2004 5:30:07pm

There it is! ?

565 Ben F  Sat, Jan 31, 2004 5:32:14pm

#559 Evariste:

I was trying to figure out how to communicate this to Chuck(le), and this is the best I could come up with:

In English, there are consonant glyphs that can represent more than one phoneme. Even in the same word. Surprise is one example; gorge is another. Concise is a third. Get the point?

The English word Satan comes from a three-letter Hebrew word that you might represent in the Roman alphabet as S-T-N, but you could just as legitimately write it as Sh-T-N because the first Hebrew letter in that word can represent either of these two phonemes. There is an Arabic equivalent that can be transliterated the same way. You are wasting your time trying to draw significance from an illusory distinction between different transliterations into the Roman alphabet of this semitic root word.

However, as noted above and as Elaine Pagels documents quite well in her book The Origin of Satan, the understanding of Satan's role and nature changes quite a bit from the Tanakh to the New Testament and then the Qur'an, and this is one doctrinal point where Islam and Christianity are closer to each other than either is to Judaism.

566 Thom  Sat, Jan 31, 2004 6:08:31pm

I love the Book of Job.

Here is a man, who lost everything, sitting on the side of a road, scraping his boils

1 My soul is weary of my life; I will leave my complaint upon myself; I will speak in the bitterness of my soul.
2 I will say unto God, Do not condemn me; shew me wherefore thou contendest with me.
3 Is it good unto thee that thou shouldest oppress, that thou shouldest despise the work of thine hands, and shine upon the counsel of the wicked?
4 Hast thou eyes of flesh? or seest thou as man seeth?
5 Are thy days as the days of man? are thy years as man's days,
6 That thou enquirest after mine iniquity, and searchest after my sin?
7 Thou knowest that I am not wicked; and there is none that can deliver out of thine hand.
8 Thine hands have made me and fashioned me together round about; yet thou dost destroy me.

And what does G-d say?

Job 38
1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

And Job dared to reply:

Job 42
1 Then Job answered the LORD, and said,
2 I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.
3 Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.
4 Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.
5 I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.
6 Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.
7 And it was so, that after the LORD had spoken these words unto Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath.

Yeah, I'm an atheist. But the Bible is amazing stuff, and, I hope, informs my atheism.

---

Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

If you're still reading this thread, I have to say that I wish I hadn't picked this fight. It was foolish of me.

567 Ben F  Sat, Jan 31, 2004 7:48:04pm

Thom:

Job 42:6 is one of those difficult verses of which I wrote above. It's one of the most critical passages for determining the meaning of the whole book, and it's damnably obscure.

It's nice to be the translator. You get to put your spin on verses like that one, and thereby make the Scriptures your own, and the casual reader is none the wiser.

There are a few books in the Tanakh that you can only read, and shake your head, and wonder at the courage of the sages of old who decided that THIS was scripture. Job is on my short list, right up there with the Song of Songs.

If you are a fan of William Safire, or even if you are not, I heartily recommend his book "The First Dissident," a meditation on the dynamics of dissent, and of the idea of speaking truth to power, that uses Job as its central text. Safire takes issue with the Rabbinic view that Job is a sufficiently depressing book that it may be studied, along with Lamentations, on the darkest day on the Jewish calendar. But then, wrestling with the text is what we (at least we Jews, like Safire) are supposed to do, no? Just as Job struggles with G-d.

There's a joke there too; Job was a gentile, but how many Biblical figures can you think of who are more worthy of the title "Israel"?

568 Thom  Sat, Jan 31, 2004 8:24:59pm

#567 Ben F

I appreciate the power of the translator. In my case, I developed some knowledge of Paali so that I could read the Buddhist scriptures in their original language.

{That skill is completely irrelevant on LGF of course.}

But, Job.

Concerning 42:6

Job is not arrogant, neither is he an abject slave.

He is a Man, questioning his Creator. And his Creator, recognizing that he is a Man, and His Creation, does not coddle him, but gives him a completely honest answer.

Where were you when I created the Universe?

That is the sort of relationship I would expect between G-d and Man.

Questioning and answering. And I would fully expect the answer to the most profound question to be the least satisfying (on first glance!!) to Man.

G-d put us here, in the midst of a profound Universe. How can Man not question Him?

569 Ben F  Sat, Jan 31, 2004 9:44:37pm

Thom--

You call the speech from the whirlwind a completely honest answer?!?!?!?!?

Have you forgotten the first two chapters? G-d wipes out Job's family, and subjects him to the cruelest punishment, and for what? A caprice? A whim? To show up Satan? Somehow G-d leaves these little matters out in His speech from the whirlwind. Job will die without ever understanding what had happened to him, or why.

Instead of explaining Himself, G-d tries to browbeat Job into withdrawing Job's demand for an explanation. Job's response is enigmatic. Is Job submitting? Hard to say. Certainly he recognizes G-d's power. But it is not clear whether he accepts the "explanation" as satisfactory, or merely concedes that he lacks the resources to press the issue further.

Perhaps that is the true point of 42:6—the response was intended by Job to be ambiguous to the point of unfathomability. It allows both G-d and Job to save face, hold onto their dignity, and move on. Perhaps Job's wise response to G-d is what G-d rewards in the end.

And as for your comment:

That is the sort of relationship I would expect between G-d and Man.

Questioning and answering.

I am with you. But I am not so sure about the Qur'an.

See Surah Hud, verses 74-76

570 Chuck Pelto  Sun, Feb 1, 2004 8:10:57am

TO: evariste
RE: No Concept

"Apparently you don't understand the concept of semitic root-words." -- evariste

There are a lot of things I don't understand. What's your point?

RE: Spellings

"Sh-T-N and S-T-N are the same word, IE Shaitan and Satan with the vowels left unwritten." -- evariste

Where I come from, if it's spelled differently, it's a different thingie.

[Note: Yes, we're a 'simple' people, but things seem to work better that way. Personally, I like the KISS principle; Keep It Simple, Stupid. However, all too often, I encounter people who insist on transposing the Ss.]

Furthermore, I, again, point out my reference (above).

RE: Renderings R Us

"Damn, lgf doesn't render the html for s-acute. At any rate, it's like the symbol on the e in café but on an s instead." -- evariste

As I was saying...

RE: The Bottom Line...

...is that, according to the source I cited (above), Shaitan is Arabic. It is derived from Hebrew, which used "Satan".

But that's hardly the point. The point is that Satan (or Shaitan) is hardly an 'advocate' I'd care to retain.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

571 Chuck Pelto  Sun, Feb 1, 2004 8:51:13am

TO: Ben F
RE: On the Job...

"The only part of the Tanakh where you get any real picture at all of the Satan is in the first two chapters of Job. Job is a very difficult book." -- Ben F

...business...

Yes, that's the most descriptive or illuminating presentations of him in the old part of the Book.

Not the only part he is mentioned, as we've discussed already, albeit you and Frank IBC don't accept Throbert's marvelous fisking of the idea that 'the serpent' in Genesis, is nothing more than your every-day variety of talking snake. [Note: I'd like to see yours sometime. We don't have them in my world.]

RE: Business is Tough

"The theology is difficult, and so is the language—it contains a greater number of passages whose meaning we can only guess at than any other body of scripture." -- Ben F

Think THAT'S bad? Try Revelation. [Note: I've got some ideas, if anybody's interested.]

RE: Easton's Dictionary

"If you click on Satan in my link above, you will find yourself at the corresponding entry in M.G. Easton's Bible Dictionary of 1897." -- Ben F

Thanks for the link. I've bookmarked it for future reference.

"That entry shows clearly that the meaning of Satan is transformed in the New Testament, where it is used as a synonym for Diabolos, the Devil." -- Ben F

Not really. It shows that the new part of the Book pays more attention to him than does the old part. Not that he was 'transformed'. He's doing the same sort of things in the old part as is reported in the new part.

Again I call the question...

...Do YOU think there is such an entity?

Regards,

Chuck(le)

572 Ben F  Sun, Feb 1, 2004 11:53:48am

#571 Chuck(le):

See my #548.

But just in case you are having trouble with that—

No. No Devil.

On my rational side, it's not required by Occam's Razor.

On my spiritual side, it's not integral to Jewish scripture. If we had needed to know about the Devil, HaShem would have told us about him through His prophets.

The fact that the enemies of the Jews routinely invoke the Devil against the Jews reinforces both of the above points. Because there is no ambiguity about them folk.

573 Frank IBC  Sun, Feb 1, 2004 12:40:32pm

Chuck(le) -

Ah, but I DO accept Throbert's "marvelous fisking", as I am in total agreement with his position. And I think he would be very surprised to learn that he is somehow in disagreement with mine, as we are both saying essentially the same thing, that the snake was a snake was a snake was not "The Devil".

Not sure why you thought otherwise?

Re Evariste's point -

I think the point you keep missing, is that the "S" and the "Sh" are THE SAME LETTER.

שׁ and שׂ in Hebrew

ﺲ and ﺶ in Arabic.

Just as Hebrew and Arabic are rarely written with vowel signs, the little dot which distinguishes "Sin" and "Shin" in Hebrew, is frequently omitted. Thus one spelling can have multiple pronunciations.

Thus, the Hebrew word is written

נּטּשׂ

(without the little dots that MS Word is forcing me to include; also the Nun is the wrong form for its position at the end of the word) regardless of whether it is pronounced "Sahtahn",Shaytan", "Shawtoon". "Showtune" or whatever.

574 Chuck Pelto  Sun, Feb 1, 2004 4:25:57pm

TO: Frank IBC
RE: Really?

"Ah, but I DO accept Throbert's "marvelous fisking", as I am in total agreement with his position. And I think he would be very surprised to learn that he is somehow in disagreement with mine, as we are both saying essentially the same thing, that the snake was a snake was a snake was not "The Devil"." -- Frank IBC

I took Thorbert's comments, en toto, to mean it was Satan.

Or, please show me your talking pet snake. Or, better still, point out where I can find one on display in the National Zoo in Washington DC.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

575 Chuck Pelto  Sun, Feb 1, 2004 4:31:21pm

TO: Ben F
RE: Answers, Plain and Simple

"No. No Devil." -- Ben F

Thanks,

RE: On the Wild Side

"On my spiritual side, it's not integral to Jewish scripture." -- Ben F

Must be a remarkably different book from what I'm understanding. You even mention his mentioning in Job and other places.

But yet you say he doesn't exist.

Interesting...

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. When you finally meet him, or one of his minions, say "Hello" for me.

576 Ben F  Sun, Feb 1, 2004 5:31:31pm

#575 Chuck(le)--

Christianity reads much back into the Old Testament that Judaism does not regard as being present in the Tanakh, or, if present, as not having the significance that Christianity ascribes.

Neither religion can refute the other, because they operate from fundamentally different premises. Yet because of their significant shared principles, the two can coexist and complement each other.

Nothing new here.

577 Thom  Sun, Feb 1, 2004 5:40:41pm

#569 Ben F

Yes, I think it was an honest answer.

Of course, I look at the Universe as an impersonal sorta thing where it is perfectly reasonable that some good people suffer, and some wicked people prosper. Of course, it's also the case that some good people prosper and some wicked people suffer.

And if G-d created such a universe, then ...

I think G-d in the whirlwind was pointing out to Job that he was being an arrogant, self-centered ass. :)

578 Chuck Pelto  Sun, Feb 1, 2004 5:55:35pm

TO: Ben F
RE: Yeah...

"Christianity reads much back into the Old Testament that Judaism does not regard as being present in the Tanakh, or, if present, as not having the significance that Christianity ascribes." -- Ben F

...but even you say that Satan is in there, in Job and elsewhere.

You just refuse to accept it.

But don't worry. You're in 'good' company. I know lots of people who don't accept things that are in the new part of the Book either, I mean people that say they believe in God in the first place. They just like to pick and choose which passages they'll accept and which they won't.

People don't seem to change very much, do they. And, indeed, I think there's a lot written in the old part of the Book that describes that sort of problem.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The more things change, the more they remain the same. Today, they just remain the same much more rapidly.]

579 evariste  Sun, Feb 1, 2004 5:56:22pm

Wow, this thread is still going on? Crazy.
#565 Ben F and #573 Frank IBC better explained my own point for me; thanks, you two!
TO: Chuckle
RE: This stupid shit...
Please don't address me with this bizarre format, talk to me like everyone else does. I don't want to see TO: evariste, it just makes me think, "this guy is stupid, why is he doing this?"
We're not emailing each other, nor are we sending corporate memos around-we're posting comments on a blog. I think the existing conventions suffice, somehow the rest of us have no problem understanding each other without pretending we're emailing each other.
Thanks.
Regards,
Chuckleevariste
PS-the PSes are even worse.
Ben F, I think Chuck is unwilling to accept the idea that Christianity has a Satan and Judaism doesn't, necessarily. I'm not sure he can be dissuaded, at this point.

580 Chuck Pelto  Sun, Feb 1, 2004 6:15:10pm

TO: Evariste
RE: Is That All?

"Please don't address me with this bizarre format, talk to me like everyone else does. I don't want to see TO: evariste, it just makes me think, "this guy is stupid, why is he doing this?"" -- Evariste

Sorry your team lost...or whatever that burr is you got under your saddle.

I do it because it's a good habit I got into, years ago. Precise communications. With all the fur flying about, sometimes things can get a tad confusing. This sort of communications, formating the text to address precisely who it is intended for and quoting the material appropriate to the discussion, helps...some people. Including guys who are 'stuuupid'. You know...like me.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Eschew obfuscations, anon!]

581 Frank IBC, Abu Satan = Showtune  Sun, Feb 1, 2004 6:23:38pm

#574 Chuck Pelto:

I took Thorbert's comments, en toto, to mean [the Serpent] was Satan.

You might want to read his #481, particularly the last paragraph re Rudyard Kipling's Just So Stories

#579 Evariste

I think Chuck is unwilling to accept the idea that Christianity has a Satan and Judaism doesn't, necessarily.

And, judging from his comment re Throbert, he seems unwilling to accept the idea that Atheists don't have a Satan, either.

582 Chuck Pelto  Sun, Feb 1, 2004 6:24:52pm

P.S. Friendly dissuassion...

"Ben F, I think Chuck is unwilling to accept the idea that Christianity has a Satan and Judaism doesn't, necessarily." -- Evariste

Let's see if I get this right.

The old part of the Book mentions Satan several times. Ben F has even pointed out such mentionings. And yet, you and Ben F say that in spite of his name being mentioned, he doesn't exist.

There's some interesting pretzels of logic in there, to be sure. And I'd sure like to hear something a bit more concrete than, what I've heard to date; strange scrawlings that don't come across well via copy-and-paste.

I'd rather hear how it is that you ignore your own text. Not things that make me start honing Occam's Razor and feeling like Alexander before the Gordian Knot.

So you don't think Satan exists. Okay. I've meet people that don't think God exists. But, at least they have the good sense not to try to explain away His existance by using that Book.

Yes, you've got an up-hill battle on your hands, trying to convince me that there is no such thing as Satan. He's in the Book, for one thing. But that's not your biggest problem here. It's kind of hard to dissuade someone of something they've personally experienced.

Sleep tight...

[There ARE things that go 'bump in the night'.]

583 Frank IBC, Abu Satan = Showtune  Sun, Feb 1, 2004 6:30:41pm

#580 Chuck Pelto:

Actually a more concise and efficient format for replying is to include the post number, the poster's name, and the text of his/hers you are quoting set off either by italics or blockquote. That way it's much easier to tell who is saying what, particularly if you're replying to multiple posts or replying to a single post line by line, "fisking" style.

584 Chuck Pelto  Sun, Feb 1, 2004 6:32:03pm

TO: Frank IBC
RE: That Last Part...

"You might want to read his #481, particularly the last paragraph re Rudyard Kipling's Just So Stories." -- Frank IBC

...it's a 'killer'!

You mean this?

"But the original text can be likened to one of Rudyard Kipling's Just-So stories -- in all probability, the writer had no "prophetic" intent; G-d's curse on the serpent simply serves to explain why snakes are what they are." -- Thorbert

What's the matter? You can't see the sarcasm in here? After a whole post of sarcastic fisking of Ben F's idea?

You guys are a hoot.

I suspect that a factor in your unwillingness to recognize Satan is because of the promise God made after the fruit business about how the snake/satan's seed would bruise the heels of Eve's seed but that her seed would bruise the snake/satan's head, i.e., Christ.

Probably explains why Christians are much more sensitive to Satan than you guys are. [Note: And I do appreciate all this discussion. It has improved my understanding of all that text written in that Book.]

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[A clash of doctrine is not a disaster. It's an opportunity...to learn. Stupid as we may be...]

585 Thom  Sun, Feb 1, 2004 6:32:09pm

#580 Chuck Pelto

I dunno, Chuck. I had much the same reaction to your memo format when you first started posting here, and I still do.

By all means, be different - vive le difference! But it does strike at least some others as, well, odd.

---

HARTMAN: Then you did that on purpose! You want to be different!

PYLE: Sir, no, sir.

{HARTMAN slaps PYLE hard across the left cheek.}

HARTMAN: What side was that, Private Pyle?!

PYLE: Sir, left side, sir!

HARTMAN: Are you sure, Private Pyle?

PYLE: Sir, yes, sir!

{HARTMAN slaps PYLE hard across the right cheek, knocking his cap off}

HARTMAN: What side was that, Private Pyle?

PYLE: Sir, right side, sir.

HARTMAN: Don't fuck with me again, Pyle! Pick up your fucking cover!

586 Frank IBC, Abu Satan = Showtune  Sun, Feb 1, 2004 6:33:35pm

I think Evariste meant to say "Christianity has a DEVIL and Judaism doesn't, necessarily."

587 evariste  Sun, Feb 1, 2004 6:34:30pm

#580 Chuckle, two things: One, I asked you not to address me that way, it's rude of you to go right ahead and do so anyway. Fine, be an ass. By the way, my team won; that has nothing to do with my annoyance at you using the metaphors of email on a blog's comments. And your claim that it clarifies things when the fur is flying is dubious at best; by saying #580 Chuckle I instantly clarified not only who I'm talking to but also what I'm talking about. As for quoting, do you see the "Quote" link above the comment box? It surrounds the material you wish to quote with html blockquote tags. That is how we're used to seeing quotes. It makes sense, and it's part of the metaphor-system that already exists for web sites; a totally different universe than email.
#581 Chuckle, here, this is a Judaism FAQ, including this FAQ entry regarding Satan (ha-satan), among other phenomena. I'll quote it, but read it for yourself anyway:

HaSatan: the Challenger (he- is a prefix meaning "the"), the angel who serves God by giving man challenges that he must resolve in the right way. Making the choice of good over evil a choice. This is different than the Christian notion of Satan and the Devil.

PS-notice how quoting works here? Yes, it's very different than email.

588 evariste  Sun, Feb 1, 2004 6:35:51pm

#586 Frank IBC, you're right, of course!

589 Chuck Pelto  Sun, Feb 1, 2004 6:36:11pm

TO: Frank IBC
RE: Numbers, Names and Text, Oh My...

"Actually a more concise and efficient format for replying is to include the post number." -- Frank IBC [#583]

I can add numbers. But it's easier to type in names. Not used to finding numbers in the dark, by the light of the monitor.

Time to hit the hay.

Later,

Chuck(le)
[Hell is empty and all the devils are here. -- Diversity Training Workshop facilitator]

590 Thom  Sun, Feb 1, 2004 6:39:41pm

Wait a minute ...

Chuck, are you a Paradise Lost fan?

I love that poem too ...

---

...
Say first, for Heav'n hides nothing from thy view
Nor the deep Tract of Hell, say first what cause
Mov'd our Grand Parents in that happy State,
Favour'd of Heav'n so highly, to fall off
From their Creator, and transgress his Will
For one restraint, Lords of the World besides?
Who first seduc'd them to that fowl revolt?
Th' infernal Serpent; he it was, whose guile
Stird up with Envy and Revenge, deceiv'd
The Mother of Mankinde, what time his Pride
Had cast him out from Heav'n, with all his Host
Of Rebel Angels, by whose aid aspiring
To set himself in Glory above his Peers,
He trusted to have equal'd the most High,
If he oppos'd; and with ambitious aim
Against the Throne and Monarchy of God
Rais'd impious War in Heav'n and Battel proud
With vain attempt. Him the Almighty Power
Hurld headlong flaming from th' Ethereal Skie
With hideous ruine and combustion down
To bottomless perdition, there to dwell
In Adamantine Chains and penal Fire,
Who durst defie th' Omnipotent to Arms.
Nine times the Space that measures Day and Night
To mortal men, he with his horrid crew
Lay vanquisht, rowling in the fiery Gulfe
Confounded though immortal: But his doom
Reserv'd him to more wrath; for now the thought
Both of lost happiness and lasting pain
Torments him; round he throws his baleful eyes
That witness'd huge affliction and dismay
Mixt with obdurate pride and stedfast hate:
At once as far as Angels kenn he views
The dismal Situation waste and wilde,
A Dungeon horrible, on all sides round
As one great Furnace flam'd, yet from those flames
No light, but rather darkness visible
Serv'd only to discover sights of woe,
Regions of sorrow, doleful shades, where peace
And rest can never dwell, hope never comes
That comes to all; but torture without end
Still urges, and a fiery Deluge, fed
With ever-burning Sulphur unconsum'd:
Such place Eternal Justice had prepar'd
For those rebellious, here their Prison ordain'd
In utter darkness, and their portion set
As far remov'd from God and light of Heav'n
As from the Center thrice to th' utmost Pole.
...

591 Frank IBC, Abu Satan = Showtune  Sun, Feb 1, 2004 6:39:57pm

Chuck Pelto -

I'll let Throbert speak for himself when he returns, but I seriously doubt that either Ben F or I were the object of his fisking. I think you might try reading it literally, instead of inferring an irony that isn't there, to support your notion that Serpent = Shaitan = The Devil.

592 Chuck Pelto  Sun, Feb 1, 2004 6:46:06pm

TO: Thom
RE: Hartman?

"{HARTMAN slaps PYLE hard across the left cheek.}" -- Thom

Hartman never slapped anybody, as far as I can recall. He may have been a madcap cavalry officer, when I knew him as the ACofS G3 at 4ID(M), but he was never THAT abusive. Besides, we had nobody by the name of PYLE in the shop, as I recall. Sure...a lot of them were duffous sorts. One of them was even kept locked in the 'closet' with the WWMCS machine. It was for his own good.

Now, I REALLY must say good-night.

Tomorrow, guys and goys...

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Don't worry. I've been abused by the best.]

593 Frank IBC, Abu Satan = Showtune  Sun, Feb 1, 2004 6:50:27pm

#584 Chuck Pelto:

God made after the fruit business about how the snake/satan's seed would bruise the heels of Eve's seed but that her seed would bruise the snake/satan's head, i.e., Christ.

Again, you are analyzing this from a Christian perspective. Again, I have no problem with your individual religious beliefs, but please STOP trying to push the notion that this is the ONLY POSSIBLE interpretation. It's deeply insulting to non-Christians.

On the other hand...it sounds like you're saying that Christ = snake/satan's head = The Devil's Head, which is quite an interesting twist on things.

594 Thom  Sun, Feb 1, 2004 6:55:38pm

#592 Chuck Pelto

Umm, apologies ... I was referring to Full Metal Jacket ...

One of my favorite movies, and now that my dear wife got it for me on DVD, I foresee many quotes in the future ... so if it gets irritating, please, y'all, tell me.

595 Frank IBC, Abu Satan = Showtune  Sun, Feb 1, 2004 7:11:01pm

Thom -

LOL - I thought it was Gomer Pyle! (Couldn't remember the Sarge's last name from that.)

596 Ben F  Sun, Feb 1, 2004 7:55:45pm

I read Chuck(le)'s postings, and I say to myself, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

And I sense that he reads mine and says the same.

And what, I wonder, does Asmodeus, from his perch in Pandemonium, make of it all?

<grin>

597 its jake  Sun, Feb 1, 2004 11:40:27pm

what exactly does "eerily calvinist" mean?

its jake : (expectorates acid)

598 Frank IBC, Abu Satan = Showtune  Mon, Feb 2, 2004 2:05:27am

#596 Ben F -

If he's intentionally misinterpreting what Throbert said, he's not just stubborn, he's dishonest as well.

599 Chuck Pelto  Mon, Feb 2, 2004 7:05:45am

TO: Frank IBC
RE: Careful...

"If he's intentionally misinterpreting what Throbert said, he's not just stubborn, he's dishonest as well." -- Frank IBC

...that sword you're wielding has two edges.

I don't think I'm misrepresenting Throbert's hilarious send up of the idea that there are 'talking snakes' on the face of the earth. [Note: I've yet to see you guys provide proof of their existence.]

So if there are no such things as talking snakes, then what is that snake in Genesis, other than a supernatural entity?

RE: A Matter of Perspective

As for addressing the matter from the Christian perspective, what would you expect? I should disavow God and Christ? Heaven forbid!

However, let's put the shoe on your feet. How is it that you guys go through such gyrations to say there is not such a critter as Satan, when he's mentioned directly and indirectly throughout the pages of the Book you recognize.

I see the text in there. You see the text in there. I accept the text. You reject it.

If my bafflement as to how you manage to do this is an 'insult', what can I say?

As for the idea that 'there can be only one' explanation, well...if the proffered explanations don't make sense, what can be done? Logic says you look for other explanations. Ones that satisfy the questions. That means there could be more than one explanation, but please, do try to offer those that don't leave such gapping holes; talking snakes, "yes, the name is in there, but we don't accept it", "it's in there, but it's not what it means, it's what we think it means".

TO: Thom
RE: Hartman

Full Me(n)tal Jacket.

Just got it on DVD, but haven't watched it in years. It zipped right over my head. I'll have to watch it again soon.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

600 Frank IBC  Mon, Feb 2, 2004 7:54:15am

Just as you're distorting what Throbert is saying, you're distorting what I and several others are saying.

You are suggesting either that I believe in talking snakes, or that I believe that Throbert believes in them. Again, you're totally misinterpreting we wrote. We are simply arguing that the Serpent in Genesis was simply INTENDED BY THE AUTHOR to be a serpent, not as Satan (Old Testament/Tanakh interpretation), Satan (New Testament interpretation) or "The Devil".

I never said there was no "Satan" in the Old Testament/Tanakh. (The only one who said that was Evariste, and he admitted (in #588) that he meant to say "Devil".)

What I DID say is that there is no DEVIL, in the CHRISTIAN SENSE, in the Old Testament/Tanakh.

To repeat (for the umpteenth time) "Satan" in the Old Testament/Tanakh is a very different one than the concept of "Satan" in the New Testament. An angel acting as a prosecutor and a purely evil entity competing directly with G-d are diametrically opposing concepts, can you not see that?

For someone who prides himself on his religious beliefs, you're amazingly dishonest, or at the very least, capable of extreme self-deception. I'd hate to think that your faith is based on nothing more than your ability to deceive yourself.

601 cba  Mon, Feb 2, 2004 9:36:38am

TO: Chuckles
RE: Satan

Many years ago, when I was a student at a prestigious university, I had a conversation about religion with a fellow student. During the course of the conversation I said to her, "Jews believe you don't have to join Judaism in order to be 'saved'," to which she replied: "In that case it's not a real religion."

I was flabbergasted that an apparently intelligent person could be guilty of such a lapse in logic. She was saying, "My religion believes that you have to join it to be saved, so if your religion doesn't believe the same thing about itself then it's not a real religion."

You are making the same mistake. "Christianity believes that "Satan" means "Devil," so when Jews read "Satan" [or, as it's pronounced in the original Hebrew, sah-TAHN] they must also understand it to mean "Devil" because that's my understanding of the word."

No, the meaning of the Hebrew word is "adversary," which is the meaning understood in Judaism. The meaning of the English word is based on the Christian understanding.

Regards,

cba(le)

602 PIGLET  Mon, Feb 2, 2004 10:26:20am
Then there is Howard Dean, who recently revealed his intention to talk more about Jesus (saints, preserve us). Campaigning in Iowa, Dean was asked his favorite New Testament book. "Job," he responded, joking that he has recently identified with Job's travails (he didn't say if he identified with Job's loss of his children, property and farm animals or Job's boils and sitting on a dung heap).


After apparently discovering in his hotel room Gideon Bible that Job is not in the New Testament, but in the Tanach, Dean corrected himself. Matthew, Mark, Luke and Job? Sounds right, doesn't it? Hey, we're not talking Dan Quayle and potatoe vs. potato here. Most reporters don't care about religion, especially when a Democrat is theologically off base. Even the New York Times columnist William Safire, of Jewish background, weighed in on this one, saying some rabbis believe the end of Job was "added" later to make G-d look just. This is getting too deep for me.

[Link: www.jewishworldreview.com...]

603 Throbert McGee  Mon, Feb 2, 2004 10:30:35am

Did someone summon me? Let me scroll up and see what I can do...

604 PIGLET  Mon, Feb 2, 2004 10:47:44am

One Rabbi's opinion.

[Link: www.outreachjudaism.org...]


For the Jewish faith, Satan’s purpose in seducing man away from God poses no problem because Satan is only an agent of God. As a servant of the Almighty, Satan faithfully carries out the divine will of his Creator as he does in all his tasks.

Satan is one of the many angels mentioned in the Bible. It is worth noting that the Hebrew word for angel is malach, meaning “messenger.” The same is true for the English word angel, derived from the Greek word angelos, which also means “messenger.” Throughout the Bible, an angel is a messenger of God who carries out the divine will of the Almighty. There is not one example in the Jewish scriptures where any angel, Satan included, opposes God’s will.

In no part of the Bible is this more evident than in the Book of Job. In the first chapter of Job, Satan appears with other angels before God and suggests that Job’s steadfast faithfulness would not withstand personal pain and utter destitution. Satan then requests from God the chance to test Job’s virtue. The Almighty grants this request, but He meticulously outlines for Satan what he may and may not do when putting Job to the test. Satan obediently follows his Creator’s instructions. Job is immediately put to the test and, by the third chapter, begins to struggle. He questions his Maker as to why he was created and, in a moment of despair, wishes aloud that he had perished in his mother’s womb. Still, by the end of this unparalleled biblical narrative, Job’s virtue prevails over Satan’s unyielding torment.

605 Ben F  Mon, Feb 2, 2004 12:37:42pm

#600 Frank IBC--

In a thread that is already spinning out of control based on twists in meaning, let me note that I use "Tanakh" to refer to the 24 books of the Jewish Bible, and "Old Testament" to refer to those books (divided differently, ordered differently, interpreted differently, and invariably presented only in translation) in their setting in a Christian Bible. I do not believe that I am unique in drawing this distinction.

I would not presume to argue whether the Old Testament's snake in the garden is Lucifer. As for the Tanakh, I would argue against it. Which is not to say that you could not find a midrash to support it. This is not a new controversy; see Avot 5:9: "Ten miracles were created on the eve of the first Sabbath: [list of ten]; some also include the evil spirits . . ."

606 Chuck Pelto  Mon, Feb 2, 2004 12:43:31pm

TO: Frank IBC
RE: Dishonest?

"For someone who prides himself on his religious beliefs, you're amazingly dishonest, or at the very least, capable of extreme self-deception. I'd hate to think that your faith is based on nothing more than your ability to deceive yourself." -- Frank IBC

I suspect you are projecting here.

Besides, I don't pride myself on much of anything. I can't afford that kind of folly.

As for what my faith is based on...

...if you hadn't seen it posted here or elsewhere, it's based on personal experiences where He's saved my life, on two occassions (as far as I can recall); one screaming out of a night sky with a malfunctioning parachute and another in a tangle with an 18-wheeler at interestate speeds. On both occassions, just three words, spoken in my 'ear' told me exactly what I needed to do to save my life. Plainly as if the speaker were right there, 100 feet above the ground or sitting in the passanger's seat behind me. In both instances, I got up from the wreckage and walked away.

Then there are the occassions where I've had to 'deal' with those characters from the other camp. And they were none to friendly.

As I intimated earlier, it's an uphill fight to convince me that what I've personally experienced is 'wrong'.

We live in a marvelous world and there is much more to it than meets the eye.

TO: cba
RE: Adversary?

"No, the meaning of the Hebrew word is "adversary," which is the meaning understood in Judaism. The meaning of the English word is based on the Christian understanding." -- cba

I see nothing wrong with that term applied to Satan. What's your point? Or don't you understand christian thought?

I can call Satan "adversary", "devil", "old serpent", "snake" or "dragon" and they all apply.

I see where Frank IBC says the word is in the old part of the Book, that's a step in the right direction.

TO: Frank IBC
RE: Talking Snakes

"You are suggesting either that I believe in talking snakes, or that I believe that Throbert believes in them. Again, you're totally misinterpreting we wrote. We are simply arguing that the Serpent in Genesis was simply INTENDED BY THE AUTHOR to be a serpent, not as Satan (Old Testament/Tanakh interpretation), Satan (New Testament interpretation) or "The Devil"." -- Frank IBC

I suggest that Throbert does not believe in talking snakes any more than I do. I suggest that the only explanation for the snake to talk, when Adam had plenty of other animals about, none of which spoke, was that it is not a mere snake. Now you can claim it's just a Christian understanding, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

There's something odd about a talking snake, especially when no other animals in the area, other than Adam and Eve, are 'talking'.

My take on the AUTHOR'S INTENT is to make a point that this is not just some silly talking snake, like every other talking snake crawling on the face of the earth.

RE: An Aside

What's your take on Lucifer? Are he and Satan the same?

Regards,

Chuck(le)

607 cba  Mon, Feb 2, 2004 1:02:56pm

To: Chuckles
Re: Don't be so bloody patronizing

Yes, I understand Christian thought. You, however, seem perfectly incapable of understanding that Judaism does not have the same thought. I understand that Christians consider the Hebrew term sah-TAHN to refer to the Devil; Jews do not.

608 Frank IBC  Mon, Feb 2, 2004 1:08:51pm

Ben F -

Yes, I realize that the Tanakh and the "Old Testament" are not one and the same, but I just included the latter term as a quick-and-dirty translation for Christians on this thread who might not know what "Tanakh" means.

Re Lucifer - I would argue that "Lucifer" is another person entirely from the three already discussed (the Talking Serpent in the Garden, Satan of the Tanakh, and the Christian "Devil") - see my #440.

Chuck Pelto -

How is the talking snake more "odd" than the talking donkey in the story of Baalam?

609 Frank IBC  Mon, Feb 2, 2004 1:22:47pm

Ben F -

Please note that my translation of "Lucifer" in my #440 was not correct, it should have been "Helel", not "Ayalet Ha-Shahar"; both refer to the morning star. The fading of the morning star following the rise of the sun most likely is an allegory to the collapse of Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar's rule over Israel.

610 Chuck Pelto  Mon, Feb 2, 2004 1:35:48pm

TO: Frank IBC
RE: Baalam's Ass

"How is the talking snake more "odd" than the talking donkey in the story of Baalam?" -- Frank IBC

Are you suggesting that all donkey's can talk? Or only those that are possessed of something supernatural?

If Baalam's ass can talk why don't all do such? Or is there something 'odd' about it? If so, what? If it's because it's been endowed with something special why is that?

So why not the snake in Eden? Obviously not your everyday common 'garden snake'. If not, why not?

RE: Lucifer

"Re Lucifer - I would argue that "Lucifer" is another person entirely from the three already discussed (the Talking Serpent in the Garden, Satan of the Tanakh, and the Christian "Devil") - see my #440" -- Frank IBC

I can understand that. After all, it's a different name. However, I understand Lucifer as just another name for Satan, before the fall described in Isaiah. Their conduct is, as I see it, vis-a-vis Job, the same.

So you of a mind that Lucifer is what? A man? An angel?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Another reason I am a hard case to sell on the idea that Satan is a mere agent of God, is seeing prophecy fulfilled. Anybody here speak Ukrainian? Please translate Chernobyl...to English.

611 cba  Mon, Feb 2, 2004 1:47:18pm

To: Chuckie
Re: Is your interpretation the only valid one?

Have you yet managed to assimilate the fact that Jews do not consider sah-TAHN to be the Devil?

Note that I do not in any way challenge your belief that Satan = Devil; that's Christian theology, and that's fine for Christians. However, that's not what Jews believe. All I'm looking for is an acknowledgement that Jews have a different understanding of the term--I'm not asking you to agree with the Jewish understanding.

612 Thom  Mon, Feb 2, 2004 2:06:51pm

He's on to the "Wormwood" thing.

For Christians, Satan=Devil=Serpent=Lucifer.

613 Frank IBC  Mon, Feb 2, 2004 2:13:47pm

Chuck Pelto -

Are you suggesting that all donkey's can talk? Or only those that are possessed of something supernatural?

Arguing that a talking Serpent is possessed of something supernatural is one thing. Arguing that this is proof that the Serpent and the Christian Devil are one and the same, is completely different. One does not prove the other.

Do you believe Baalam's Ass was the same as the Christian Devil?

Lucifer is what? A man? An angel?

Please go back to my #609 for your answer - it's right there, in the last two lines.

"Chernobyl" (Actually "Chornobyl" in Ukrainian) means Wormwood. But the nuclear reactor was not hit by a meteor, it melted down from within.

Are you sure that you and Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus are two different people?

614 Frank IBC  Mon, Feb 2, 2004 2:20:23pm

Ben F, cba -

Do either of you have a Tanakh in Hebrew right in front of you?

In the "Lucifer" passage in Isaiah (14:12-15), the last verse is, in English

Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell...

I'm curious about the Hebrew word which is translated as "Hell". Is it "Sheol"? If so, that has a very different spin...

615 Ben F  Mon, Feb 2, 2004 4:08:41pm

#613 Frank IBC (Hmmm, interesting number there!)--

My Artscroll Tanakh gives the same text as at sacred-texts.com, except that the sacred-texts version "swallows" the dashes in el-sheol and el-yark'tei-vor.

Sheol is also the term used in verses 9 and 11, as you can confirm from the above link.

616 cba  Mon, Feb 2, 2004 4:13:35pm

To: Chuck(le)
Re: I'd like an answer to my question in #611

617 Frank IBC  Mon, Feb 2, 2004 5:10:30pm

#615 Ben F -

You are referring to אֶלשְׁא& #1493;ֹל ? I am anything BUT fluent in Hebrew - I assume "el-" is a preposition?

IIRC, "She'ol" doesn't actually mean "Hell" in the Christian sense, but simply "The Underworld"/"Realm of the Dead"?

Like I said, this changes the whole meaning of that passage, for those who have previously read it from a Christian perspective.

Rather than "Lucifer cast out of Heaven into Hell", a more accurate translation might be

"How art thou fallen out of the Sky, O Morning Star, son of the morning...yet though shalt be brought down to the land of the Dead..."

Very different, just as the Serpent and Shatan are different from The Devil

613? That has something to do with the Qabalah, doesn't it?

618 Ben F  Mon, Feb 2, 2004 5:10:34pm

#616 cba--

Maybe Chuck(le) is trying to find a tactful way to point us to 2 Cor. 3:14-15.

I wonder whether he knows (or cares) that the Qur'an has a parallel passage?

619 cba  Mon, Feb 2, 2004 5:12:48pm

I'd just like him to answer the question. He's so steadfastly missing the point. I guess I shouldn't worry if he's so determined to be an idiot.

620 Frank IBC  Mon, Feb 2, 2004 5:15:20pm

On second thought, I think this would be more accurate, in terms of the movement described:

"How art thou fallen out of the Sky, O Morning Star, son of the morning...yet though shalt be brought down to the Underworld..."

621 cba  Mon, Feb 2, 2004 5:20:04pm

So, guys, do we think the doll-come-to-life has retired for the night, or will he make a return appearance and answer my @#$! question?

622 Ben F  Mon, Feb 2, 2004 5:21:46pm

#617 Frank IBC--

613, the "taryag," is the traditional reckoning of the number of commandments contained in the Torah.

Don't expect to find a universally accepted list though; it's not that simple.

623 cba  Mon, Feb 2, 2004 5:26:16pm

#622 Ben F:

it's not that simple.

LOL! When is it ever simple?!

624 Chuck Pelte  Mon, Feb 2, 2004 5:32:21pm

Ah, now I understand what you're saying - that Christians believe that Satan = Devil, but Jews believe something different. I'm sorry it took so long for me to grasp this concept.

625 Frank IBC  Mon, Feb 2, 2004 5:34:33pm

Had you going there for a second, huh? ;)

626 Thom  Mon, Feb 2, 2004 5:41:50pm

#624 Chuck Pelte

Are you Chuck Pelto, or someone pretending to be him?

{Take it away, Uglycat}

RRRAAAOOORRRWWW!!! Frank IBC, I'll be plopping a few "extra flavor" nuggets in your morning coffee tomorrow. RRRAAAOOORRRWWW!!!

627 evariste  Mon, Feb 2, 2004 5:47:13pm

ROFLMAO, cba, Thom, Frank IBC, you guys are killing me!
Wait, I mean,

TO: cba, Thom, Frank IBC
RE: you guys...
are killing me!
Regards,
evariste(le)
PS-ROFLMAO!

BTW, Ben F., erudite as always!

628 cba  Mon, Feb 2, 2004 5:53:07pm

Frank!!! Yes, you had me going--I was thinking, "Gee, braniac, that's exactly what everyone's been telling you for xxx many posts now. I guess it's good you finally got it, but honestly, how slow can you be?"

Then I noticed the typo in the name. Then I noticed it was formatted like a normal person would. Then I noticed the following post.

Frank, sweetie, I say this with great love and affection: pthhht!!

Uglycat [are you related to Phoebe's Smelly Cat?], I second what you said.

629 cba  Mon, Feb 2, 2004 5:54:59pm

TO: Chuckles
RE: My post #611

I don't want you to miss the question in my post #611, which has since been followed by many other posts.

Please answer it at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,

cba

CC: Everyone else reading this thread.

Enc: None.

630 Uglycat  Mon, Feb 2, 2004 5:58:58pm

#628 cba

RRRAAAOOORRRWWW!!! Don't try to get on my good side. I don't have one. And I think I buried Phoebe's Smelly Cat under a pile of gravel after my morning constitutional. RRRAAAOOORRRWWW!!!

631 cba  Mon, Feb 2, 2004 6:00:31pm

#627 evariste:
LOLOLOL!

Regards,

cba(le)

P.S. The (le) reminds me of another story... (sit down and make yourselves comfortable, kids).

Several years ago my uncle told us that my cousin Judith was nearly named Janet. But then they remembered the elderly uncle who called everyone by the diminiutive of their name, by adding "el" or "leh" to the end of the name. You know the drill--Yankel became Yankeleh, David became Dovidel, etc.

So they knew that if they called her Janet the uncle would call her... Janet-el.

(Say it quickly with a Yiddish accent)

632 Thom  Mon, Feb 2, 2004 6:11:35pm

#631 cba

OK, it took me a minute or two, but I finally got it.

So, I'm guessing there aren't a lot of Jewish girls named Janet?

dB^)

633 Chuck Pelte  Mon, Feb 2, 2004 6:27:36pm

TO: cba
RE: Janet

"Several years ago my uncle told us that my cousin Judith was nearly named Janet. But then they remembered the elderly uncle who called everyone by the diminiutive of their name, by adding "el" or "leh" to the end of the name. You know the drill--Yankel became Yankeleh, David became Dovidel, etc."

I can understand that. After all, it's a different name. However, as I understand Judith is just another name for Janet. Their conduct, vis-a-vis the elderly uncle, is the same.

So you are of a mind that Janet is what?

SAAATAAAN?!?!?!?!?

Regards,

(up)Chuck

P.S. Another reason I am a hard case to sell on the idea that Judith is a mere agent of the elderly uncle, is seeing prophecy fulfilled. Anybody here speak Japanese? Please translate Janet-el...to English.

634 evariste  Mon, Feb 2, 2004 6:58:47pm

cba-le, you're cracking me up! I love that extra touch with the CC: and the Enc:!
Anyway, actually this is sort of serendipitous that you bring this up because as soon as I typed evaristele I remembered something I had read last night that made me think of you. I told you that I've been reading this book about Yiddish, right? I'm just gonna type the story in from my book, I can't do it justice by paraphrasing:

In the Cold War era, as open hostilities between the United States and the Soviet Union became a real possibility, Stalin, always obsessed with the Jews, began to fret anew about their international allegiances. Once again Yiddish became suspect. Jewish institutions were shut down, and Jews learned to keep quiet about their background.
The establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 complicated the loyalty issue even more. Jews like Markish who had actively worked for the Communist dream, as well as Jews who had simply put up with the Soviet system, were jolted by the existence of a real Jewish state. Now they had a focus for their longing and their discontent.
The Israelis made a brilliant coice by sending, as their first ambassador to the Soviet Union, the Russian-born Golda Meir. When she arrived in Moscow, she made a point of attending services at the one remaining synagogue. Afterward, walking home, she wrote, "I hadn't gone very far when an elderly man brushed up against me in a way that I knew at once was not accidental. 'Don't say anything,' he whispered to me in Yiddish. 'I'll walk on, and you follow me.' When we were near the hotel, he suddenly stopped, turned around to face me, and standing there on that windy Moscow street, he recited the thanksgiving prayer, Shehehiyanu."
The prayer, in Hebrew, is recited when one wants to thank God for bringing the speaker to an auspicious occasion. The contact had been made in Yiddish. Together, the two languages still formed the Jewish bond.
Later, Meir attended Rosh Hashanah services. Despite warnings that circulated among Moscow Jews about the dangers of being seen in a Jewish context in public, fifty thousand people jamme the streets. Meir wrote:
I felt as though I had been caught up in a torrent of love so strong that it had literally taken my breath away and slowed down my heart. I was on the verge of fainting, I think...
Out of that ocean of people, I can still see two figures clearly: a little man who kept popping up in front of me and saying, "Goldele, lebn zolst du. Shana Tova!" (Goldele, a long life to you and a Happy New Year), and a woman who just kept repeating, "Goldele! Goldele!" and smiling and blowing kisses at me.

Stuck in a cab unable to make any headway against the crowd, Meir recalled,

I wanted to say something, anything, to these people, to let them know that I begged their forgiveness for not having wanted to come to Moscow and for not having known the strength of their ties to us...But I couldn't find the words. All I could say, clumsily, and in a voice that didn't even sound like my own, was one sentence in Yiddish. I stuck my head out of the window of the cab and said, "A dank eich vos irh seit geblieben Yidden" (Thank you for having remained Jews), and I heard that miserable, inadequate sentence being passed on through the enormous crowd as though it were some wonderful prophetic saying.

Anyway, thought you'd like that. Oh, the part that made me think of you: as I was reading I figured out that the -ele suffix must be an endearment in Yiddish so I tried it on your first name, and mine (I won't mention either but they are unwieldy for those of you that don't know our names) trying to figure out how it would be pronounced. I couldn't wrap my mouth around them, Goldele sounds "right" but I think our names are just too multisyllabic!

635 evariste  Mon, Feb 2, 2004 7:00:15pm

Frank IBC, ROFL! This is too much. My sides are split.

636 Ben F  Tue, Feb 3, 2004 1:47:08am

#627 evariste--

Erudite, am I? Heh.

Some folks make it up as they go along. I learn a good deal of what I post while I am composing my posts. I always like to find links to support what I am posting. Sometimes the links I find don't say what I thought they would, and I adjust appropriately.

Y'all are my Torah study group. :-)

637 cba  Tue, Feb 3, 2004 3:01:24am

I have to do this again, because my question has ONCE AGAIN become buried... (OK, I know I'm largely responsible for that, but don't change the subject!)

TO: Chuckles
RE: My post #611

I don't want you to miss the question in my post #611, which has since been followed by many other posts.

Please answer it at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,

cba

638 Chuck Pelto  Tue, Feb 3, 2004 6:57:39am

TO: cba
RE: And Your Point Is...

"Have you yet managed to assimilate the fact that Jews do not consider sah-TAHN to be the Devil?" -- cba

Yes.

...what?

Regards,

Chuck(le)

639 cba  Tue, Feb 3, 2004 7:08:44am

Hooray! The great Chuckles has finally got it!!!

Gosh, that was painful... I think from now on I'd be better off simply scrolling past Chuckles the Clown's posts. He's not worth the effort.

OTOH, I had a lot of fun with the rest of you guys.

640 Chuck Pelto  Tue, Feb 3, 2004 7:12:49am

TO: Thom
RE: The Wormwood Thing

"He's on to the "Wormwood" thing." -- Thom

On the nosey.

It probably would just be considered "coincidence" except for another one of the blahsted personal experiences...

I heard the Wormwood thingie on a PBS special. [Note: Oddly enough 7 months after I became a REAL christian.]

I was reading a book with PBS on the TV in the background and the narrator of the special about the accident comes on and says, "Chernobyl. Wormwood. That star of apocalyptic import." One of those 'red star clusters' went off in my head and I got up and read the book, looking for that business about Wormwood. Found it right away. [Note: Without the aid of a concordance.] And read it and said, "What would a man of the First Century do to communicate to his contemporaries a vision of a runaway nuclear reactor?"

Two days later, I was at the center, doing an RST, and talking to a member of the Armor team about the invasion of Kuwait, which had occured the other day.

[Note: Tankers are a funny lot. They are enamoured of armor. Pictures of combat vehicles and other things festoon the walls of their offices.]

We were trying to figure out what our response to the invasion would be. As the discussion moved along, I 'zoned out'. When I came back into focus, I heard that little voice again, "This is the 'locust'." I was staring at a poster of an AH64.

I asked Steve, a devote Morman, if he had a bible handy. He did and we looked at the report of those strange 'locust' in Chapter 9. Steve used to fly such things. And line-for-line, the description in the Book matched our understanding of the aircraft.

And it says they fly for five months and then there is a big war in the Euphrates river valley.

My specialty is logistics and having done two tours with the 82d, I knew their playbook pretty well. We figured that Bush I would commit to sending troops to protect Saudi Arabia the coming week. The 82d, which is always geared to go within 24 hours of notification, would have it's DRB in place within a week, along with its contingent of AH64s. That would put them on station by mid-August of 1990.

So then, the 'locust' are flying in mid-August. If our analysis is correct, we'd see a war in the Euphrates in five months. You got fingers? You do the math...

When did the shooting war, GWI begin? I even stated the hour that hostilities would commence to my minister, in September of '90.

So, if prophecy is correct in the new part—and I doubt if all the people around here say there is no such thing as prophecy in the old part—the new part must be as attested.

Just my personal experiences...things that convince me that my understanding is better than some others.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Coincidence: When God works a miracle and doesn't get the credit.]

641 Chuck Pelto  Tue, Feb 3, 2004 7:18:04am

TO: Frank IBC
RE: Baalam's Ass vs. the Serpent

"Arguing that a talking Serpent is possessed of something supernatural is one thing. Arguing that this is proof that the Serpent and the Christian Devil are one and the same, is completely different. One does not prove the other.

Do you believe Baalam's Ass was the same as the Christian Devil?" -- Frank IBC

So are you now saying that talking donkey's are a common occurence?

Make up your mind, Frank. Please...

Why did Baalam's donkey speak? Because it was just your perfectly everyday donkey with nothing unusual going on? And all donkeys can talk? Like the one with Eddie Murphy's voice in Shrek?

You keep evading the point. That's not my problem. That's your problem.

The point is that your everyday animal does not talk. You don't care for that, that's your problem.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

642 cba  Tue, Feb 3, 2004 7:30:53am

Frank, don't bother anymore. I find it amusing* that he says you're missing his point when he's missing yours in quite a spectacular fashion. And yet he believes that his understanding is so much better than ours.

*well, not so much amusing as laugh-out-loud ridiculous. Chuckles chose his name well--with every post he's proving himself to be a total bozo.

643 Frank IBC  Tue, Feb 3, 2004 7:47:37am

Chuck Pelto -

So are you now saying that talking donkey's are a common occurence?

Make up your mind, Frank. Please...

I would like to respond to this, but it's very difficult given that I can't quite figure out WHAT THE HELL YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

These were my earlier statements:

1) The authors of the Bible wrote a story in which there is a serpent. It talks, according to the authors.

2) The authors of the Bible wrote a story in which there is a donkey. It talks too, according to the authors.

From these, you apparently have made two completely idiotic conclusions:

1) That I, Frank IBC, believe that ALL DONKEYS AND SERPENTS TALK (or are capable of talking).

2) That either of these premises is PROOF that The Talking Serpent is the same as the Christian Devil.

644 Frank IBC  Tue, Feb 3, 2004 7:54:04am

Karl Marx (not that I'm a fan of his) is famous for saying "religion is the opiate of the people".

But of course he lived before LSD was discovered in 1943...

Religious mysticism taken to extremes really is a form of escapism, just like drugs.

645 Frank IBC  Tue, Feb 3, 2004 8:00:53am

cba -

See the "Wormwood" link in my #613. He's made similar performances in other circuses.

I'm still thinking about your observation about dogs running away in Saskatchewan a few days ago (you can see them for 3 miles) and laughing MAO, even though that would increase the heartbreak were it actually to happen that way...

646 cba  Tue, Feb 3, 2004 8:28:43am

#645 Frank IBC:
OMFG!!! That is too funny! Thanks for directing me back to that link. Jon Darby sure tried valiantly, didn't he?

I love that the clown thinks it's significant that one translation into English says "Wormwood" with a capital W rather than "wormwood," even though (as Jon pointed out) there are other appropriate translations of the word. (Reminds me of the joke whose punchline is something like, "If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!")

I'm still chuckling [sic] over his comment in #570

Where I come from, if it's spelled differently, it's a different thingie.

in response to evariste and others trying--oh, so patiently!--to explain the difficulties of transliterating from one alphabet to another. I wonder what he would make of the alternate spellings Czar/Tzar/Tsar. Obviously that means there were three different types of Russian rulers before the revolution, all ruling concurrently. (Hmm, a trinity? More proof that Chuckie's right!!!)

There's an awful fascination with watching someone who thinks they're so much smarter than the rest of us demonstrating their complete inability to get the point of anyone else's argument. He just totally misses it. I'm sure it's his basic personality, but I suspect it's aggravated by the fact that he's "found the truth" (to refer to that Havel quote that, IIRC, you sourced for me). Since his viewpoint is correct, everything must be understood from that viewpoint and no other.

Re: dogs in Sask (please excuse the formatting!)
It's not an original joke by any means (although I did add the "Westie" comment all on my ownsome). I heard it within the first year or two of moving to Manitoba. BTW, did you see the Manitoba reference in the weekend Foxtrot cartoon a few weeks ago? The youngest (Jason?) was building snow things that began with Man. Most of them were labelled (Snow Mandible, etc.), but the last one wasn't. We 'Tobans immediately recognized the shape of our province, but I doubt many other people did.

647 Frank IBC  Tue, Feb 3, 2004 8:50:12am

The interesting thing is that the Ukrainian word is actually "Chornobyl" rather than "Chernobyl".

Where I come from, if it's spelled differently, it's a different thingie.

;)

648 cba  Tue, Feb 3, 2004 8:56:48am

#647:
LOL!

649 Chuck Pelte  Tue, Feb 3, 2004 9:02:02am

TO: cba

RE: Foxtrot

"Manitoba reference in the weekend Foxtrot cartoon a few weeks ago? The youngest (Jason?) was building snow things that began with Man. Most of them were labelled (Snow Mandible, etc.), but the last one wasn't. We 'Tobans immediately recognized the shape of our province, but I doubt many other people did."

Nothing begins with Man. Everything begins with Jesus.

But I can understand that. After all, it's a different name. However, as I understand Mandible is just another name for Manitoba. Their conduct, vis-a-vis the snow, is the same.

So you are of a mind that Manitoba is what?

SAAATAAAN?!?!?!?!?

Regards,

(up)Chuck

P.S. Another reason I am a hard case to sell on the idea that Manitoba is a mere agent of Satan, is seeing prophecy fulfilled. Anybody here speak Metis? Please translate Manitoba...to English.

650 Frank IBC  Tue, Feb 3, 2004 9:26:55am

Revelation (along with the rest of the New Testament) was written in Greek (of course this further complicates comparison of the New Testament to the Tanakh/Old Testament.)

The Greek name of the star in question is "Apsinthos", which is the Greek word for "Wormwood". But how do we know it wasn't actually referring to "Absinthe"? Maybe the star poured Absinthe into the water and got everyone blind stinkin' drunk?

Well, it makes about as much sense as comparing a meteor falling into a body of water, to a nuclear reactor meltdown, doesn't it?

651 evariste  Tue, Feb 3, 2004 9:33:20am

Frank IBC, LMFAO!

652 evariste  Tue, Feb 3, 2004 9:37:38am

Anyway, bad timing on my part- I was LMFAO at your #s 647 and 649.

653 Chuck Pelte  Tue, Feb 3, 2004 9:59:23am

TO: evariste
RE: 647 and 649

"Anyway, bad timing on my part- I was LMFAO at your #s 647 and 649."

I can understand that. After all, it's a different number However, as I understand 650 is just another name for 647 and 649. Their conduct, vis-a-vis Frank IBC's humor, is the same.

So you are of a mind that 650 is what?

Regards,

(up)Chuck

P.S. Another reason I am a hard case to sell on the idea that 650 is a mere agent of Frank IBC's humor, is seeing prophecy fulfilled. Anybody here speak Gibberish? Please translate 650...to English.

654 evariste  Tue, Feb 3, 2004 10:03:42am

(up)Chuck, you're my favorite Chuck P!

655 cba  Tue, Feb 3, 2004 10:18:30am

Frank, I'd closed this thread because it's sooo long and slow, but evariste emailed me your latest contributions. I was howling so loudly that it's a good job no-one else is here (I work from my office at home--which is why it's just too damned easy to goof off at LGF, damn Charles's moustaches). So I came back. And I'm sobbing with laughter. You really are great!

My favourite:

Nothing begins with Man. Everything begins with Jesus.

You are sooo witty!

Now to answer your not-serious question with a serious answer. "Manitoba" comes from "Manitou" (sometimes called "Gitchi-Manitou"), which means "the Great Spirit"; it's generally considered to mean "where the Great Spirit dwells"--the Great Spirit does not refer to the third part of the Trinity. Unless you're Chuckles, of course. In which case that's the only possible explanation.

And "Winnipeg" means "muddy waters." Which, if you've seen the Red River once it's travelled north this far, you would understand.

656 evariste  Tue, Feb 3, 2004 10:35:44am

Okay, speaking of Chuck Ps, Chuck Palahniuk (Fight Club author guy) reads this incredibly disgusting short story he wrote called Guts. Apparently people faint and vomit during the readings. In fact you can hear people vomiting during the mp3 that you should not download and listen to under any circumstances! OK, I warned you. You can't say I didn't. That said, it's also really fucking funny, I never once stopped laughing and it didn't gross me out as much as it apparently does other people.

657 Frank IBC  Tue, Feb 3, 2004 10:40:19am

cba -

Glad I could add a little warmth to the freezing weather up there.

"where the Great Spirit dwells"

Hmmm...sounds an awful lot like "Where He Causes His Name To Dwell"...

I hope for His sake that He has a winter house in Florida, though...

If "Winnipeg" refers to water, then I guess "Winni" is a cognate of "Minni", which is an Indian word present in several American place names which means water?

And NO, "Minnehaha" does NOT mean "Laughing Waters", no matter how many people actually think that.

658 Frank IBC  Tue, Feb 3, 2004 10:45:25am

One final comment on Wormwood/Chernobyl -

Vodka of course played a major role in that disaster - so...

Chernobyl = Wormwood = Absinthe = Vodka

659 cba  Tue, Feb 3, 2004 10:53:10am

Frank, you're great, but this thread is way too long and I think we might be slowing up the entire site. I'd love to have your email address, if that's OK with you. Would you email me at my lgf addy? If you do, please tell me you have on THE MOST RECENT thread. I don't normally check my lgf account unless I'm expecting an email.

As for the freezing weather--it's still freezing, but it's warmed all the way up to -22C (feels like -30C/-25F with the windchill). As I said to someone the other day when it was "only" -20C/-4F, it's pretty sick when we think that -20C is an improvement.

But thanks for the belly laughs, and I hope we can communicate by email.

660 piglet  Tue, Feb 3, 2004 11:28:09am
But of course he lived before LSD was discovered in 1943...


By Albert Hoffman author of: LSD mein Sorgenkind. :-)

661 Chuck Pelto  Tue, Feb 3, 2004 1:25:23pm

TO: Frank IBC
RE: What the Hell...

"I would like to respond to this, but it's very difficult given that I can't quite figure out WHAT THE HELL YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT." -- Frank IBC

Yes you do.

It's about talking animals.

I cite that snake and say it's talking is an indication that it's more than a mere snake.

You cite Baalam's ass and say seem to indicate, although you aren't specific, that if a donkey can talk, so can a snake.

I reply that both talking animals are not 'natural'.

You avoid the concept of 'super-natural' activity.

So I ask you to show me your talking ass and/or talking snake.

And in reply, you give me this...

"These were my earlier statements:

1) The authors of the Bible wrote a story in which there is a serpent. It talks, according to the authors.

2) The authors of the Bible wrote a story in which there is a donkey. It talks too, according to the authors." -- Frank IBC

You want to fall back on 'authors intent'? Okay...

I again ask you to show me the everyday talking snake, and now...a donkey too.

If there are no such creatures in your care, or the care of the National Zoo in Washington DC, I suggest that the authors are telling you the truth, that the snake and/or the donkey did talk, but only because there was something supernatural about them; the effort of God and the effort of that other guy.

RE: The Form of My "Idiocy"

"From these, you apparently have made two completely idiotic conclusions:

1) That I, Frank IBC, believe that ALL DONKEYS AND SERPENTS TALK (or are capable of talking).

2) That either of these premises is PROOF that The Talking Serpent is the same as the Christian Devil." -- Frank IBC

If you can't produce a talking snake, please explain how that one in Genesis 'talked'. Something other than that 'black box' you call 'authors intent', please.

If you can't produce a talking donkey, please explain how that one of Baalam's 'talked'.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[For the power of paradox opens your eyes, and blinds those who say they can see. -- Michael Card, in God's Own Fool]

662 Chuck Pelto  Tue, Feb 3, 2004 1:32:49pm

TO: Frank IBC
RE: Spelling Matters...

"The interesting thing is that the Ukrainian word is actually "Chornobyl" rather than "Chernobyl"." -- Frank IBC

And the name of the city near the mouth of the Euphrates is Abaddan, not Abaddon, as found in Revelation 9.

But I guess peoples wouldn't have any sort of, even slight, change in their language over a 2000 year period...right? Language never changes...

That's why we English types all speak ancient Roman Latin these days, except for the elites, who speak Greek. And the Jews still speak Aramaic, right?

Regards,

Chuck(le)

663 Chuck Pelto  Tue, Feb 3, 2004 1:37:54pm

TO: Frank IBC
RE: Stars & Names Thereof

"The Greek name of the star in question is "Apsinthos", which is the Greek word for "Wormwood". But how do we know it wasn't actually referring to "Absinthe"? Maybe the star poured Absinthe into the water and got everyone blind stinkin' drunk?" -- Frank IBC

How do we know? Perhaps because the town of Chernobyl was established before they started naming towns after famous people. And it's named for the most commonly found form of flora around it, wormwood.

And, if you'll observe in the new part of the Book, Revelation 8, it's in there in a proper noun form. Not the common noun form.

"Well, it makes about as much sense as comparing a meteor falling into a body of water, to a nuclear reactor meltdown, doesn't it?" -- Frank IBC

Are you now suggesting that this ball o dirt has never been hit by a meteor? And you call me an 'idiot'?

I think you're projecting again.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

664 Fnord IBC  Tue, Feb 3, 2004 1:45:34pm

TO: Knuck(le)head Pesto
RE: Your proposition...

"So I ask you to show me your talking ass and/or talking snake." -- Knuck(le)head Pinto

Are you hitting on me?

(Wary) Regards,
Frank(le) IBC

665 Chuck Pelto  Tue, Feb 3, 2004 2:38:28pm

TO: Frank IBC
RE: Hits?

"Are you hitting on me?" -- Frank IBC

No. The distaff would not approve.

RE: Naming of Names

So how come the denigrative comments? Are you reverting to the Lawyer's Third Rule?

When the facts are against you, argue the law.
When the law is against you, argue the facts.
When the facts and the law are against you, call the other side names.

RE: Back to the Point

You can neither show me any talking animal, snake or ass, and you cannot explain the 'authors intent'.

So, what are you left with? Other than calling 'the other side names'?

Nada...

Regards,

Chuck(le)

666 Chuck Pelto  Tue, Feb 3, 2004 2:41:35pm

P.S. Frank IBC, if some bozo is trying to imitate you, I apologize for my reply (immediately above).

667 Fnord IBC  Tue, Feb 3, 2004 2:59:42pm

Click my name, I'm not Frank IBC.

668 Frank IBC  Tue, Feb 3, 2004 3:26:34pm

So I ask you to show me your talking ass and/or talking snake.

I'll be charitable and assume for the sake of argument that I am the one who is having trouble expressing myself, rather than the obvious, that you are deliberately trying to avoid understanding my points.

To FURTHER clarify my previous posts:

PREMISES:

1) The authors of the Tanakh/"Old Testament" wrote a story in which there is a serpent (Genesis 2). It talks, according to the authors. To my knowledge, the authors did not describe in intimate detail the activities of any other snake, throughout the Bible. However, I doubt that they would intend this story to suggest that they believed that the average run-of-the-mill snake was given to eloquent conversation.

2) The authors of the Tanakh/"Old Testament" wrote a story in which there is a donkey (Numbers 22). It talks too, according to the authors. There are many instances of donkeys in the Bible, but to my knowledge, this is the only one the authors of the Bible reported that actually talks.

3) Since the authors of the Bible say that there are a limited number of talking animals, it can be assumed that the authors of the Bible believed that talking animals are somewhat unusual, but nevertheless existed in limited numbers.

4) There is an entity described in the New Testament and continuing through Christian tradition, called "The Devil".

CONCLUSIONS:

1) The authors of the Tanakh/"Old Testament" believed in talking animals.

2) The authors of the Tanakh/"Old Testament" thought that such talking animals, while they existed, were unusual.

3) *I*, Frank IBC, make no claims about the existence of talking animals. *I*, Frank IBC, am simply reporting my observations on what the authors of the Tanakh/"Old Testament" wrote and believed.

4) From #1-3, there is no evidence that the authors of the Old Testament/Tanakh believed that the Talking Serpent and the Christian Devil were one and the same.

Are you now suggesting that this ball o dirt has never been hit by a meteor?

This is called "Confusion of a necessary with a sufficient condition".

if you'll observe in the new part of the Book, Revelation 8, it's in there in a proper noun form. Not the common noun form.

You have come to this conclusion based on the fact that in your edition of the Bible (in English), the first letter of "Wormwood" is capitalized. However, capitalization did not exist when Revelation was written (IN GREEK). This is wishful thinking on your part.

But I guess peoples wouldn't have any sort of, even slight, change in their language over a 2000 year period...right? Language never changes...

Now this is amusing, given your denial of the possibility of a shift in pronunciation of the Hebrew word "Shatan". You're dancing all over the place.

669 Frank IBC  Tue, Feb 3, 2004 3:51:53pm

#666 Chuck Pelto -

Nice number.

#667 -

I could smell your Extra-Large Magic Panties a mile away.

;)

670 Frank IBC  Tue, Feb 3, 2004 4:26:56pm

#570 -

"Sh-T-N and S-T-N are the same word, IE Shaitan and Satan with the vowels left unwritten." -- evariste

Where I come from, if it's spelled differently, it's a different thingie.

#662 (same author) -

And the name of the city near the mouth of the Euphrates is Abaddan, not Abaddon, as found in Revelation 9.

But I guess peoples wouldn't have any sort of, even slight, change in their language over a 2000 year period...right? Language never changes...

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson

671 cba  Tue, Feb 3, 2004 5:10:50pm

Frank, I admire your persistence, but you know that it ain't gonna do any good. Remember: "If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!"

He must be unilingual to be so convinced that his translation of the Bible is the only possible English version. The "Wormwood" versus "wormwood" thing on the other board (your link) was what had me laughing so hard I was crying.

Do you think he believes that the Bible was written in English? Or does he just think there is a one-to-one correspondence between all words and expressions in different languages?

672 Frank IBC  Tue, Feb 3, 2004 5:28:24pm

You're right, he has absolutely no clue how to interpret anything outside of the framework of the English language. So what if the Bible was actually written down in very different languages. Note that he's baffled by my mention of the Greek language used in the Revelation verse:

"The Greek name of the star in question is "Apsinthos", which is the Greek word for "Wormwood". But how do we know it wasn't actually referring to "Absinthe"? Maybe the star poured Absinthe into the water and got everyone blind stinkin' drunk?" -- Frank IBC

How do we know? Perhaps because the town of Chernobyl was established before they started naming towns after famous people. And it's named for the most commonly found form of flora around it, wormwood.

It would appear that he thinks "Absinthe" is a "famous person".

Also, it appears that he has never read the verses in Genesis which mention Haran, the patriarch, and the city named after said patriarch.

673 evariste  Tue, Feb 3, 2004 5:35:24pm

Frank IBC-

It would appear that he thinks "Absinthe" is a "famous person".

LOL! I think it's even worse than that! He quotes you saying

Maybe the star poured Absinthe into the water and got everyone blind stinkin' drunk?"

You have the patience of a...um, really patient fellow, I must say. I basically gave up that he would really try to understand anything he was told a while back, and decided to devote myself entirely to mockery and egging-on ;b

674 cba  Tue, Feb 3, 2004 5:40:43pm

Hi, Mr. Smarty-Pants! Yes, I agree that Frank IBC is amazingly patient. Or maybe he's part Westie?!

Guys, you are great and I thank you for the wonderful fun! Hmm, spoze I have to thank the animated doll as well, since if he weren't around to mock none of this would have been possible.

Although I still feel a certain sadness at such a degree of self-importance and stupidity demonstrated in one person.

675 Frank IBC  Tue, Feb 3, 2004 5:51:43pm

OMG, did he think that I was talking about "star" as in "pop star"??? If this is true, OMFG!!!

676 cba  Tue, Feb 3, 2004 6:24:13pm

#675 Frank IBC:
I missed that the first time round, but I think you're right. He's even stupider than I thought. And that's saying something. Chuckle really is a shmuckle.

I pity "the distaff" (his post #665). Imagine having to live with him {shudder}. Although I guess she'd have to be pretty stupid herself to marry him. Unless he got worse after he found religion (assuming he was married prior to that).

Yuk, I'm sorry I brought it up...

677 Chuck Pelte  Wed, Feb 4, 2004 5:35:26am

TO: Fnord IBC
RE: Your proposition...

"Are you hitting on me?" -- Fnord(le) IBC

I can understand that. After all, it's a different lifestyle. However, as I understand "hitting on you" is just "is that a talking snake or are you just happy to see me". Their conduct, vis-a-vis the lifestyle, is the same.

So you are of a mind that "hitting on you" is what?

Regards,

(up)Chuck

P.S. Another reason I am a hard case to sell on the idea that I am hitting on you, is seeing prophecy fulfilled. Anybody here speak Puntango? Please translate "hitting on you"...to English.

678 Ewaristo  Wed, Feb 4, 2004 6:28:42am

Eeeek!

679 Chuck Pelto  Wed, Feb 4, 2004 1:59:22pm

TO: Frank IBC
RE: Hey, Bro!

"I'll be charitable and assume for the sake of argument that I am the one who is having trouble expressing myself, rather than the obvious, that you are deliberately trying to avoid understanding my points." -- Frank IBC

I have such problems myself. I attribute them to being wacked in the head with a baseball bat at 4 (my first ever try at the game, walked into the follow-through of a swing) and then taking up jumping out of perfectly good airplanes in flight. [Note: I suspect a strong desire to recreate that interesting sensation.]

I miss a lot of things. But I never lie. I may be misinformed and suffer from 'speed read', but I am not 'dishonest'.

As God says to Job, "Come. Let us reason together."

RE: #666

"#666 Chuck Pelto -

Nice number." -- Frank IBC

Yeah. Rather interesting 'coincidence' that. Maybe Someone has tagged Mr. "extra large magic panties".

Funny how those things turn out...not the panties, that is.

RE: Premises & Conclusions

An interesting presentation. Let me think on it, i.e., allow it to purcolate through this limestone core I refer to as a brain.

More on it, tomorrow...

Regards,

Chuck(le)

680 Ben F  Wed, Feb 4, 2004 6:34:21pm

Chuck(le):

G-d's words to Job are FAR stronger than "come, let us reason together." Your phrase is usually associated with Yeshayah (that's Isaiah to you).

681 Frank IBC  Thu, Feb 5, 2004 5:39:49am

Ben F -

You mentioned previously that Job was not Jewish. I am not intimately familiar with that book - what nationality was he?

And were there ANY Jews mentioned in that book?

I'm curious because the more I read it, the more the G-d of that book sounds like the Demiurge of Gnostic traditions.

682 Ben F  Thu, Feb 5, 2004 9:51:44am

#681 Frank IBC--

I dunno. There is a tradition that the Pharaoh of the Exodus had three advisors: Job, Jethro, and Balaam. I recognize that this is not an answer to your question, but when I'm stumped I try to deflect. <grin>

Here is the Google cache of a Jewish Encyclopedia entry on Job.

As for others in the book, the name Elihu sounds Jewish, he enters in Chapter 32, far later than the other "comforters," and he is introduced as being of the family of Ram. Referencing Chapter 4 of Ruth, that would make Elihu a member of the tribe of Judah. Some speculate that this character was added at a late date in order to impart a Jewish flavor to the book. Compare Jonah, which one might read as dealing exclusively with Gentiles but for the single sentence in which the reluctant prophet identifies himself to his shipmates as a Hebrew.

683 Chuck Pelto  Thu, Feb 5, 2004 1:02:55pm

TO: Ben F
RE: I Stand Corrected...

"G-d's words to Job are FAR stronger than "come, let us reason together." Your phrase is usually associated with Yeshayah (that's Isaiah to you)." -- Ben F

Thanks,

Chuck(le)

684 Chuck Pelto  Thu, Feb 5, 2004 1:12:08pm

To FURTHER clarify my previous posts:

PREMISES:

"1) The authors of the Tanakh/"Old Testament" wrote a story in which there is a serpent (Genesis 2). It talks, according to the authors. To my knowledge, the authors did not describe in intimate detail the activities of any other snake, throughout the Bible. However, I doubt that they would intend this story to suggest that they believed that the average run-of-the-mill snake was given to eloquent conversation." -- Frank IBC

Maybe not 'eloquent', but certainly 'persuasive'. But that's a quibble.

"2) The authors of the Tanakh/"Old Testament" wrote a story in which there is a donkey (Numbers 22). It talks too, according to the authors. There are many instances of donkeys in the Bible, but to my knowledge, this is the only one the authors of the Bible reported that actually talks." -- Frank IBC

Okay.

"3) Since the authors of the Bible say that there are a limited number of talking animals, it can be assumed that the authors of the Bible believed that talking animals are somewhat unusual, but nevertheless existed in limited numbers." -- Frank IBC

Actually, they don't 'say' " there are a limited number of talking animals". They just mention those two incidents.

"4) There is an entity described in the New Testament and continuing through Christian tradition, called "The Devil"." -- Frank IBC

Among other titles and appellations, there is an entity known as the "Devil"; a.k.a. "Satan", "Lucifer", "old serpent", "the Dragon", "Beelzebub", etc., etc., etc. They are all one-in-the-same. [Note: If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...it's anti-Christ.]

CONCLUSIONS:

"1) The authors of the Tanakh/"Old Testament" believed in talking animals." -- Frank IBC

I never said they didn't.

"2) The authors of the Tanakh/"Old Testament" thought that such talking animals, while they existed, were unusual." -- Frank IBC

They seem so to me too.

"3) *I*, Frank IBC, make no claims about the existence of talking animals. *I*, Frank IBC, am simply reporting my observations on what the authors of the Tanakh/"Old Testament" wrote and believed." -- Frank IBC

Okay.

"4) From #1-3, there is no evidence that the authors of the Old Testament/Tanakh believed that the Talking Serpent and the Christian Devil were one and the same." -- Frank IBC

The authors of the old part of the Book had scant knowledge of Christ, with the exceptional exception of Isaiah. But just because they were ignorant does not mean that the connection between that talking snake and Satan and Lucifer and 'the Devil' is in error. People trying to make decisions with inadequate information are prone to error.

As I've pointed out, time and again, there are no talking animals around today. Or if there are, they are keeping it to themselves.

So we have two instances of talking animals in the old part of the Book. A snake and an ass. The ass can be explained; God worked it. Therefore it is a supernatural occurrence. The point being that it wasn't a normal thing for a donkey to talk. [Note: However, it may be normal that animals can see angels better than we can.]

The snake is something different. It talks and it upsets the proverbial apple-cart. And as a result God curses the snake.

Now Adam had been familiar with all the animals God put into the garden. It was part of his job description/mission statement; see the animal, name the animal. And God had been intent upon finding a 'help meet' for Adam during this name-game. But there is no mention of any animal speaking to Adam during all this show and tell activity. But here comes this one snake and seduces Eve into eating the fruit of that tree, promising her that she would become like God.

The reasonably prudent individual would surmise that there was something remarkable about a talking snake. Something supernatural.

Apparently you don't think this is remarkable, let alone supernatural. So you seem to blow it off; "They didn't say it, so I don't accept it." Well, it's a free country, over here...so to say.

RE: Wormwood

"Are you now suggesting that this ball o dirt has never been hit by a meteor?

This is called "Confusion of a necessary with a sufficient condition"." -- Frank IBC

This has little to do with any of the premises and conclusions cited above, but we can discuss it.

That was about your apparent disbelief regarding the theory that a cometary impact brought about the collapse of the Early Bronze Age civilizations and cause the biblical flood. I think I provided the link to Space.com where they addressed the relatively recent findings. It's an interesting read. And it substantiates the idea that the Bible is more accurate than a lot of people would care to accept.

"if you'll observe in the new part of the Book, Revelation 8, it's in there in a proper noun form. Not the common noun form.

You have come to this conclusion based on the fact that in your edition of the Bible (in English), the first letter of "Wormwood" is capitalized. However, capitalization did not exist when Revelation was written (IN GREEK). This is wishful thinking on your part." -- Frank IBC

Not on my part. You'll have to go talk to the guys who wrote the KJV. [Note: This reminds me of a discussion I had with an apostate minister. She could not accept the idea that God could create this Universe in all of it's infinite vastness and intricate detail, and He couldn't get a book published. Even if the monarch who commissioned the book was a raving homosexual. "You never know who God is going to use...Even Pontius Pilot played a part." -- Rich Mullins]

The point being, that it's still a proper noun. Not a common one and in the English language, proper nouns are more significant than common ones. It is still an 'interesting coincidence' that there is a runaway nuclear reactor at a place named Wormwood and that some guy in a cave in Patmos describes it so well, 2000 years earlier, naming the site of the incident.

Lots of people don't like prophecy. Indeed, I recall reading that a lot of prophets have been killed, especially those sent from God. But that doesn't mean that what they said was not the truth. What it indicates is that people don't like hearing the truth and tend to kill the messenger rather than learn. I think the activity continues today. But instead of murder, the masses of people are reduced to just scoffing...up to the point where the truth starts 'hurting'. Then, I think they'll revert to their old ways; murder.

RE: Back to Satan

"But I guess peoples wouldn't have any sort of, even slight, change in their language over a 2000 year period...right? Language never changes...

Now this is amusing, given your denial of the possibility of a shift in pronunciation of the Hebrew word "Shatan". You're dancing all over the place." -- Frank IBC

Maybe. But then again, it's spelled Satan in both the old and the new parts of the Book. Not "Shatan", which has changed from Ben F's original spelling of "Shaitan", which is Arabic, as I understand reading my Google searches.

The point of that discussion was that "Satan" is hardly what anyone in their right mind would call 'advocate'. Advocates are usually considered helpful as opposed to condemning. Satan is not helpful in Job or elsewhere in that Book, he's down right malicious.

[Continued...]

685 Chuck Pelto  Thu, Feb 5, 2004 1:12:55pm

RE: Why Satan and the Snake are the Same

Here's my supporting contentions for the idea that that snake and Satan are one-in-the-same, and that he, as do we, has 'free will'.

It makes no sense that a mere animal would go against God's will. They have no free will in the first place. At least not as far as humans do. They have 'instincts'.

Next, it makes no sense that God would have one of his servants tell Adam and Eve to do something He had expressly told them not to do. It would be God countermanding Himself, and from what I've witnessed, He doesn't do that.

Some might argue that the angels do not have free will. As I've said earlier, that makes no sense either. God does not want slaves. And I think we've agreed on that point. If He doesn't want slaves of men, but companions/children, why would He want slaves of the angels? Therefore, I'm of the understanding that angels have free will too.

This is borne out by the passages relating to some of the angels having relations with women and their offspring from such unions.

"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." Genesis 6:4.

How is it that these entities are called "sons of God"? Seems like the idea that angels are the creatures God created in previous iterations of a cyclical Universe. At least from a Christian perspective, where we are called to become "children of God". And how is it that He permits this, perverting the human race? Unless they have free will and are doing it despite His plan. It makes no sense for God to pervert the human race by sending angels to inter-mix their seed with mankind. He could do that very well, all by Himself, if He chose too.

The concept is that Satan is opposed to God. That he is "Lucifer" who thinks he can supplant God. And part of his plans and efforts to do so are to pervert human kind. First in the guise of a snake in the garden. Later accusing men of hating/opposing God, e.g., Job. Later still, trying to irradicate the Jews; by the Romans, the pogroms, the Nazis, and now the children of Ishmael.

I can understand the Israelites forebearance with respect to the Palistinians, if they have not grasped the idea that Satan wants them wiped from the face of the Earth, as part of his efforts to overthrow God. To succeed in destroying God's chosen people would be a strategic victory. [Note: Not that he'll succeed.]

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Only the names have been changed to confuse the unaware.]

686 Chuck Pelto  Thu, Feb 5, 2004 1:18:26pm

P.S. I think David had a good understanding of Christ when he wrote, "The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool."

Not to mention that business...

I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.
My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.
For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.
They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.

687 Ben F  Thu, Feb 5, 2004 2:17:29pm

Your argument leaves me cold, Chuck(le). And I will leave aside the fact that, from a Jewish perspective, you are misreading Isaiah in a spectacular manner; go back to the dismantling of LightTower in this thread if you want the background on that.

I am unaware of any instance in the Tanakh where Satan (or "The Satan") is portrayed as crawling on his belly and eating dirt.

And while I am not intimately familiar with the New Testament, I am passingly familiar with Western culture, and thus with portrayals of the Devil in Western culture, and the familiar portrayal of the Devil is of a biped standing upright. I doubt that this would be the popular image if it contradicted the New Testament.

QED.

688 Ben F  Thu, Feb 5, 2004 2:29:58pm

#688 Chuck(le)—

Aah, the Crucifixion Psalm! That one was new to me until a fellow LGFer revealed it in an off-board exchange. There are some "interesting" translation choices made in Christian Bibles relating to the 22d Psalm, but the greater issue is that the Gospel accounts of the Passion were written many generations after the event by authors who were consciously desirous of finding foreshadowings in the Jewish scriptures.

If you pay attention to the chronology, then Psalm 22 supplies plain evidence of something we already knew—that the NT authors knew of David—but proves nothing of whether David knew of the Passion.

689 Chuck Pelto  Thu, Feb 5, 2004 3:49:04pm

TO: Ben F
RE: Drat!

I had this wonderful essay, for a rebutal and then someone comes in to tell me dinner is ready and I get all fumpbly finquered and instead of uploading it, it's lost.

Don't you just hate those sorts of momentos?

More tomorrow. Off for a lecture on how the Spanish tried to plant a community of Commanche on the southern border of the westward expansion of the United States, circa mid-1800s.

Later,

Chuck(le)

690 Ben F  Thu, Feb 5, 2004 4:34:30pm

Chuck(le)--

Enjoy the diversion.

Incidentally, I am not arguing against a Christological reading of Isaiah; you are welcome to it. But I suggest that you cross a line when you argue that Isaiah consciously anticipated the Christ, rather than that G-d put words into Isaiah's mouth that may have been comprehensible only in retrospect.

At some point this veers into the argument that the Jews knowingly deny Christ, which is no different than the argument that the People of the Book knowingly deny Allah and His Messenger. That sas where LightTower crossed the line.

You can't prove or disprove the Jewish or the Christian position from the texts; my wish is that Christians would respect the Jewish readings and vice versa.

691 cba  Thu, Feb 5, 2004 6:22:30pm

Ben, don't bother trying to get through to him. All his posts can be summed up as follows:

Since the text can be explained to support my understanding of Christian theology [provided, of course, one starts from Christianity-based assumptions such as the Hebrew word sah-TAHN in the Tanakh = the Devil], then it's obvious that only that explanation is valid. I will ignore any interpretation that does not include assumptions based on Christian theology. I will ignore the fact that the translators of the KJV made certain choices, and assume that those choices were the only ones possible based on the source documents.

"If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me."

692 Frank IBC  Thu, Feb 5, 2004 6:57:56pm

Among other titles and appellations, there is an entity known as the "Devil"; a.k.a. "Satan", "Lucifer", "old serpent", "the Dragon", "Beelzebub", etc., etc., etc. They are all one-in-the-same. [Note: If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...it's anti-Christ.]

Jesus is not mentioned in the Tanakh/Old Testament.

Beelzebub is yet another distinct entity from the four - it is a "caconym" ("make-fun" name) of Ba'al Zebul, a local pagan god of the city of Ekron. Once again, no connection to the Christian Devil.

The authors of the old part of the Book had scant knowledge of Christ

Not surprising, considering that Jesus wasn't born for another 500-1000 years. Also, it didn't help that the authors were Jewish and not Christian.

The snake is something different. It talks and it upsets the proverbial apple-cart. And as a result God curses the snake.

True, but still not proof that it is the same as the Christian Devil.

The reasonably prudent individual would surmise that there was something remarkable about a talking snake. Something supernatural.

Apparently you don't think this is remarkable, let alone supernatural.

Aha - this seems to be the source of your confusion. You have read my statement that I believe the Snake is not one and the same as the Christian Devil, and made the totally incoherent leap to the conclusion that I, Frank IBC, believe that there is "nothing that is remarkable, let alone supernatural", about the Snake (or the Donkey).

I'll make it more explicit for you: YES, I believe the Talking Snake (and the Talking Donkey) are "remarkable and supernatural".

NO, I do not believe that this is proof that the Talking Snake and the Christian Devil are one and the same.

RE: Wormwood

That was about your apparent disbelief regarding the theory that a cometary impact brought about the collapse of the Early Bronze Age civilizations and cause the biblical flood.

No, it was about my disbelief regarding your theory that a "Star called Wormwood" and the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl have anything to do with each other, simply because their names mean the same thing in different languages.

One is a meteorite, the other is a meltdown within the inside of a nuclear plant.

if you'll observe in the new part of the Book, Revelation 8, it's in there in a proper noun form. Not the common noun form

It is not clear from what your inference that it is a "proper noun", other than that it is capitalized when it is in English. And assuming for the sake of argument that it was "in the proper noun", it is not clear what that proves either.

[I]t's spelled Satan in both the old and the new parts of the Book. Not "Shatan", which has changed from Ben F's original spelling of "Shaitan", which is Arabic, as I understand reading my Google searches.

"Satan" is hardly what anyone in their right mind would call 'advocate'. Advocates are usually considered helpful as opposed to condemning. Satan is not helpful in Job or elsewhere in that Book, he's down right malicious.

Satan is GOD'S advocate, not Job's. He's a PROSECUTOR, not a defense attorney. And God isn't particularly helpful to Job, either. In fact, one could argue that the God described in Job sounds a lot like the Devil described in the New Testament.

In fact, there would be a much stronger argument that the God described in Job is more like the Christian Devil of the New Testament, than the Talking Snake, Shaitan, Ba'al Zebul (Beelzebub), or Heylel ben Shahar (Lucifer) are supposedly like the Christian Devil.

693 Frank IBC  Thu, Feb 5, 2004 7:09:49pm

Sorry for the repeat, but my screwed-up italics in the last one made it unclear who is being quoted and who is responding.

Among other titles and appellations, there is an entity known as the "Devil"; a.k.a. "Satan", "Lucifer", "old serpent", "the Dragon", "Beelzebub", etc., etc., etc. They are all one-in-the-same. [Note: If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...it's anti-Christ.]

Jesus is not mentioned in the Tanakh/Old Testament.

Beelzebub is yet another distinct entity from the four - it is a "caconym" ("make-fun" name) of Ba'al Zebul, a local pagan god of the city of Ekron. Once again, no connection to the Christian Devil.

The authors of the old part of the Book had scant knowledge of Christ

Not surprising, considering that Jesus wasn't born for another 500-1000 years. Also, it didn't help that the authors were Jewish and not Christian.

The snake is something different. It talks and it upsets the proverbial apple-cart. And as a result God curses the snake.

The reasonably prudent individual would surmise that there was something remarkable about a talking snake. Something supernatural.

Apparently you don't think this is remarkable, let alone supernatural.

Aha - this seems to consistently be the source of your confusion. You have read my statement that I believe the Snake is not one and the same as the Christian Devil, and made the totally incoherent leap to the conclusion that I, Frank IBC, believe that there is "nothing that is remarkable, let alone supernatural", about the Snake (or the Donkey).

I'll make it more explicit for you: YES, I believe the Talking Snake (and the Talking Donkey) are "remarkable and supernatural".

NO, I do not believe that this is proof that the Talking Snake and the Christian Devil are one and the same.

RE: Wormwood

That was about your apparent disbelief regarding the theory that a cometary impact brought about the collapse of the Early Bronze Age civilizations and cause the biblical flood.

No, it was about my disbelief regarding your theory that a "Star called Wormwood" and the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl have anything to do with each other, simply because their names mean the same thing in different languages.

One is a meteorite, the other is a meltdown within the inside of a nuclear plant.

if you'll observe in the new part of the Book, Revelation 8, it's in there in a proper noun form. Not the common noun form

It is not clear from what is your inference that it is a "proper noun", other than that it is capitalized when it is in English. From the original Greek, how is it possible to determine that it was in "the proper noun form"? And assuming for the sake of argument that it was "in the proper noun", it is not clear what that proves either.

[I]t's spelled Satan in both the old and the new parts of the Book. Not "Shatan", which has changed from Ben F's original spelling of "Shaitan", which is Arabic, as I understand reading my Google searches.

NEWS FLASH: The Bible was NOT written in English.

"Satan" is hardly what anyone in their right mind would call 'advocate'. Advocates are usually considered helpful as opposed to condemning. Satan is not helpful in Job or elsewhere in that Book, he's down right malicious.

Satan is GOD'S advocate, not Job's. He's a PROSECUTOR, not a defense attorney. And God isn't particularly helpful to Job, either. In fact, one could argue that the God described in Job sounds a lot like the Devil described in the New Testament.

In fact, there would be a much stronger argument that the God described in Job is more like the Christian Devil of the New Testament, than the Talking Snake, Shaitan, Ba'al Zebul (Beelzebub), or Heylel ben Shahar (Lucifer) are supposedly like the Christian Devil.

694 Frank IBC  Thu, Feb 5, 2004 7:59:32pm

Re Psalm 22 -

Hmmm. Sounds like the Psalmnist was a Marathon runner.

695 Ben F  Thu, Feb 5, 2004 9:31:14pm

Chuck(le) also overstates the remarkable-ness of the talking Serpent in Gen. 3.

Two reasons.

First, maybe all snakes could talk UNTIL G-D CURSED THEM and decreed that they would thenceforth crawl on their bellies and eat dust. After all, the serpent was cunning beyond any beast of the field.

Second, maybe Adam could talk to all animals before he was banished from the Garden. We know that he named them all.

Thus, the talking serpent in the primordial Garden is clearly not as extraordinary as Balaam's talking ass, which was unlike any other ass of its day or any other.

Obviously the apparent simplicity of the tale of Adam, Eve, and the Serpent is deceptive, but this is not the place to go into all that.

696 evariste  Thu, Feb 5, 2004 11:05:15pm

Ben F.-

Thus, the talking serpent in the primordial Garden is clearly not as extraordinary as Balaam's talking ass, which was unlike any other ass of its day or any other.

I don't know, this one's pretty extraordinary (WARNING: Link is a blatant picture of ass).
Excellent points otherwise, of course.

697 Frank IBC  Fri, Feb 6, 2004 2:35:44am

I think the words "Baalam's Ass" by themselves prove what we've been trying to say about language - that there is much lost and, in this case, GAINED in translation.

I can't picture a classroom full of Israeli kids giggling hysterically to Numbers 22 being read in its original Hebrew, as would happen in an American classroom.

698 Ewaristo  Fri, Feb 6, 2004 2:38:27am

#696 Evariste -

Eeeek!

699 PIGLET  Fri, Feb 6, 2004 1:58:23pm
"It is a man. He must learn the Law."

I began to distinguish now a deeper blackness in the black, a vague outline of a hunched-up figure. Then I noticed the opening of the place was darkened by two more black heads. My hand tightened on my stick.

The thing in the dark repeated in a louder tone, "Say the words." I had missed its last remark. "Not to go on all-fours; that is the Law," it repeated in a kind of sing-song.

I was puzzled.

"Say the words," said the Ape-man, repeating, and the figures in the doorway echoed this, with a threat in the tone of their voices.

I realised that I had to repeat this idiotic formula; and then began the insanest ceremony. The voice in the dark began intoning a mad litany, line by line, and I and the rest to repeat it. As they did so, they swayed from side to side in the oddest way, and beat their hands upon their knees; and I followed their example. I could have imagined I was already dead and in another world. That dark hut, these grotesque dim figures, just flecked here and there by a glimmer of light, and all of them swaying in unison and chanting,

"Not to go on all-fours; that is the Law. Are we not Men? "Not to suck up Drink; that is the Law. Are we not Men? "Not to eat Fish or Flesh; that is the Law. Are we not Men? "Not to claw the Bark of Trees; that is the Law. Are we not Men? "Not to chase other Men; that is the Law. Are we not Men?"
"He is a five-man, a five-man, a five-man--like me," said the Ape-man.

I held out my hands. The grey creature in the corner leant forward.

"Not to run on all-fours; that is the Law. Are we not Men?" he said.

He put out a strangely distorted talon and gripped my fingers. The thing was almost like the hoof of a deer produced into claws. I could have yelled with surprise and pain. His face came forward and peered at my nails, came forward into the light of the opening of the hut and I saw with a quivering disgust that it was like the face of neither man nor beast, but a mere shock of grey hair, with three shadowy over-archings to mark the eyes and mouth.

700 Ben F  Fri, Feb 6, 2004 3:43:17pm
701 Frank IBC  Fri, Feb 6, 2004 4:33:31pm

While we're on the subject of things getting lost in translation - the reason why "Saul" (of the New Testament) changed his name to "Paul":

"Saul" is the English spelling of the Hebrew name "Sha'ul". However, on the way to becoming an English word, it passed through Greek (the language in which the New Testament was originally written), through the Latin Vulgate translation, and finally English.

"Sha'ul" transliterated into Greek becomes "Saulos", as Greek has no "SH" sound, nor does it have a letter to represent the glottal stop of the Hebrew "Alef". And the "-os" is the nominative case ending. In Latin, it shifts slighty to "Saulus". In English, the final syllable is discarded, becoming "Saul".

Just one little problem here. The word "Saulos" has a most unfortunate meaning in Greek. Biblical scholar A. Powell Davies translates it as "effeminized man", though one suspects that he is being squeamish and it is actually a much cruder term.

Not the most appropriate name for the man who was to become the second or third most important person in the early history of Christianity - hence the need for a new name..."Paulos".

702 Frank IBC  Sat, Feb 7, 2004 2:09:06pm

#662 -

And the name of the city near the mouth of the Euphrates is Abaddan, not Abaddon, as found in Revelation 9.

"Abaddon" is the Hebrew word for "destruction"; it is neither a location or an entity, although it is often used in the context of "She'ol", the Underworld. The Greek-speaking author of Revelation has mis-translated the term as "angel of the bottomless pit".

The Iranian city of Abadan and the Hebrew word for destruction have nothing to do with each other. Abadan was founded by an Arab named 'Abbad, c. 700 AD/CE, long after Revelation was written.

I'm anticipating that you will mention that this verse is Revelation 9:11; however I will point out that the calendar in use at the time was the Julian calendar - the Julian date for September 11, 2001 would have been August 29. (Unfortunately, there is no Revelation 8:29, as the last verse in that Chapter is Verse 13.)

703 Chuck Pelto  Sun, Feb 8, 2004 11:46:10am

TO: Ben F
RE: Cold Cocked

“Your argument leaves me cold, Chuck(le)” -- Ben F

Not my problem, Ben. All I can do is just state the truth as best I understand it. It’s not my responsibility to make get you all ‘warm and fuzzy’.

I believe that even Ezekiel said something to that affect.

But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand.

Not that He has set me to be a watchman over Israel. But I do believe I’m required to tell the truth of a matter, as best I can. So here I am. And this is what I understand. You are welcome to do with it as you please.

And if it pleases you to disabuse me, feel free. But as I’ve stated earlier, that is going to be ‘interesting’.

So far, all you’ve done is say, “You’re wrong.” You’ve offered little proof to support your claim,and, from my perspective, the arguments I’ve provided make more sense than those proffered by you and Frank IBC.

RE: The Crucifixion Psalm

“ If you pay attention to the chronology, then Psalm 22 supplies plain evidence of something we already knew—that the NT authors knew of David—but proves nothing of whether David knew of the Passion.” -- Ben F

Yes. The writers of the new part of the Book knew about David’s psalms.

Did the Romans who crucified Him know too? And did they willingly play their part? Just so the Christians could, in time, dominate Rome?

I doubt it...

RE: Diversions

It was interesting. I had not realized that the nomadic tribes that dominated the state of Colorado had changed so dramatically over the period between the mid-1500s and 1880. The Apache dominated the plains for 100 years. They were driven out by the Commanche, who were later driven out by the Cheyenne, who were later being driven out by the Lakota Sioux, when the United States moved westward and put an ‘end’ to it all. The Commanche ended up in Western Texas and the Apache in New Mexico.

RE: One Toke Over the ‘Line’

“But I suggest that you cross a line when you argue that Isaiah consciously anticipated the Christ, rather than that G-d put words into Isaiah's mouth that may have been comprehensible only in retrospect.” -- Ben F

There’s little difference between the two. It’s still God at work, isn’t it?

RE: Denial

“At some point this veers into the argument that the Jews knowingly deny Christ, which is no different than the argument that the People of the Book knowingly deny Allah and His Messenger. That sas where LightTower crossed the line.” -- Ben F

I can’t speak to it directly. But I can see where there could be an argument made like that, the former. However, as I’ve argued here, I think it’s a safe bet that that ‘messenger’ is not from God. As I’ve asked a number of people, in a number of different places...

How is it that God will say to Abraham, the father of the Israelites, “Those who bless you I will bless and those who curse you I will curse.” And then turn around and bless someone who says, “God curse them.” of the Israelite children of Abraham?

Nobody has answered me that. The way I see it, I’ve explained earlier vis-a-vis sibling rivalries and the effort on the part of Satan to destroy the Jews in order to stop God’s plan.

RE: Arethra Franklin, Reprised

“You can't prove or disprove the Jewish or the Christian position from the texts; my wish is that Christians would respect the Jewish readings and vice versa.” -- Ben F

You get a LOT of respect from us. As I remarked earlier, “Those who bless you, I will bless...” Personally, I wouldn’t have your role for the world. If my understanding is correct, you’ve got a very tough row to hoe, and it’s going to be a real mess. And you’ll probably live to see it fulfilled (see Daniel 11-12). [Note: I think you’re about to encounter the third Abomination. He’s in chains now. But he’s not dead. And as long as he lives, there’s the chance that he is the one. It will take something truly remarkable. Something the Islamocists would interpret as an “Act of Allah” to set him free to rule again.]

TO: Frank IBC
RE: Jesus Isn’t In There

“Jesus is not mentioned in the Tanakh/Old Testament.” -- Frank IBC

Nope. But a virgin birth is and we do call Him Emmanuel.

RE: The 50 Million Names of...

“Beelzebub is yet another distinct entity from the four - it is a "caconym" ("make-fun" name) of Ba'al Zebul, a local pagan god of the city of Ekron. Once again, no connection to the Christian Devil.” -- Frank IBC

...Satan

So you say. I, and others, see him as one in the same. But I’d mentioned that earlier.

“’The snake is something different. It talks and it upsets the proverbial apple-cart. And as a result God curses the snake.’ -- Chuck Pelto

True, but still not proof that it is the same as the Christian Devil.” -- Frank IBC

Step out of the ‘box’.

Only Satan, as we understand him, would want to upset God’s plan. You think he is just one of God’s servants? He was. But not any more. Now he’s a rebel.

RE: Wormwood

“No, it was about my disbelief regarding your theory that a "Star called Wormwood" and the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl have anything to do with each other, simply because their names mean the same thing in different languages.

One is a meteorite, the other is a meltdown within the inside of a nuclear plant.” -- Frank IBC

Actually, Frank, in Revelation, stars and cities/towns/localities and angels are related. Falling stars are fallen angels and have authority in a given locality. It’s called ‘metaphor’. Hence, for Wormwood, a fallen angel comes down to earth, having authority over the township of Chernobyl and causes the accident to occur. That’s my take on the ‘coincidence’. Likewise the situation with Gulf War I, another fallen angel comes down and instigates the ruckus then.

You can take it or leave it. It’s not my problem. I’ve done what I’m required to do.

RE: Originally Speaking

“NEWS FLASH: The Bible was NOT written in English.” -- Frank IBC

It wasn’t orginally written either. It was, originally, an oral tradition.

Or are you suggesting that the only way to fully appreciate the Bible is to read it in it’s original form? But, wait! That was oral!

Or perhaps you suggest that only people who spoke, wrote and read as they did after the sack of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans, can properly explain the Word to us? That’s a bit more elitist than I think God has in mind. I think God wants all of us to understand Him and He’ll get the Word to us, even in Sanskrit, if that’s what we read. Not to mention English, Chinese, Kandi, Korean, etc., etc., etc., just so we all have the chance to understand Him.

RE: Back to Satan, Again?

”Satan is GOD'S advocate, not Job's. He's a PROSECUTOR, not a defense attorney.” -- Frank IBC

Not from my understanding. No trial counsel tries to trip up the Judge’s purposes.

“In fact, one could argue that the God described in Job sounds a lot like the Devil described in the New Testament.” -- Frank IBC

There’s a ‘stretch’ for you...and a BIG one too. The God who has saved my life on several occasions and poured out blessings upon me as described in Psalm 23 is more like Satan than Satan?

[Continued...]

704 Chuck Pelto  Sun, Feb 8, 2004 11:47:12am

TO: Ben F
RE: Talking Animals

“First, maybe all snakes could talk UNTIL G-D CURSED THEM and decreed that they would thenceforth crawl on their bellies and eat dust. After all, the serpent was cunning beyond any beast of the field.

Second, maybe Adam could talk to all animals before he was banished from the Garden. We know that he named them all.

Thus, the talking serpent in the primordial Garden is clearly not as extraordinary as Balaam's talking ass, which was unlike any other ass of its day or any other.

Obviously the apparent simplicity of the tale of Adam, Eve, and the Serpent is deceptive, but this is not the place to go into all that.” -- Ben F

The first shall be last and the last, first. The simplicity of the tale is based on the fact that these parts were part of the oral tradition that was the old part of the Book before someone decided it was time to put it into print. But the main parts were retained.

RE: Talking Snakes

Do you really think the everyday sort of snakes you find in the wilderness could talk, at any time in the past? And then God’s curse caused them to lose that ability? Where is that written? I don’t see it in there anywhere.

Nor is it written in that old Book about your first and second conjectures/wiggles. Your speculations, which are artful, do not bear support either in scripture or in logic.

Indeed, the theory that that talking snake is Satan makes more sense than your ideas. Occam’s razor cuts exceedingly well here.

But since Occam isn’t in the Book either, I guess we should drop him too.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

705 Chuck Pelto  Sun, Feb 8, 2004 11:50:09am

TO: Frank IBC
RE: Yeah...

"The Iranian city of Abadan and the Hebrew word for destruction have nothing to do with each other." -- Frank IBC

Right.

Just like Chernobyl's translation from Ukrainian to English as Wormwood, is of no importance either.

Proper nouns, locations, and activities, correlating with what was written 2000 years ago. Nothing to notice here people. Move along...

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Coincidence: When God works a miracle and doesn't get the credit.]

706 Ben F  Sun, Feb 8, 2004 1:28:23pm

Chuck(le)

Your blessing and cursing comments reveal an appalling lack of knowledge of the history of Christianity. Hatred of Jews and of Judaism was official Church doctrine for most of its existence, and has seen significant erosion only in the wake of the Holocaust.

There are many places to read up on this if you are interested. I own and recommend Pagels' The Origin of Satan as a light intriduction to this topic. This site is good also. Other pages are here and here.

707 Frank IBC  Sun, Feb 8, 2004 2:09:44pm

No trial counsel tries to trip up the Judge’s purposes.

But Satan in Job was doing EXACTLY what "the Judge", i.e. G-d, asked him to do. You might want to read the book again, a little slower this time.

There’s a ‘stretch’ for you...God [in Job] is more like Satan [as the Christian Devil of the New Testament] than Satan [in Job]?

As He is described in Job, yes. As He is described in anywhere else in the Bible, no.

But a virgin birth is [mentioned] and we do call Him Emmanuel.

The Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14, "almah" which is [mis]translated in Christian Bibles as "virgin", is simply the word for "young woman". Hebrew has a specific word for "virgin" - "bethulah" - but that is NOT used here. Nothing unusual about the actual wording of the verse: "behold a young woman shall conceive".

"Immanuel" means "G-d is with us". It does not mean "G-d is incarnate in this child". Many names that come from Hebrew have references to G-d in them - those that begin or end with "El", or begin with "Je" or end with "iah" (in their anglicized versions). And it refers to a contemporary of Isaiah.

Likewise the situation with Gulf War I, another fallen angel comes down and instigates the ruckus then.

As I said earlier, Abadan is in IRAN, not Iraq. It did not play any part on Gulf War I.

Proper nouns, locations, and activities, correlating with what was written 2000 years ago.

But my point is that they DON'T correlate AT ALL.

Coincidence: When God works a miracle and doesn't get the credit.

Er, are you suggesting that Chernobyl or Gulf War I were "miracles"?

708 cba  Sun, Feb 8, 2004 2:18:50pm

To: Chuck(le)
Re: Virgin Birth

The verse in Isaiah is mis-translated in the King James Version (and others). The Hebrew word is "ha-almah," which means "the young woman" and not "a virgin." The word for virgin is "betulah." This word is used whenever the woman's virginity is a salient point. For example, Genesis Chapter 24 v. 16, which in Hebrew begins, "ve-ha-na'arah tovat mareh me'od betulah ve-ish lo yad'ah" and in English this means [my translation] "And the damsel was very attractive, a virgin, and no man had known her;"

709 Frank IBC  Sun, Feb 8, 2004 2:52:57pm

He’ll get the Word to us, even in Sanskrit, if that’s what we read. Not to mention English, Chinese, Kandi, Korean, etc., etc., etc., just so we all have the chance to understand Him.

Sounds to me like you're saying all translations are equally valid, just as valid as the original Hebrew or Greek.

So how do you explain the contradictions between the original and the myriad translations?

710 Ben F  Sun, Feb 8, 2004 4:46:41pm