Inaugural Prayers: As American (And Extra-Constitutional) As Cherry Pie

Timmy and Rick22407,
Interesting discussion, I'm glad I came back here.

Yes, we've done some interesting things with our own evolution by inventing good birth control and by allowing even the most flawed among us to reproduce at the same rate as the best.

In most animals, those that are reproductively unfit will simply not contribute to the next generation; but humans, in the name of democratic fairness, find ways to get around it (fertility drugs, envitro fertilization, artificial insemination, c-sections).

The most intelligent and educated among us have the lowest birth rate because they're smart enough to know how to prevent all those mouths to feed, so we aren't getting any smarter.

You're right, Rick, that sexual attractiveness can push evolution in that direction, but with birth control, Timmy is right, too - more sex doesn't necessarily mean more babies.

Yes, evolution can still occur with ZPG - even with declining population.

What usually drives evolution is a major, sometimes catastrophic, change in the environment. We've already had that - we live in a technical world, but we're operating with brains and bodies that evolved for living in hunter-gatherer family tribes in a world without villages, let alone cities. In fact, we haven't even overcome the detrimental effects of walking upright. It's the reason that women have so much pain with childbirth, and why most of us suffer from lower-back pain and prolapsed discs at some point in our lives.

Our newly sedentary lifestyle gives us obesity, heart problems, vascular disease, diabetes...

We have a lot of catching up to do.

Timmy,

You say to me: “No. It [evolution…natural selection] has nothing to do with increasing the population.”

You say to Pam: “If evolution is by natural selection. And natural selection only works by random mutations which help the success of a creature to procreate, being passed on in greater numbers than others, how could this process still be taking place in the western world of technology and birth control?”

You seem to be saying to Pam, “how can we evolve without expanding our population?”

Is there a contradiction here?

I think natural selection can still occur even in a zero growth population. Do you agree?

Persiflage,

Ah, what was it swept the hemispheres circa 600 before Christ?

Lao Tzu, Siddhartha, Zoroaster, Pythagoras, Heraclitus...something in the air.

Thankyou for that dose of alchemy, Persiflage. The sage tends to wave away the heat in all those Either/Or debates I so rue and love. Can you recommend a translation of the Tao te ching? I have one, but I'm not sure how faithful it is.

Onofrio - the great alchemist has more to say:

The Tao that can be spoken of is not the enduring and unchanging Tao. The name that can be named is not the enduring and unchanging name.

Having no name, it is the Originator of heaven and earth; having a name, it is the Mother of all things.

We should rid ourselves of desires if we wish to observe its subtlety; we should allow our desires if we wish to see something of its manifestations.

Under these two aspects, it is really the same; but as development takes place, it receives the different names. Together we call them the mystery; where the mystery is the deepest is the gate of all that is subtle and wonderful.

All in the world know the beauty of the beautiful, and in doing so they have the idea of ugliness; they all know the good, and in doing so they have the idea of what is the bad.

So it is that being and non-being give birth each to the other; that difficulty and ease each produce the idea of the other; that the ideas of height and lowness arise from the contrast of the one with the other; that the musical notes and tones become harmonious through the relation of one with another; and that being before and behind give the idea of one following the other.

Therefore the sage manages affairs without doing anything, and conveys his teachings without the use of speech.

[In that way] all things come forth, and there is not one which declines to show itself; they grow, and there is no ownership claim made upon them; they go through their processes, and there is no expectation placed on them. The work is accomplished, and there is no disruption of order.

Lao Tzu - Tao te ching

Rick,

YOU SAID: Your argument that we only evolve in ways that help us to procreate has a flaw I think, in that you assume the only reason for this would be to increase the population.

No. It has nothing to do with increasing the population. It has to do with certain mutations being passed down to the largest number of offspring, who then pass it down to theirs and so on until it snowballs into every member of the species having that same mutation. This happens because the mutation was helpful in allowing the creature to be successful enough that it was able to procreate better that those without the mutation. So it's random mutation gets passed on while others don't.

YOU: "Other reasons might be those which make us more attractive to prospective mates"

Um, those would qualify as "things that help us procreate", would they not?

YOU: Therefore, since I am obviously much prettier than you, I expect that future humans will look much more like me"

Timmy is my screen name only. My real name is Brad Pitt. So you must be one hell of a looker. ;)

YOU: "This will be true, even though we agree to limit our numbers to a level that are supportable to our planet"

It's not about mates anymore. Good looking people like you are more likely to get laid, but a lot of those good looking people wear condoms and take birth control. Just because you are more likely to get someone in the sack doesn't mean that you will reproduce. Not in our present western culture.

YOU: Our evolution is, and has always been, in our own hands.

I'm waiting to hear from Pam in "is".
As for "has always been", this is definitely not true.

YOU: "There is nothing random about it. We evolve, by whatever mechanism, in a manner to help us survive, or else to make us prettier to a prospective mate. Why, because it is fun to mate!"

Fun to mate? Nah. It's fun to get funky under the sheets, but that is not mating. Having kids is another thing altogether. We don't do that for fun, or because it feels so damn good. We decide if we want to raise children or not. This decision is what now dictates what random mutations will be passed on.

This may be why we have had so much trouble getting rid of the religion meme. They are out breeding us by a mile.

Thomas,

ME: We'd still be burning witches."

YOU: Who is this "we", aren't you just one person?

Yes thomas I am.
And may I point to the first instance of you asking a question not because you want to know the answer but "for other reasons". Didn't take long. Just like me asking you about the elvis believers? Same thing Thomas. The word that comes to mind here begins with an "H".

But that aside, your attempt to portray me as speaking for more than myself fails yet again, just like last time. "We" refers to the same "we" in my hypothetical posit immediately preceding this sentence. Here it is again so pay attention. If "WE" just believed every person who made supernatural claims on their word alone, then "WE" would still be burning witches.

YOU: I have never asked anyone to believe what I have written, I have just stated the fact that God is Real, God is a Trinity and God is a BEING OF PURE LOVE"

I never said that you did ask anyone to believe you.
You were asking me questions and I answered you.
You asked what my criteria was for disbelieving claims of people who claim to have had experiences beyond anything that I could relate to, and I was explaining it to you, and right about then you started accusing me of asking "why" questions for the wrong reasons instead of just answering my "why" question. And now here above we can see that you too ask questions to make a point rather than out of genuine curiosity. You may have other posters fooled into thinking that you are a genuine seeker of truth and love, but not me. I see right through you, Thomas.

YOU: As far as "verification or evidence", I have stated previously that God is the One that is going to do that in His Time, maybe you weren't reading these posts at the time that I wrote that"

Oh I read them. I just don't believe you. This old, "God will provide the evidence in time" bs is quite laughable after 200 thousand years. And so will the spaghetti monster, also provide evidence in his own time. You just have to be patient.

Persiflage,

Your Bostonian poem tolls for *what is past, passing, or is to come*, certes. We *lords and ladies of Byzantium* should perhaps feel chastened that holding to our present course could lose us our miraculous golden bird.

At least the wistful, when the final Fact dawns, will retain bedtime for their metaphysics. Has been well rehearsed by Dr John Donne, methinks.

Daniel,

You wrote to Pam:

“What should they base their economies on if not oil? Try intelligence. All the more advanced societies know that the most important resource is human capitol. The Muslims just suck up oil and blow themselves up and hide terrorists among innocents. It seems they do not really value themselves as persons. The Jews on the other hand test higher on I.Q. tests than any other people except maybe certain groups of Asians...The Jews value themselves greatly and justifiably so....”
__________________
I suppose we will all evolve to be Jews then; since they think they are the more intelligent and superior race.

BTW, you wouldn’t perchance be part Jewish would you?

Thomas,

If I read you correctly, god will either speak directly to each of us, as it has to you and Arminius, or it will not. Am I correct? There is no other way for us to believe that it exists, or it does not exist.

That is why I am an atheist, having seen no evidence to the contrary, or being spoken to directly by god; I must presume it does not exist.

I hope it will not cast me into everlasting hell, just because it has forgotten to contact me.

:>)

Actually my last post supported Timmy and Daniel’s position more than Pam’s. Our evolution is, and has always been, in our own hands. There is nothing random about it. We evolve, by whatever mechanism, in a manner to help us survive, or else to make us prettier to a prospective mate. Why, because it is fun to mate!

The Last Alchemist

When the laws of physics
have nailed and sealed
the universe complete,
down to the last stray
molecule and rebel atom,
when even the quarks
Charm and Strange rise
to a balanced breakfast,
ontological questions
will become passe.
When the Unified Field
Theory is lucid fact,
not wistful speculation,
there will no longer
be the barest chance
of turning baser metals
to golden illumination,
and metaphysics will
be reduced to no more
than a bedtime game.
When the final truth has
been signed and delivered,
the last alchemist will
retreat to a birdsong wood
where green still thrives,
near a rushing stream
clean as a burning flame,
clear as a lover's glance
he has long since fathomed
in his deepest sublimations.

Bruce Boston -

Timmy,

Your argument that we only evolve in ways that help us to procreate has a flaw I think, in that you assume the only reason for this would be to increase the population.

Other reasons might be those which make us more attractive to prospective mates. Therefore, since I am obviously much prettier than you, I expect that future humans will look much more like me.

This will be true, even though we agree to limit our numbers to a level that are supportable to our planet.

TIMMY2

You wrote, "The reason I asked you why you don't believe that elvis is alive is because when you answer that question in your own head, it should illustrate to you why we don't just believe supernatural claims made by people on their word. We require some sort of verification or evidence. We just could not operate in a society if we believed every supernatural claim that people brought forth. We'd still be burning witches."

Who is this "we", aren't you just one person?

I have never asked anyone to believe what I have written, I have just stated the fact that God is Real, God is a Trinity and God is a BEING OF PURE LOVE.

As far as "verification or evidence", I have stated previously that God is the One that is going to do that in His Time, maybe you weren't reading these posts at the time that I wrote that.

God gave me a speaking part and I said YES.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Pam, and Daniel, and Timmy,

Here’s my two cents for what it’s worth. I think we evolve to accommodate our environment. It is not random, but to a purpose. For example, mammals exchanged gills for lungs when we were forced to leave the sea. Don’t ask me how that happened, but it clearly did happen.

Our next major step could occur when we are forced to leave planet earth for a new star system when our Sun dyes in another 5 billion years, if we are lucky. Or it may occur much sooner in the face of some unforeseen disaster to our environment, either manmade or delivered by nature.

I have read of the probability of a much sooner Borg-like transformation into a marriage of man and computer. I agree with Pam that this is not an attractive future.

PAMSM

You wrote, "We cannot direct our own evolution, nor should we desire it."

This is something that you think humans can't do and should not even attempt to do but do you truly think that there are not some very intelligent people out there that disagree with you?

There has been an ethical question made by some to the effect: Just because we can do something, should we do it?

What do you think of these two questions?

Do you not think that there are some that will try to "create" tru science the "perfect" human being?

Of course, who will be the one to decide what "perfect" is?

The tree of knowledge of good and evil, ring a bell.

Knowledge can be used for good or evil and sometimes even using it for good can backfire.

Just some things to think about.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Farnaz,

Thread-full muse, wherever you are,

I add my praise to Persiflage's re your quoted chinoiserie. Touching, true. Was moved to homage re the elusive Taoist (so...Tao of him!). Glad you liked it.

And I have not forgot *The Dark and the Fair*, oh no. One of those painful gems. I turn it over and over as it burns.

Pamsm,

YOU SAID: "We cannot direct our own evolution, nor should we desire it"

If evolution is by natural selection. And natural selection only works by random mutations which help the success of a creature to procreate, being passed on in greater numbers than others, how could this process still be taking place in the western world of technology and birth control?

What random mutations could possibly occur that would help us procreate any more than we currently are, and therefore get passed down in greater numbers becoming new features of our species? In fact we could all be procreating more than we are now but we choose not to. Isn't natural selection over? Is it not entirely in our hands now?

Pam:

You to Daniel12:
"Life is entirely chemical"

Ah, and such alchemy:
a bomb-hit apothecary's,
where we are the solutions!

I've thrilled to your tilts at the departed Peter Huff. Again, I salute.

Daniel12,

You wrote:
"Logic dictates that something complex can come from only something more complex--thus supporting the religious or intelligent design view".

Sorry - *what*?? Logic dictates nothing of the sort. A whole human being comes from a single cell. You can take a pile of parts and build a bicycle, or with another pile of parts, you can build a computer...a car, an imposing edifice.

The sticking point has always been the *agency* involved. The parts of a computer, bicycle, car, or building don't become those things without the agency of humans to put them together. But these are in the category of *man-made* things. No human agency is required to make that fertilized egg into a human.

The latter is where religionists have always inserted God, because they can't understand the biological pathways. But biologists see no mystery or miracle in it - they know how it works.

So it will be when we completely understand life's origins. We're this close ||.

Life is entirely chemical, and we know that the "parts" - the chemical elements - were around way back when. The question has long been, how did they get organized to the point of reproducing themselves (and not perfectly, so that evolution had raw material). Now we're finding that many of the components are *self* organizing, under the right conditions - conditions that would have existed at the time.

We don't yet have every single step worked out, but when we do, a self-replicating cell will be reproducible.

DANIEL12: "And this apotheosis is none other than we simpleton humans of today taking our evolution into our own hands and creating a more complex form of ourselves".

You need to get over this idea - it isn't going to happen. Why do you think a "more complex" human would even be desirable? More complex in what way? More complexity is not always better - many animals have taken it in the other direction - evolving to become *less* complex, in order to exploit an available niche. In the process, they have become more successful than their more complex brethren.

We cannot direct our own evolution, nor should we desire it.

Thought the invocation was fine and even hinted at inclusion until the "in Jesus'name" portion was delivered. that soured me on feeling accepted.
The bendiction at the end made me smile and feel thankful.
There is a higher power, and we all just have a our own way of defining it and finding it.

Thomas,

YOU: "After growing up, I noticed that some people asked the question why for totally different reasons at times"

Careful Thomas. You are one of them.
Don't make me point it out every time you do it, because you do it often. As often if not more so than others.

The reason I asked you why you don't believe that elvis is alive is because when you answer that question in your own head, it should illustrate to you why we don't just believe supernatural claims made by people on their word. We require some sort of verification or evidence. We just could not operate in a society if we believed every supernatural claim that people brought forth. We'd still be burning witches.

TIMMY2

When I was a child, I asked the question why many, many times because I was interested in knowing something and from most people I got an answer even if the answer was, I don't know.

After growing up, I noticed that some people asked the question why for totally different reasons at times.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

And Thomas,

You did not answer my questions.
Why do you not believe that Elvis is still alive?
There are thousands of eye witness accounts.
Who are you to judge their experiences?
By what criteria do you judge them to be false?

President Obama's first full day started with a visit to the Oval Office after a night of dancing. He arrived at 8:35 a.m. since he and Michelle were up late Tuesday night after attending 10 inaugural balls. It remains to be seen if his normal work day will begin at 6:30 a.m. as did that of his predecessor.

Reintroduction of the US into the Mideast process is one of President Obama’s primary goals.

The new president called President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel, King Abdullah of Jordan, and President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority first thing this morning. Obama pledged "active engagement" for a fragile cease-fire between Israel and the Palestinians in Gaza.

"In the aftermath of the Gaza conflict, he emphasized his determination to (1) work to help consolidate the cease-fire by (2) establishing an effective anti-smuggling regime to (3) prevent Hamas from re-arming, and (4) facilitating in partnership with the Palestinian Authority a major reconstruction effort for Palestinians in Gaza," press secretary Robert Gibbs said in a statement.

The question is how to even begin, since we do not recognize the duly elected government of one key combatant. How can we begin reconstruction, if Israel will not open the borders for anyone but the collaborating PA, which has been summarily rejected by the Palestinian people?

Thomas,

YOU WROTE: Don't these freedoms also apply to President Obama? He is not only the President but he is also a citizen, is he not?

Yes Thomas. Barack Obama is a citizen and has the right to watch porn, and speak of his love for Lebron James, and publicly declare that rasberry ice cream is the best flavor of all time. But do any of these things belong at a presidential inaugural?

YOU: Are these freedoms only allowed in private?

No, they are also allowed publicly. That is why Barack Obama did not get arrested or fired for saying them. That's what freedom of speech is all about. And Farnaz exercised her right of free speech to say that he should not mention God. She is free to say that. Tat is why she did not get arrested for saying it.

YOU: To diminish someone else's freedom is to diminish your own freedom.

Good thing no one here diminished anyone's freedom.
Farnaz was just exercising her own right to free speech.
You seem to be confused, Thomas, between the right to free speech, and the right to not be criticized for your speech. The latter does not exist. Get it?

TIMMY2

You wrote, "Anyone reading Farnaz's posts would easily note that she most definitely believes in both freedom of speech and freedom of religion. It is hard to understand why you would even ask her that question? How could this not be obvious to you???"

Don't these freedoms also apply to President Obama? He is not only the President but he is also a citizen, is he not?

Are these freedoms only allowed in private?

These freedoms don't just apply to oneself but they also apply to others, do they not?

To diminish someone else's freedom is to diminish your own freedom.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Thomas, you ask Farnaz: "One of the things that this country was founded on was freedom, two of which are freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Are you against one or the other or both?

Anyone reading Farnaz's posts would easily note that she most definitely believes in both freedom of speech and freedom of religion. It is hard to understand why you would even ask her that question? How could this not be obvious to you???

I'm sure she also believes in the right to watch porn, but feels that it would be inappropriate to do so at a government ceremony. It is something that people should do privately. Just like praying to God.

Thomas Baum,

I said: "No. I take each claim on a case by case basis."

YOU ASK: "If you actually do this, how could you possibly have time to do anything else?"

It is quite rare for people to tell me about supernatural experiences they've had. It maybe happens a couple of times a year at the most. And each time it happens it only takes a few minutes, if that, to assess the case. This leaves me with plenty of time for other things, but thanks for your concern.

YOU: Also, besides having a preconceived notion, what is your criteria for judging something that has happened to someone else?

I told you, it's case by case. Are you talking about Elvis is alive witnesses?
Can you tell me why you don't believe them?
Can you tell me why you don't believe Joseph Smith?
Can you tell me why you don't believe L Ron Hubbard?
Can you tell me why you don't believe Charles Manson?
Can you tell me why you don't believe David Karesh?
Besides your preconceived notions, what is your criteria for judging these people's experiences?

Daniel12,

YOU: Logic dictates that something complex can come from only something more complex.

Who's logic? Not my logic.
Logic dictates nothing. It is just one tool of our brain function.

YOU: - thus supporting the religious or intelligent design view.

No. Your logic premiss is flawed at it's core.

YOU: "Now I am not saying the religious are correct or anything like that, what I am saying is that if constantly increasing proof of things complex coming from the simple is not made, humans being humans will prefer the intelligent design view or God"

No. I am proof that this is not true. There is no proof that life came from the less complex, and yet I do not believe in intelligent design. And I am human. And there are millions and millions just like me.

YOU: Furthermore, I do not believe the proof of today that complex life can come from simple elements is enough to sway the human race to belief in the biological view.

It has already swayed me and millions and millions of others. Most people are just science illiterate, due in part to the brainwashing of religion from an early age.

YOU: And this apotheosis is none other than we simpleton humans of today taking our evolution into our own hands and creating a more complex form of ourselves.

We were once a less complex form. We were once apes. Now we are more complex than that. No God necessary.

YOU: If we cannot do so, then once again I doubt we will rise successfully out of the intelligent design or God belief. That is all"

I have already risen out of such primitive belief, as have millions and millions of the smartest people on the planet. Education will bring the rest along in due time. Admittedly, a scientific breakthrough or discovery in this field would help, but I don't see it as necessary to continuing the enlightenment that is currently underway, albeit at a snail's pace.

FARNAZ2

You wrote, "Without the G word, I would have been fine."

Just guessing but I imagine the G word stands for God, why are you so afraid of God and the word God?

One of the things that this country was founded on was freedom, two of which are freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Are you against one or the other or both?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

TIMMY2

You wrote, "YOU: "Do you really think that all of the people that have had some kind of experience out of the ordinary or for that matter an experience that you haven't had is delusional and/or hallucinal?"

No. I take each claim on a case by case basis."

If you actually do this, how could you possibly have time to do anything else? Also, besides having a preconceived notion, what is your criteria for judging something that has happened to someone else?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Daniel,

I feel considerably more "complex" now than at the beginning of my life. Don't you? The process of growing "complexity" is my personal evolution, yes, evolution, that has made me what I am today, starting from the conception, from the two cells merging, and easily traceable through my life.

Timmy

“There are too many and no reason to pick a favorite. I enjoy the mystery of it all. I feel no need to settle on a theory of the universe. I try to remain completely open minded about it.”

Well said Timmy, I agree with you 100%. No basis to pick one and no reason to pick one.

To Timmy and all who may be concerned about my statements on Darwin and Daniel Dennett.

It is well acknowledged (by Dennett no less) that Darwin--specifically the conception that not only does nature not need an intelligence at the beginning (intelligent design) let alone God, but that complex life can come from something less complex (simple elements)--is a conception that goes against the grain of logic.

Logic dictates that something complex can come from only something more complex--thus supporting the religious or intelligent design view. Now I am not saying the religious are correct or anything like that, what I am saying is that if constantly increasing proof of things complex coming from the simple is not made, humans being humans will prefer the intelligent design view or God.

Furthermore, I do not believe the proof of today that complex life can come from simple elements is enough to sway the human race to belief in the biological view. What biologists must do to finally sway belief into the proof of biology is succeed at the apotheosis of the biological view--that things complex can come from things simpler than them.

And this apotheosis is none other than we simpleton humans of today taking our evolution into our own hands and creating a more complex form of ourselves. If we cannot do so, then once again I doubt we will rise successfully out of the intelligent design or God belief. That is all.

Moderate, you wrote:
"I hope this last was not too pedantic."

I understood the palindrome part, just not the IRC, so couldn't relate it to our exchange.

I'm still not sure that it pertains. Yes, I was being very literal in stating the translation of ad hominem, but the paragraph below should have told you that I understood your point.

I agree with you about Obama and Powell.

PART 10 (Whew!)

ME: Therefore, what’s "good" is any tendency in the mental makeup to empathy, cooperation, cohesion, sharing, and altruism. Any social animals (including early us) that don’t exhibit them are driven out of the group (where they’re likely to die), killed, or prevented from mating. Those that have them, produce young that are more likely to have them. This is how natural selection proceeds.
ME AGAIN: The bacteria are working for their *own* good. Those that do us harm by using our bodies as their homes and food supplies, are not doing it maliciously – they’re just doing what their genes and natures drive them to do, as are we. We’re in an evolutionary race with them – and they have the edge, since they reproduce (and therefore evolve) millions of times faster than we do. Our immune systems do their best to keep up, and we use our brains to come up with “miracle” drugs, but the bacteria are constantly evolving immunities to our drugs (at least partly because we overuse and misuse them). It’s an evolutionary arms race, where, like the Red Queen in “Through the Looking Glass,” you run as fast as you can just to stay in the same place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen"

PETER: “That is my point, in an evolutionary race the fit are the ones that survive. My own good is the survival of my progeny. As you said, your genes are just doing what genes do naturally. So if my genes are doing something that is different from your genes there is no good or bad about it”.

We’re talking about two very different things here. The race between disease-causing bacteria and humans is quite apart from the competition between two humans. Nature doesn’t care whether bacteria succeed in wiping out humans or not. Nor whether humans develop drugs or vaccines that wipe out those bacteria. But when it’s two humans in a tribe, the one who produces the offspring that work best in the tribe, will be the successful one.

PETER: “If my view of 'right' is different from yours then it is just because my genes are responding to their environment in a different manner than yours; my chemical make up is different than yours. If in the end I outlast you and my progeny are stronger, meaner, faster and better than yours (and I arrive at better only because they are able to adapt where as yours flounder and fail) because they outlast your strain, there is no good about it. That is just what genes do according to you”.

No. See above. If your genetically determined view of right is the view that makes you a functioning part of your tribe or family, and mine makes me dysfunctional, then your progeny will probably do better than mine – if I were even to have any. This would have nothing to do with faster, stronger, meaner – those are not the traits that get humans ahead. The “good” is not in the greater numbers of genes passed on per se, but in the reason *why* they’re passed on in greater numbers.

PART 9

PETER: “You start with a basic foundational premise or premises on how the world is and you build on those. Some things are negotiable and others are not because that would mean you would have to change your belief system. You believe that this world came about by natural means; I believe it came about by supernatural means. Neither one of us were here to witness it coming about so we build our outlook on one of the two presuppositions to account for everything we see - either God or impersonal chance; either intent or random happenstance”.

No, I don’t start with a “basic foundational premise”. That’s what religions do. I start with evidence, and go where it takes me. No presuppositions at all.

PETER: “There again we look at the circumstances in two different ways. I look at it as God has revealed it by His Word. 'In His Image and likeness' means that there is an innate ability in each human to know right and wrong. With the Fall man has been suppressing the truth of God, however, so man does not see light, but the darkness of his own mind. Facts don’t speak for themselves, they need interpreting. You need to interpret it from an evolutionary frame of mind for your worldview to work – but it doesn’t work”.

Actually, facts *do* speak for themselves – loudly. And my “worldview” works very well indeed – each field of knowledge supports the others, even though the knowledge of each is arrived at separately. Thus Darwin’s theory called for an old Earth, and geology found that to be the case. Independently. Darwin’s theory called for a means of transmitting characteristics from one generation to the next, and whaddyaknow, along came genetics – and then DNA analysis. Paleontology found fossils that supported the supposed lineages, precisely where one would expect them. It all fits – which is why evolution is a unifying *theory* and not a mere hypothesis.

PART 8

ME: Animals such as we are, live in social groups because we’re ill suited to living as individuals. We require the protection and the cooperation from others of our kind to make it in this world.

PETER: “First off, I don't see us as animals. But the point is still which society determines what ‘good’ is? Sure, for the most part societies can reason that murder is wrong, but to a tribe in the south seas, not too long ago cannibalism was considered an okay practice”.

Haven’t we beaten this one to death? Not seeing us as animals doesn’t change the fact of it. Look up the definition and tell me how we don’t fit it. And don’t say it’s because we have a soul and they don’t (remember the Tanakh!) unless you’re prepared to show me a soul, or scientifically demonstrate its existence.

Those South Sea tribes didn’t kill and cannibalize their own tribe members. Remember that evolution worked first at the family/tribe level.

PETER: “Two conflicting viewpoints cannot both logically be good when viewing the same set of circumstances. A couple of examples we have been discussing are abortion and same-sex marriage. Some countries and people groups still see these issues as morally wrong. Why should your group be the one who determines it to be ‘good’? That is the point I have been arguing all along. You can't without an absolute, objective, ultimate authority or measure. It is just personal preference and there is no good about it”.

Where is your absolute standard on these issues? The bible doesn’t mention either one. The reason that my standard is better, is that the societies that deem it immoral are basing it (somehow) on religion, which is not demonstrably true. My standard is based on empathy. Empathy for the gay who can’t help being what (s)he is, and empathy for the mother, who is a real, living, human, rather than on a clump of cells that has only the potential to be human someday. However, I would like to see abortion ended by better means of pregnancy prevention.

PETER: “You measure ‘good’ by feelings and preferences. You feel because the majority perceives something as beneficial that makes it so. On that basis, what makes Hitler's Germany as wrong? What makes Mao's China and their record of human abuse wrong”?

Jeeze, Peter, you are a broken record. Yes, I measure “good” by feelings. Feelings that millions of years of evolution of social animals wired into my brain. Feelings of empathy. That monkey that wouldn’t shock his neighbor.

What makes Hitler and Mao wrong is that they committed human abuse and murder, without feeling sympathy or empathy. They were sociopaths. This is not what evolution selects for, for the simple reason that it doesn’t make a social group harmonious. How many times must I explain this?

ME: I don’t have a "belief system" …

PETER: “We all have a belief system Pam. You just may not be aware of it. Your ideas of this world do not rest on nothing”.

The latter sentence is correct – they rest on evidence.

PART 7

PETER: “In a material universe, where do abstract ideas come from? A brain is a material organ, relying on the firing of material nerve endings to direct movement and speech, yet logic is a concept, not a physical object. Why should my nerve ending fire in the same manner yours do? How does the non-physical come from the physical”?

How does music come from a cello? How do TV signals come from an antenna? How does heat come from the Sun? How does a calculation come from a computer? Let’s not be silly, Peter. Thoughts come from brains.

PETER: "...what is the point of worrying about how unjust you perceive the Christian God to be?"

ME: I *don’t* worry about it. At all. I just can’t understand how it can fail to bother *you*.

PETER: “Why would knowing that justice will eventually be carried out bother me, unless I had done something wrong? Justice is getting what you deserve, mercy is getting what you don’t deserve”.

How does this follow what’s above? I didn’t ask why justice bothered you, but how the *injustice* exhibited by the God of the bible could fail to bother you.

ME: " That’s just life. We take the hand we’re dealt and do the best with it that we can. Grow up, Peter – you can take it."

PETER: “If that is the case, you just take what you get and hand over your wallet and stop your belly aching”.

Who’s bellyaching? And what part of “do the best with it that we can” do you not understand?

ME: "Ultimate meaning?" Why is that necessary? We can imbue our lives with plenty of meaning for ourselves, and for those who know us. Some can even leave a lasting legacy beyond the memories of those who knew them. Why isn’t this enough for you? Why must you have *eternity*? Do you know how long that is??? Bor-ing.

PETER: “In your worldview, when you are dead and buried nothing will have any meaning or significance so why are you shooting for it now”?

Can’t really say that I *am* shooting for it, but the answer is that it matters to you *now* - and now is all that we have. Also, the fact that it won’t matter to the dead person, doesn’t mean that it won’t matter to those left living. That’s what a legacy is all about.

PETER: “If Hitler had succeeded who knows what kind of world would have been. Look what Mao did in China, Castro in Cuba, and Stalin in Russia. I would not call any of these people free of mental illness and society was/is run on their terms”.

Temporarily. And it didn’t change the collective consciousness of all people. Most people who look at them know that they aren’t good, including those under their thumbs.

PART 6

ME: "I’m not talking about transcription errors, anyway. I’m talking about things like bats being birds, and four-legged insects (he made enough of them, he should certainly know how many legs they have), and four-legged fowl (!) and Joseph having his goats look at striped poles while they mated, so they had striped offspring (telegony – it doesn’t work)."

PETER: “Without references please it is hard to comment on something that is being dragged out of thin air”.

Not out of thin air – out of your bible. Sorry, I thought you knew it well enough that I wouldn’t have to give references, but here they are:
Bats as birds – LEV 11:11-19
Four legged fowl – LEV 11:20
Four-legged insects – LEV 11: 21-22 (and while you’re in Leviticus, be sure to check out rabbits that chew their cuds in 11:6)
Goats (sorry, it was Jacob, not Joseph – my bad memory) - GEN 30:32-42

I mentioned a few of the many anthropomorphisms:

PETER: “God relates to us in a way that we can understand by using human, animal, plant pictures. We live in a physical world so we best understand concepts that draw us a picture of things we see in physical reality… He chose to reveal Himself in ways that we could grasp”.

How patronzing of him (and you). I can understand the concept of “spirit” just fine, thank you. I don’t believe such things to exist, but I can grasp them quite easily.

ME (replying to Peter’s assertion as to the finer meaning of “Thou shalt not kill”: You know what, Peter, I really don't care. At all. My point was simply that the commandment wasn't clear, and requires interpretation, and you're proving my point.

PETER: “That is apparent Pam. You asked the question, but you don’t like the response”.

It has nothing to do with my not liking the response. It has to do with the response being an attempt at interpretation.

ME: I'm pretty sure that my animals don't know God at all."

PETER: “You may be right”.

I’ve been reading the Tanakh a bit. It’s very much the same as the O.T. in the early chapters of Genesis, but I found this line in 1:30:
“30 and to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is a living soul, I have given every green herb for food' And it was so”.

A living soul! Interesting. The bible substitutes “…wherein there is life…” Food for thought.

PART 5

ME: MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

PETER: Jesus lineage, through marriage and adoption was traced back through the male genealogy. But since He was conceived by the Holy Spirit He was born through the Virgin Mary, who did not have relations with her husband Joseph until after Jesus had been born. The one lineage traces Mary’s genealogy, the other Jesus’ adoptive fathers, Joseph”.

No, Peter. Read it again. The Matthew quote says that Joseph is the son of Jacob. The Luke quote says he’s the son of Heli. Neither one mentions Mary’s genealogy. Care to try again?

ME: JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.
JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Peter: “The Athanasian Creed explains it this way that Jesus Christ is equal to the Father as touching Godhood and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
Jesus took on human nature when He became a man (John 1:14). But He also retained His Godhood for it is impossible for the eternal God not to exist (Philippians 2:6-8). So in the one Person that is Christ there are two natures (Colossians 2:9). In order for Jesus to meet the requirements that the first Adam had failed to meet He became the Second Adam. You will find this theme of the Second Adam, the Perfect Adam throughout some of the epistles (1 Corithians 15:21-22; Romans 5:12-21). As a man He lived without the use of His Godhood in fulfilling what the first Adam had failed to do before God. He met the just requirements of a Holy God and fulfilled the Old Covenant, that all men before Him had failed to do. In this way, just as a man originally sinned and broke the law of God, the Second Adam, another Man, met every righteous requirement of the law and gave His life in exchange for those who would believe to reconcile them to God.
Therefore, speaking as a man Jesus could say that the Father was greater than He.
God being greater than man talks about the Son's willing submission to the Father in becoming man in order to reconcile man to God, to become the Mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5-6 and 3:16). So while on earth Jesus became of lower position than the Father in order to fulfill the plan of salvation”.

Man, that’s a lot of jumping through hoops to make it work. Didn’t someone mention Ockham’s razor…?

Part 4

I asked you to explain the following bible contradictions:

PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them."

PETER: “The LORD is good to all. You live and move and have your being only because of His grace to you (Acts 17:25); you, Pam, who in your rebellion slander and misalign your Creator”.
He is good enough to allow mankind to live even though they continue to practice evil and hurt one another. Man is responsible for the evil he inflict on his fellow human being”.

He is patently *not* good to all, nor does he allow all to live out a normal lifespan. Many who die young certainly do *not* “practice evil” or hurt their fellow man.

I don’t do these things, either, but I also don’t believe – shouldn’t he have killed me before now? Oh, and for the record, I am not in “rebellion.” You can’t rebel against what isn’t there.

ME: God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (EXO 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (EXO 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (GEN 32:30)
God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (JOH 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (EXO 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1TIM 6:16)

PETER: “God often revealed Himself in the OT by theophanies. God appeared in human or some other form (Genesis 3:8; Genesis 18). They did not see God who is Spirit but the representation of what God is like, for you cannot see Spirit. Some say they saw Christ before He permanently took on human form and became man…”

You miss the point. If the three latter points are true, then what you say about God revealing himself, *cannot* also be true. Read them carefully.

ME: PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
1CO 1:19: For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

PETER: “There is a difference between human and godly wisdom as 1 Corinthians 1:19-25 points out and elsewhere in Scripture make known (Proverbs 1-3). Knowledge outside of God has much foolishness to it”.

The lines quoted do not refer to “Godly wisdom.” All refer to human wisdom. As for knowledge outside of God being foolish – you certainly don’t hesitate to avail yourself of its fruits – we got your replies by computer, not in a vision.

Part 3

None of this is a “belief system.” “Belief” is not required in the sense that religion demands. I take nothing on faith. There is solid evidence underpinning all of this knowledge. Each new discovery just serves to reconfirm.

For instance, scientists have worked on classifying the relationships of animals and plants to one another since Aristotle. Carolus Linnaeus produced the most extensive taxonomy, according to shared characteristics, giving us the familiar domain > kingdom > phylum > class > order > family > genus > species heirarchy. Relationships were modified somewhat after Darwin gave us the principle of common descent, and new discoveries about microscopic life have given us more kingdoms, but with the advent of DNA testing, and the new way of linking the family tree of all life, cladistics, early work has been largely corroborated, and our relationship to all living things is clear.

Why do you think God created chimpanzees and bonobos to have DNA that is almost identical to our own? Why make them look so much like us (examine their ears, or their fingernails…), why make them to have intelligence and empathy that is so close to our own? Was this God’s cosmic joke? Was it to fool us – to trick us into unbelief? How sweet of him to use his superior intelligence to trick his foolish creations!

PART 2

PETER: “You will have a surprise awaiting you then when you die”.

How kind (dare I say “Christian”?) of you to wish this for me. Yet, somehow, I’m not the least bit worried.

PETER: “That is news to me. Where did life come from? According to mainline science the universe had a beginning and life had a beginning. How did life come from non-life?
You say I do not have a clue about evolution. What I am doing is asking you to first show me how life came about from non-life before you incorporate the belief system that has engulfed you”.

Peter, you have so little knowledge about any of this, that it would require many hours of instruction to bring you to the point where you could even grasp what I was saying. I can’t teach you what I know in the space of this forum. However, the information is out there, in abundance. You have to be responsible for your own education. I would start with “abiogenesis” on Wikipedia. It will give you a rough overview of the various lines of inquiry. This articale will give you more depth on one that I find very compelling:
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/feb/did-life-evolve-in-ice/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=

Will it tell you every step of the process? No. Not yet. But we’re getting very close. We know how amino acids formed in the early atmosphere, we know how these amino acids can self-organize into RNA-like structures in tiny air pockets in ice. We know how lipids self-organize into double-walled spheres exactly like cell walls. This is all getting us very close to the formation of the archaea. There is new information constantly.

You see, Peter, science isn’t like your black & white religious world. Knowledge doesn’t develop in straight lines – it’s messy, like the rest of nature. Things are learned in one area, then another – discoveries in bits and pieces that eventually come together in a coherent whole. And there’s not just one group of scientists working on “Life.” That would be way too big a subject. Some work in one field, others in another. All are working on pieces of the puzzle.

Evolution is an easier subject than abiogenesis, because it is ongoing, and there is relatively more evidence to work with, including physical evidence. Abiogenesis concerns molecules and structures that don’t normally leave fossils, so it has to be teased out experimentally. One has to expect it to take longer. To me, it’s quite amazing that we know as much as we do already, considering the short time we’ve been working on it. So carts and horses are not an apt analogy.

OK, Peter, you may never see this, but on the off chance that you return to read, if not to write, I will answer at least some of what you wrote.

I notice that you didn’t answer a good bit of mine. You never answered about all the atrocities committed by God – Job, the bears killing the children, the poor soda who unwittingly transgressed while merely trying to worship – and the 50,000 who were killed along with them. You didn’t answer about how you would feel if God did to you what he supposedly did to Job. You didn’t say how you would feel about a person who tested loyalty by killing someone’s loved ones.

You didn’t answer about the sins of the stillborn babies and the young children who die horrible deaths every day. How is this not killing the innocent?

You also failed to comment on the article about the evolution of empathy, although I reminded you numerous times, and you promised that you would.

And some of the answers that you *did* give were disingenuous at best.

You endlessly return to the theme of brutal dictators – what tells you that they aren’t thinking correctly? Why would you call them evil? They do nothing that O.T. God didn’t do. Nowhere in the bible does it advocate democracy. It’s full of kings and thrones and kingdoms. Do what I say because I decree it, not because I have convinced you that it’s right and fair.

You said to Timmy : “ God is worthy of respect and honor. He is majestic and pure and holy and lovely and noble…”

The God described by the O.T. is none of these things. He’s jealous, vindictive, cruel, murderous, and unjust. I know this because I have a built-in sense of right and wrong, courtesy of my social ancestors.

Let me ask you, Peter – do you follow all of those Mosaic laws that you mentioned when defending the 10 Cs? Have you stoned to death any adulterers, or people who work on the Sabbath, or gays, or children who curse their parents? How about people who blaspheme? You should be stoning anyone who uses the word “God” without doing so in prayer or discussion, shouldn’t you? Do you refrain from eating seafood? Do you make sure that your clothes aren’t made from a fabric blend? Do you refrain from rounding the corners of your head, or marring the corners of your beard (Lev.19:27)? Do you allow your wife to speak in church? Do you consider her unclean for a week after giving birth to a son, or two weeks if it’s a daughter?

If you don’t follow the above, why not? Is it because your own sense of right and wrong tells you that these are either barbaric, or stupid, or sexist? If you do follow them, would you tell me the name of the last person you stoned to death, so I can call the police?

Well saying "So Help Me god" sure did not help the stock market!!!

Persiflage,

YOU SAID: much of what I'm truly interested in has little practical value - other than allowing me to reevaluate the world I live in with a different slant....the David Bohm idea is an example.

I am down with all of that. I love to be contemplative about all of these things. I just find certain terminology like "these things that we think are real aren't really real" to be in need of a reality check of their own. People can take things like that the wrong way.

YOU: At a certain age, we tend to have all the necessary information and practical wisdom we need to get through the day, so oddball stuff has much greater currency.

Tru dat.

YOU: I've had a discussion or two with T. Baum regarding his views and mine, but don't begrudge him his belief in the Trinity.

I don't begrudge him his belief either. But I don't share it. So when he tells me that he has specific confirmation of his belief direct from the source, my only options are to believe him and become a believer in what he believes, or to assume that he had a spiritual emotional experience that he only thinks was this confirmation. And if he is truly claiming that it was specific enough to confirm the truth claims of a specific religion then he must surely have hallucinated those specifics, or he has only convinced himself that he received them from God (delusion).

It doesn't matter how much you like him, your only options are to believe what he believes, or believe that he only thinks that what he got was a specific confirmation of a specific religion.

YOU SAID: "His religious views are far more pacific and positive in nature than many believers that we find on these threads"

Indeed. But he is the one who addresses me and my posts by telling me that he knows that God exists for sure because of an experience that I can not refute because apparently God won't talk to me for some reason just to Thomas. Am I supposed to just ignore his posts to me, or respond honestly as I have done?

YOU: "His ideas on divine Love are not offensive to me -but perhaps they are to you?

No. I have no problem with love.

Persiflage,

the Li Bai is superb and yes, this day has been long in coming. While expectations are wildly unrealistic, it was the change we've all been waiting for, and then some.

In my view Li Bai beautifully presents a direct apprehension of reality as it is, sans ego - the bamboo flute rather than the electric guitar.
------------------------

Yes, and Li Bai loved his wine! I'm not kidding...he was famous (or notorious!) for it, did you know?

Farnaz

Onofrio,

Against the strands of dimming day,
A kite is caught in zephyrs,
Cheering down the cloudy sun,
Drawn by westward fetters.
A dog leaps at the trailing tail
Of thread and laddered ribbon;
Fails to snare his trip
To heaven; lives on, leaping.
---------------------
Perfect.

Farnaz :)

Farnaz - the Li Bai is superb and yes, this day has been long in coming. While expectations are wildly unrealistic, it was the change we've all been waiting for, and then some.

In my view Li Bai beautifully presents a direct apprehension of reality as it is, sans ego - the bamboo flute rather than the electric guitar.

I don't really know Pound, other than as Yeats' protege - do I have that right? I recollect that he had a dark side, and nearly starved to death in Europe as an expatriate. A nice rendering of the Li Po....

Better times ahead for all, after today.

___________

UKBA - Buddhist cosmology proposes cyclic universes, and is in fact creator-free.

Brian Greene says nothing about Buddhist cosmology that I'm aware of - he is of course a string theorist, and M-branes are part of string theory models (also tending toward multiple universes) - string theory remains untestable as an alternate to present-day atomic theory - the hope for the GUT fades into the great void, or does it? How about quantum gravity theory and gravitons?

Never mind, night falls.......

Words that should not be spoken into a microphone at any government ceremony, particularly the presidential inauguration.

"Let us pray,
Almighty God, our father. Everything we see and everything we can't see, exists because of you alone. It all comes from you, it all belongs to you, it all exists for your glory, history is your story. The scripture tells us hear oh Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one, and you are the compassionate and merciful one, and you are loving to everyone you have made"

Rick Warren, earlier today.
puke.

Timmy - much of what I'm truly interested in has little practical value - other than allowing me to reevaluate the world I live in with a different slant....the David Bohm idea is an example.

At a certain age, we tend to have all the necessary information and practical wisdom we need to get through the day, so oddball stuff has much greater currency. I've had a discussion or two with T. Baum regarding his views and mine, but don't begrudge him his belief in the Trinity. His religious views are far more pacific and positive in nature than many believers that we find on these threads.

His ideas on divine Love are not offensive to me -but perhaps they are to you? Having studied mysticism for many years, this idea is not uncommonly found in both theistic and non-theistic
religious orientations. I look upon the idea as a metaphysical ideal, nothing more or less.
______________

Moderate - the nature of black holes per Stephen Hawking....a singularity is speculated to be free from the restrictions of known physical laws, as it's activities are the source of those laws - the singularity preceeding the Big Bang is the preemminent example. Sounds like metaphysics, no?

Nothing within the realm of experience can be said to be beyond human consciousness, by definition - so whether an observation is conducted by a living observer, or by the agency of an inert instrument constructed by that observer, the act of observation conditions the outcome.

In that sense, a 'passive' observation is more accurately defined as an 'active' participation.
According to Schrodinger, this act collapses the probability wave function and essentially creates the particle-based universe that we perceive and interact with.

What do you think of the idea that the physical universe phase shifts in and out of existence at hyper-speeds? At all events, the underlying basis for our 'physical' universe is not physical in any sense that the term implies....what are quarks, after all? More of the same - reductio ad absurdum.

_________

“Buddhist cosmology - and this of course is creator-free.”

I beg to differ. Brian Greene, author of the elegant universe, writes about cyclic model of the universe:

“Since the discovery of general relativity a number of cyclic cosmological models have been proposed; Richard Tolman suggested that the observed expansion of the universe might slow down(which is unlikely), someday stop, and then be followed by a period of contraction in which the universe got even smaller. But instead of reaching a fiery finale in which it implodes on itself and then comes to an end, the universe might undergo a bounce: space might shrink down to some small size and then rebound, initiating a new cycle of expansion followed once again by contraction. A universe eternally repeating this cycle –expansion, contraction, bounce, expansion again-would elegantly avoid the thorny issues of origin: in such a scenario, the very concept of origin would be inapplicable since the universe always was and would always be.

But Tolman realized that looking back in time from today, the cycles could have repeated for a while, but not indefinitely. The reason is that during each cycle the second law of thermodynamics dictates that entropy would, on average, rise. And according to general relativity, the amount of entropy at the beginning of each new cycle determines how long that cycle will last. More entropy means a longer period of expansion before the outward motion grinds to a halt and the inward motion takes over. Each successive cycle would therefore last much longer than its predecessor; equivalently, earlier cycles would be shorter and shorter. When analyzed mathematically, the constant shortening of the cycles implies that they cannot stretch infinitely far in the past. Even in this cyclic framework, the universe would have a beginning.”

So in effect the universe in the cyclic model has to have an origin too like the big bang model.

The data from WMAP satellite indicates that the universe is flat and its density is close to the critical density. Also, the universe has been accelerating in expansion for the past seven billion years. Since the big bang the expansion of the universe was decelerating. In most models, therefore, the universe would continue to expand until it reaches heat death. There would be no big crunch.

Another cyclic model deals with M-branes; but nobody seems to bother to explain where the branes themselves come from. I guess they just happen to be there with no origin.

Against the strands of dimming day,
A kite is caught in zephyrs,
Cheering down the cloudy sun,
Drawn by westward fetters.
A dog leaps at the trailing tail
Of thread and laddered ribbon;
Fails to snare his trip
To heaven; lives on, leaping.

Farnaz said: "I feel there is tremendous promise in Buddhism, some elements of Hinudism, practices, I mean.

I have studied buddhism a little, on line mostly, but also through questioning friends who are buddhists. I also do yoga and find it to be very a spiritual practice when combined with the buddhist philosophy. All of these things have been very helpful in my life. I use a little Buddhism every day, along with a little Jesusism, and Hinduism, and Judaism, and Ghandiism, and Lennonism, and Obamaism, etc.

Ezra Pound
Pound translated Japanese versions of the poems of the Chinese poet Li Po.

The River-Merchant's Wife*

While my hair was still cut straight across my forehead
I played about the front gate, pulling flowers.
You came by on bamboo stilts, playing horse,
You walked about my seat, playing with blue plums.
And we went on living in the village of Chokan:
Two small people, without dislike or suspicion.
At fourteen I married My Lord you.
I never laughed, being bashful.
Lowering my head, I looked at the wall.
Called to, a thousand times, I never looked back.

At fifteen I stopped scowling,
I desired my dust to be mingled with yours
Forever and forever and forever.
Why should I climb the look out?

At sixteen you departed,
You went into far Ku-to-en, by the river of swirling eddies,
And you have been gone five months.
The monkeys make sorrowful noise overhead.

You dragged your feet when you went out.
By the gate now, the moss is grown, the different mosses,
Too deep to clear them away!
The leaves fall early this autumn, in wind.
The paired butterflies are already yellow with August
Over the grass in the West garden;
They hurt me. I grow older.
If you are coming down through the narrows of the river Kiang,
Please let me know beforehand,
And I will come out to meet you
As far as Cho-fu-Sa.

*A very different poem from Li Bai's. But haunting, beautiful.

"And so, to all the other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitols to the small village where my father was born, know that America is a friend of each nation, and every man woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more"

(Lump in throat)

Go Barack Go!

Hello Moderate,

You write to Persiflage, "We tend to a "Modernist" view...."

Actually, modernism as an art form of the modern period was very much drawn to the ancient and in its view the "exotic, the primitive," and, God help us all, the "pure."

Modernist thinking is another story. Some thinkers advancing theories during the "modern" period were what we now call postmodern. However, we in the US have always been behind the Europeans in certain ways, way ahead in others, way ahead.

However, politically, and in other ways, we have moved on to the Postmodern world. This is what I've been trying to tell you. See Jacques Lyotard (please) "The Postmodern Condition."
Or google it/him.

Then there's more from Lyotard, among so many others, but he ushered in the description, not the term.

Braced, I hope.

Farnaz :)

Hi Persiflage,

"Hi Farnaz - I have to get psychically re-tooled for another round of Buddhism....coming in the near future. Your recent poetic forays here with Onofrio were quite astounding!"

Yes, forgive me. I shouldn't pester you. I feel there is tremendous promise in Buddhism, some elements of Hinudism, practices, I mean. Promise for peace, hope.

I like Li Bai very much. I confess I have a weak spot for Pound's "translation" of the River-Merchant's Wife." I've been thinking of posting it. I Am devoted to Du Fu.
-------------------------------
I think that this has been a good day for America. I confess friends laughed at me when I told them we'd never make it through last year with Bush. I, literally, thought he'd bring us to the end.

Of course, the way had been paved for him. Some of the danger was visible at the time. Most wasn't. That is, only the evil could be seen, not the consequences.
----------------------------
But it has been a good day.

Farnaz

I confess I have a weak spot for

The Moderate,

YOU SAID: "We tend to a "Modernist" view in which we believe that there is no wisdom from earlier times to consider. This is impoverishing"

Who's "we"?

Hi, Moderate,

I watched Obama's address again - the Shrub was not pleased at our new president's remark about ideals! All in all it is worthwhile to watch it again - it is a remarkable speech, not for being uplifting and cheerleading, but for its perception, insight, and determination.

I well remember 1968. Further, I remember the horrors of the South in the 50's. My God, how wonderfully far we have come! America has, maybe, finally grown up. And yes, I remember when there was a push to get Colin Powell to run for president. Many veterans, including honkies such as me, would have voted for him. I was amused to see the sighs of relief from both parties when he refused to run - they both knew he would win!

In 65 years of life, I have never felt better about America as I do now, despite the mountains we must scale, and the swamps we must drain. By damn, Yes We Can!!!!!!

Visiting the Taoist Priest Dai Tianshan But Not Finding Him

A dog's bark amid the water's sound,
Peach blossom that's made thicker by the rain.
Deep in the trees, I sometimes see a deer,
And at the stream I hear no noonday bell.
Wild bamboo divides the green mist,
A flying spring hangs from the jasper peak.
No-one knows the place to which he's gone,
Sadly, I lean on two or three pines.

-Li Bai

Hi persiflage,

YOU ASK: so you don't think David Bohm knew he couldn't walk through walls when he proposed his ideas on holographic projections and the holographic universe?

I'm certain that he knew that. I was just pointing out how the hologram theory has no practical application in our "middle world" life. I do not refute the science behind it. But for us to say, "these things that we all think are things aren't really things at all" is kind of pointless. They are things in every way that matters to us middle worlders.

YOU: I think you'll just have to read the book Timmy. Do you have a favorite cosmology? Everybody needs one....."

There are too many and no reason to pick a favorite. I enjoy the mystery of it all. I feel no need to settle on a theory of the universe. I try to remain completely open minded about it.

YOU: PS. I'm quite fond of Thomas Baum, and seriously doubt that he's hallucinating when he recounts his inner experiences - atheist that I am.

Liking him should have no affect on your assessment of his claims. If you are an atheist, you can not believe that he had an experience that confirms the Catholic trinity concept of God. So when he tells you that he did, you may accept that he had some kind of spiritual or emotional experience, but you must see his claim that his experience was a confirmation of the catholic trinity God, as either a hallucination or a delusion. Otherwise, you would have to then believe in the trinity yourself. Now you don't have to tell him that you think he is hallucinating or delusional if you think it is impolite or unnecessary, but I don't see how you can see it as anything else while remaining an atheist.

YOU: but incessant arguing about religion could be fairly compared to pissing in the wind, and you know what happens when you do that.

Tell Thomas, that's his main objective here. To tell people that God exists because he knows it personally for a fact. When he tries it on me, I give my honest opinion.

Persiflage,

"While I think it's important to be conversant with current scientific thinking on quantum physics, relativity and cosmology, I'm personally partial to Buddhist cosmology - and this of course is creator-free."

I am a Western thinker so I like to work outward from current scientific thinking on quantum physics, relatively and cosmology. Still I think that the early Western philosophers, especially the late antiquity Stoics, and Middle Ages Christian theologists like Aquinas had a very sound bases to consider for further development. We tend to a "Modernist" view in which we believe that there is no wisdom from earlier times to consider. This is impoverishing.

I will keep an eye out for your Buddhist posts, as I only got some unappetizing views of it in the Sixties that weren't worth much.

Persiflage:

"...a mysterious realm supposedly transcendent to the known laws of physics."

Q.E.D.

Persiflage:

"...but more recently referred to as the participator effect."

Important distinction. It does not take an "intelligent observer" whatever that is, to do a state reduction.

Arminius,

I thought that it was wonderful to see so many black people who thought that the promise of America was taking another step forward, and that this time it included them. Way past time for that. If you lived through 1968 seeing 2008 was amazing. What a difference forty years make.

They had General Colin Powell on the tube this morning and he said there was only one hotel on the road to his military post that would take blacks when he was young. Amazing. I thought that he too would have made a splendid President. Too bad he didn't run in '96.

Moderate - William of Occam was after all a Catholic priest/monk of the 14th century, no? Still, his razor of reason was a stroke of insightful genius - nevertheless, to my mind a personal creator is not by any means the simplest solution to the conundrums of cosmology. If this were the case, we'd see most astro-physicists following your line of thinking, and we do not - quite the contrary.

As to the conservation of energy, I suspect this is why Lee Smolin proposed black holes as the logical emergent origin of the multiverse - a mysterious realm supposedly transcendent to the known laws of physics. For another view on parallel universes, I recommend a book by the same title - 'Parallel Universes - The Search for Other Worlds' by physicist Fred Alan Wolf.

Here he also explores the role of consciousness in the emergence of the phenomenal world - once known as the observer effect, but more recently referred to as the participator effect. See also 'The Self-Aware Universe' by physicist Amit Goswami.

While I think it's important to be conversant with current scientific thinking on quantum physics, relativity and cosmology, I'm personally partial to Buddhist cosmology - and this of course is creator-free. But that's another lengthy story.

_______________

Hi Farnaz - I have to get psychically re-tooled for another round of Buddhism....coming in the near future. Your recent poetic forays here with Onofrio were quite astounding!

I spoke too soon - continues to be astounding.....

regards to all -

Sent to Du Fu below Shaqui City

What is it that I've come to now?
High before me: Shaqiu city.
Beside the city, ancient trees;
The sunset joins the autumn sounds.
The Lu wine cannot make me drunk,
Qi's songs cannot restore my feelings.
My thoughts of you are like the Wen's waters,
Mightily sent on their southern journey.

-Li Bai

Arminius,

"I did read the speech, but that didn't show the Shrub."

It was priceless. Definitely worth watching again to catch it.

Arminius,

"Warren was fine, even his mention of Jesus."

I agree. His saying that Jesus was personally important to him, and invoking his name for that reason was good. None of the "you're going to he11 an' I'm not!" tone.

TheModerate,
"Did you see GW during the part about not needing to compromise our ideals to protect our nation?"

Missed that! I gotta watch again. I did read the speech, but that didn't show the Shrub.

Thinking of Li Bai at the End of the Sky

Cold wind rises at the end of the sky,
What thoughts occupy the gentleman's mind?
What time will the wild goose come?
The rivers and lakes are full of autumn's waters.
Literature and worldly success are opposed,
Demons exult in human failure.
Talk together with the hated poet,
Throw a poem into Miluo river.

-Du Fu

Persiflage:

"- so you don't think David Bohm knew he couldn't walk through walls when he proposed his ideas on holographic projections and the holographic universe?"

I think the universe is a screen saver on God's computer. I just hope He takes a long lunch...

Arminius,

"Obama's speech, while lacking, perhaps, the ringing JFK phrases, was Gibraltar solid and sobering. Very little boilerplate, and a lot of hidden gems that make us think and get to work."

Yes, I thought the speech was a policy geek's dream. Well crafted and very detailed. He is definitely going for more than one thing at a time. I will be going back to the speech a few more times too. A lot there. Did you see GW during the part about not needing to compromise our ideals to protect our nation?

Tonight Bush and Cheny will be back home.

Hi Timmy - so you don't think David Bohm knew he couldn't walk through walls when he proposed his ideas on holographic projections and the holographic universe? I think you'll just have to read the book Timmy. Do you have a favorite cosmology? Everybody needs one.....

PS. I'm quite fond of Thomas Baum, and seriously doubt that he's hallucinating when he recounts his inner experiences - atheist that I am. While his God may not be my God, it's his God all the same. My idea of the Absolute is quite different, but I do have one.

A verbal joust now and again is kind of fun. I'm engaged in one on the Stevens-Arroyo thread - but incessant arguing about religion could be fairly compared to pissing in the wind, and you know what happens when you do that.

Nevertheless, persistance can be a good thing - but in this case, you're going to get really, really wet for nothing.

regards -

Thomas:

"Hi, are you the same Moderate that was on these things awhile back?

If I remember right, you asked me to break up what I wrote so that it would be easier to read, at the time I didn't know how to, but I finally bumped into how to do it."

The same. Glad to see that the formatting hint worked. It does make your posts easier reads.

Things seem more civilized than they were back then. Everyone was incredibly dug in on positions in those days and there were a lot of folks with controversial books to sell who were fanning the flames.

I remain a Theist.

Dear Persiflage,

If you either resume posting on Buddhism or go on to the Ein Sof, if you prefer, I will buy you a chocolate bar.

Sincerely,
Farnaz
Quasi Seeker

Dear Persiflage

"What to do if one is dis-inclined to go the theistic route?"

Then don't take it. Just recognize that there are no supporting observations for all those other (hypothetical) universes. Multiplying spontaneous creation infinitely beyond what we observe is a leap of faith, just as is supposing that The Creator is the unique uncaused cause.

Occam's Razor prinicple says: do not multiply entities beyond necessity. So it suggests the theological path between these two alternatives. BTW, William Ockham himself believed that God was the only necessary entity, with all others being contingent.

As a former Atheist with a background in science and statistics, the Penrose calculation struck me a square and central impact. We use statistical improbability as our scientific epistemological method to falsify hypotheses. A P-Value of 1/(10^(10^128)) was startling to say the least. The only alternative to a creator is the multiverse hypothesis.

As to the many variations on the "many worlds" interpretation, in this universe we observe conservation of energy. The idea that every possible state reduction of an elementary particle creates a whole new universe around all its possible states seems a a violation of what we see in THIS universe. No?

Warren could have been worse. He could have been much better, but then he wouldn't have been Warren. Hope never to see him in the same setting again.

Would prefer God out of inaugurations. The Warren thing is done and can't be undone. Unfortunate. More important was Obama's speech. Would not ride the crest of the wave. There had already been plenty of celebrating; time now for us to take stock. A good speech for unifying. Lowery was good in that way as well.

Obama's speech, while lacking, perhaps, the ringing JFK phrases, was Gibraltar solid and sobering. Very little boilerplate, and a lot of hidden gems that make us think and get to work. It is worth visiting again. Our new president's overall attitude of seriousness really got to me - he is on no pride parade, he fully realizes what he has got himself into, and that is a very good thing.

Warren was fine, even his mention of Jesus. Lowery was superb.

Persiflage:

"Both Buddhist and Hindu cosmology propose an infinity of re-cycling universes - without beginning or end. No creator is necessary in these scenarios, although the metaphysics differ somewhat between the two (science is of course a metaphysical system as well)."

Much prefer the Buddhist thinking as you describe it. Yes, not only about the metaphysics of science, but that scientists now acknowledge it and are dealing with it! :)

Will you be posting more on Buddhism? I know you wanted also to post on the Ein sof...

Well, I thought Obama's speech was first rate, literally, right on the mark. Warren could have been worse, no doubt. Lowery was excellent. Without the G word, I would have been fine. If it had to be in and put there by a Christian, Obama should have left it with Lowery. But it went well, overall.

Thomas,

YOU ASK: "Since you have read it, what do you think that it says?"

I told you. I think it say that you think that you have special knowledge of God, given to you by God. I don't believe that you do. I believe that you, like the Elvis seers, are hallucinating. We can't just believe whatever people claim about supernatural experiences. We have to have some kind of verification. Otherwise we'd all have to believe that Elvis is still alive due to the eyewitness accounts. . As you say "Just because someone can think of something, doesn't make it so". That is what I think of your "simple statement".

Also, if there is a God, and your statement is true? I have nothing to worry about. My heart is in the right place. If he's not concerned about the "believing he exists" part, I'm okay.

YOU SAID: "If you notice, what I said was "one of the reasons""

And the other reasons are???

YOU: "Do you really think that all of the people that have had some kind of experience out of the ordinary or for that matter an experience that you haven't had is delusional and/or hallucinal?"

No. I take each claim on a case by case basis.

YOU: "For one who talks of others getting into the "us vs them", isn't this the same exact thing when you claim to speak for "millions of atheists"?"

I don't claim to speak for millions of atheists. The definition of atheist does.
People who do not believe in God or god's would have no choice but to see claims of communication with God or gods as delusions or hallucinations.

Have a nice day. Always be prepared.

TIMMY2

You wrote, "Gee ya think? I think we've all seen your simple statement of your more than a few times, Thomas.
Much like Farnaz, you have this self involved way of assuming that if people don't agree with your statements, they must not have read them."

Since you have read it, what do you think that it says?

You also wrote, "YOU: Maybe one of the reasons that you "have heard nothing from any God" is that you haven't asked"

Oh but I did ask. With all sincerity, multiple times as a young kid and as a church going teenager with the council of clergy. So that kind of blows that theory out of the water. Got any others?"

If you notice, what I said was "one of the reasons".

Do you really think that all of the people that have had some kind of experience out of the ordinary or for that matter an experience that you haven't had is delusional and/or hallucinal?

In speaking of CCNL's comments about me you wrote, "But more likely he got it from one of the other millions of atheists who would all label your claimed experiences as hallucinations or delusion."

For one who talks of others getting into the "us vs them", isn't this the same exact thing when you claim to speak for "millions of atheists"?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Hi Persiflage,

You quoted: "He went further, and proposed that phenomena were actually holographic in nature, rather than really real"

Yes, in fact we should be able to walk through walls. The particles are spread out so far and wide in both the wall and our bodies it should be very easy to line op the empty spaces. If the nucleus of one atom was the size of a pea sitting in the middle of an empty football stadium, the nucleus of the atom right next to it (in a rock for example) would be a pea in another football stadium across town. That is how much the particles are spread out in a solid object. And yet if someone were to throw this rock at you, it would split your head wide open. As you are at the hospital getting stitched up, I doubt you would take any comfort with the knowledge that it was actually only a hologram that hit you. You would indeed know that in every way that matters to you, that rock was real. And real solid.

It's fun that science has told us that solids aren't really solid. But it has no practical application in our day to day lives. Treating solids like holograms just doesn't work. In fact it hurts. Ouch! I just stubbed my toe on another hologram. :)

Thomas,

YOU: "It seems all too human to fall into the "us vs them", does it not?"

Humans are always evolving. There was a time when it seemed all too human to accept the superiority of Man over woman. We can change. There are many examples of humans doing away with us vs them. We used to be all separated into tribes of 100 or less. All of them practicing "us vs them". But now we are formed into much larger cooperative groups. There is much less "us vs them". We are moving in the direction of one human race and community. It won't happen in our lifetime, but it will happen. I do not subscribe to the pessimistic view of two of our resident Christians, Thomas and Arminius, that humans will always find a way to separate into us vs them. That we are by nature incapable of ever seeing ourselves as one human race because we will always find a way to fight. I can't imagine being so pessimistic.

YOU: As I have said before and I say again: God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof, a simple statement, I imagine some have read this statement, who knows?

Gee ya think? I think we've all seen your simple statement of your more than a few times, Thomas.
Much like Farnaz, you have this self involved way of assuming that if people don't agree with your statements, they must not have read them.

My answer to your simple statement about God that you keep on posting is to present you with your own words:
"Just because someone can think of something, doesn't make it so"

Moderate - you make a good point regarding the improbability of a universe such as ours coming to exist spontaneously e.g. the Penrose calculations on the required initial conditions and physical constants. An infinity of parallel universes may be required just to get ours!

In order to prove the materialist view, physicists will have to find a mechanism for creating an infinity of universes - Lee Smolin has proposed black holes as a possible source, but like string theory, this remains unprovable.

What to do if one is dis-inclined to go the theistic route? Both Buddhist and Hindu cosmology propose an infinity of re-cycling universes - without beginning or end. No creator is necessary in these scenarios, although the metaphysics differ somewhat between the two (science is of course a metaphysical system as well).

David Bohm was a quantum physicist that was influenced to a high degree by the Eastern metaphysical view, and proposed a cosmology that incorporated something called the Implicate order - a virtual boundless quantum sea (vacuum) of possibilities from which successive cosmic (explicate) manifestations emerge, only to devolve back into the virtual sea from whence they came.

Being a quantum-minded guy, he understood that at the sub-atomic level, everything is bundled energy, rather than 'real stuff'. How else could 'stuff' change continuously like it does, if not for this 'non-material' essence? Solid objects (in the classic sense) are not really so solid after all.....

He went further, and proposed that phenomena were actually holographic in nature, rather than really real. See 'Wholeness and the Implicate Order' for a full cover of this complex idea.

One can extrapolate (as others have) from this view the possibility that each successive universe carries a blueprint of the preceeding cosmos - therefore, no need to re-invent the cosmic wheel, so to speak.

My point - there are indeed other (non-theistic) ways to view our magnificant and mysterious universe....saying something is true doesn't necessarily make it so, and I'm sure you'd agree.

regards -

THE MODERATE

Hi, are you the same Moderate that was on these things awhile back?

If I remember right, you asked me to break up what I wrote so that it would be easier to read, at the time I didn't know how to, but I finally bumped into how to do it.

You wrote, "Non-theological response: There are an infinity of universes in some unobservable "multiverse" so some of them have to be like this one."

Personally, I don't even see how this could be construed as a non-theological response but that is just my opinion.

For one thing, what is infinity? The reason that I ask is that in the way that you present this is as a number so: infinity plus 1 would be more than infinity, wouldn't it?

Also "as some of them have to be like this one", why couldn't God make a universe within that "multiverse" completely different than this one and have life completely different?

Sometimes I think that "non-theological" responses, is just another branch of "theology", considering that theology is the study of God and it seems that some "theologians" like to put God in a box of their own making.

I also agree with you that there are many that group people together into them or those, such as "Christians, Jews, Mulims, Blacks, Whites, Americans, Asians...", the list could go on and on.

Yes, we are ALL different from each other (God made no two people alike) but we are ALL human beings, one race, the human race. It seems all too human to fall into the "us vs them", does it not?

I am Catholic and I cherish my Catholic Faith and unless people would actually listen to what I write or say in person, one could easily say, "I know what you believe, Catholic", even tho someone couldn't, unless that someone were God.

For one thing, there are some things that I know and there are other things that I believe and I am sure there are some things that I believe that other "Catholics" don't and some things that other "Catholics" believe that I don't".

As I have said before and I say again: God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof, a simple statement, I imagine some have read this statement, who knows?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Another failed meeting of Arab leaders in Kuwait…

In Kuwait, the heads of state failed to do much more than produce a vaguely worded condemnation of what they called Israel’s “barbaric aggression” and demand an investigation for war crimes. While calling for reconstruction of Gaza, the group failed to explain how it would carry it out.

When they left Kuwait City, the Arab leaders remained divided largely between two conflicting views of how to respond to Israel’s offensive in Gaza. Qatar and Syria were supporting Hamas while Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia were trying to help the Palestinian Authority of Mr. Abbas.

Israel’s Prime Minister Olmert said that Israel would support no reconstruction in Gaza that is overseen by Hamas. This could be interpreted to mean that the borders will not be opened to allow reconstruction managed by Hamas. Also, it is not only Israel which is opposed to Hamas' reconstruction of Gaza, but also the PNA and its Arab allies.

What will President Obama do about this issue?

The Moderate,

YOU WROTE: "Non-theological response: There are an infinity of universes in some unobservable "multiverse" so some of them have to be like this one"

Just to note, there is no such thing as the "non-theological response". Atheists do not have one communal position on this. Our only commonality is that we don't believe in God or gods. As for our posits about the origin of this universe, I think you will find almost as many different answers as you will find atheists. For example, I would never make a statement like the one you quoted above.

YOU WROTE: But to multiply the moment of spontaneous creation by 10^(10^128), with no data to back it up, is as bad a a solution as one that requires a self creating designer.

Precisely why I would never make such a claim as the one you labeled the "Non-theological response".

Thomas,

YOU: Maybe one of the reasons that you "have heard nothing from any God" is that you haven't asked"

Oh but I did ask. With all sincerity, multiple times as a young kid and as a church going teenager with the council of clergy. So that kind of blows that theory out of the water. Got any others?

YOU: "Did you get the hallucinating" from CCNL?"

No. It is a term I have always used to describe people who claim to have actual contact with God. Just like people who claim to have contact with Elvis, or space aliens. Actually both of those are more plausible than having contact with God the trinity. But you go girl.

It's possible that CCNL got it from me. But more likely he got it from one of the other millions of atheists who would all label your claimed experiences as hallucinations or delusion. Seriously, you've never heard that one before besides CCNL? That would be inconceivable to me.

DANIEL12

I was wondering what the "more complex designer theory" refers to?

Could it be the reverse evolution of intelligent design?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

TIMMY2

You wrote, "Told us????
No sir. He didn't tell me. I have heard nothing from any God.
Perhaps he told you. Or perhaps you were hallucinating."

As I have already said, when I met God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, I was told nothing in words at those meetings but God did tell my namesake what God's name was when he asked God.

Maybe one of the reasons that you "have heard nothing from any God" is that you haven't asked.

Did you get the hallucinating" from CCNL?

Thanks for letting me know where "more complex designer theory" came from.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Timmy and Thomas,

This discussion is not science versus faith. The earlier discussions of Roger Penrose' approximate calculation of the odds of seeing a universe like this one by accident:

1/(10^(10^128))

This is a more than astronomically small probability.

Theological response: So if we confidently reject the hypothesis that this universe was an accident, it seems to imply a creator.

Non-theological response: There are an infinity of universes in some unobservable "multiverse" so some of them have to be like this one.

But to multiply the moment of spontaneous creation by 10^(10^128), with no data to back it up, is as bad a a solution as one that requires a self creating designer. Since both arguments require faith, this is not a science versus faith argument. So take on faith what you will.

Thomas said: "Just because someone can think of something, doesn't make it so"

Funny I was just going to tell you the very same thing.

Thomas,

YOU SAID: God wasn't created or designed. God even told us His Name, I AM, meaning just what it says.

Told us????
No sir. He didn't tell me. I have heard nothing from any God.
Perhaps he told you. Or perhaps you were hallucinating.

YOU: Are you the one to come up with the "more complex designer theory"?

No, Daniel12 was, that's why I was addressing his comments. Were you not paying attention? I was countering Daniel12's assertion. Not my own.

TIMMY2

You wrote, "Oh but the logic is not on the side of the religious because something more complex would then have to have an even more complex designer and so on and so on into infinity.

God wasn't created or designed. God even told us His Name, I AM, meaning just what it says.

You wrote, "Until the religious grasp the simple concept of infinite regression. And then they will realize that it is the more complex designer theory is the one deserving of mockery."

Are you the one to come up with the "more complex designer theory"?

Is this the reverse evolution of intelligent design?

Just because someone can think of something, doesn't make it so.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

PETERHUFF

You wrote, ""Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom His favor rests." (Luke 2:14)

Those on whom His favor rests are those who have been reconciled to God by Christ. He leaves His peace with true believers (John 16:23; Ephesians 2:14). There is no peace for those who continually battle against the Lord. (see Matthew 10:34)"

What about Luke 2:10?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

PETERHUFF

You wrote, "God, before the Fall, was in the process of revealing and teaching Adam and Eve on His goodness and love. God gave the perfect, yet limited creature, the possibility of knowing evil and the limited creature made evil an actuality, ending his limited perfection, for now he had done what God had told him he could not do without the consequences."

First, you KNOW what God was "in the process of", how do you know that?

Second, I don't know if you believe that God is Omniscient or not, but apparently you don't, considering that God, according to you, had to change HIS PLANS, is this what you are saying?

I would say that the box you have constructed for God will not contain Him.

God has a Plan and God's Plan will come to Fruition.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Everybody (except Bun-Bun)

Don't forget to start watching the inauguration about 11:00 a.m. Main speech sometime about noon. Pick a good station, i.e., not Fox.

Bun-Bun, you run along and play, and if you're a good boy, you can watch your favorite biased cartoons on Fox - they call it 'news', but we know better.

CCNL - you must have been an irritating, peevish and whiney know-it-all, told-you-so kind of child. You have all the earmarks of a tattletale too. Take a vacation!

And if Newt Gingrich and his GOP confreres hadn't wasted time and the taxpayers money on a phoney impeachment proceeding for political gain in the first place, lots of bad things might never have happened - the details of which are now a darkly indelible part of our recent history.

Here's to atomic fusion and the Obama Presidency, and may the sun shine on!!

Again as a horrid reminder, when BO says "So help me god", he will be doing so as the blood of 35 million dead aborted babies oozes out over that bible.

With respect to destroying sperm (or eggs) as being akin to abortion, give us a break!!! Human male sperm is analogous to the millions of tons of inactive deuterium floating harmlessly in the ocean but combine it in a fusion reaction, it becomes the energy of the Sun.

With respect to "sperm-spreading" Bill Clinton being elected without having 70 million voting "moms and dads" of aborted babies voting for him, he did have 40 million and 48 million votes he could rely on. Add to that the luck of having first a bad economy under the first George Bush and good economy the next four years, he easily won two elections. BTW, his support of bank deregulation helped get us into our current economic crunch.

And his women chasing instead of terrorist chasing and the time-consuming impeachment proceedings resulted in OBL's ability to attack our country.

The Dark and the Fair

A roaring company that festive night;
The beast of dialectic dragged his chains,
Prowling from chair to chair is the smoking light,
While the snow hissed against the windowpanes.

Our politics, our science, and our faith
Were whiskey on the tongue; I, being rent
By the fierce divisions of our time, cried death
And death again, and my own dying meant.

Out of her secret life, the griffin-land
Where ivory empires build their stage she came,
Putting in mine her small impulsive hand,
Five-fingered gift, and the palm not tame.

The moment clanged: beauty and terror danced
Tot he wild vibration of a sister-bell,
Whose unremitting stroke discountenanced
The marvel that the mirrors blazed to tell.

A darker image took this fairer form
Who once, in the purgatory of my pride,
When innocence betrayed me in a room
Of mocking elders, swept handsome to my side,

Until we rose together, arm in arm,
And fled together back into the world.
What brought her now, in the semblance of the warm,
Out of cold spaces, damned by colder blood?

That furied woman did me grievous wrong,
But does it matter much, given our years?
We learn, as the thread plays out, that we belong
Less to what flatters us than to what scars;

So, freshly turning, as the turn condones,
For her I killed the propitiatory bird,
Kissing her down. Peace to her bitter bones,
Who taught me the serpent's word, but yet the word.

-Stanley Kunitz

Farnaz,

"you might have something to learn from them, these people who never for a second thought that the repair of the world, historical salvation rested in anything more than doing the right things"

Doing the right things according to who's laws? Or who's God's laws?

Hello Onofrio,

Thanks for the kind words. The problems with them subalterns is they cannot be heard, as you know. There's a wonderful short story cum novella, by Ozick, can't think of the title, on a fellow who needs a "translator." As for that yapping business, your pining admirer is, we hope, comforting himself with Neruda. (And at all events, we know some words are best forgotten.) Am very glad you like Abse!

Farnaz

Farnaz,

I was composing a reply to Arminius, but since all I would have said, and more besides, has now been stated succinctly by you, I will refrain from posting, content in redundancy :)

I would much rather the *subaltern* speak, given she far outranks this regimental mascot, whose yaps are apt to confuse.

Pam:

"I'm absolutely thrilled."

Me too. T.D. Jakes has said that this represents a "seismic shift" in American understanding of race. Personally, I think that much of the shift occurred years ago. Many Americans were ready to vote for an African American named Colin Powell in the 1996 election. It is too bad for the Nation that it took until 2008 for it to actually happen. Personally, I think Powell would have made a splendid President, and I hope and believe that Barack will, too.

"IRC?"

Internet Relay Chat. A communication protocol. In fact, the forerunner of this very Web Log (aka 'b Log or blog). There are amazing mis-queues in written interactive communications.

IRC speed type: WTF is a palindrome

Translation to English: What the frak is a "palindrome"

IRC speed type: No it isn't!

Translation to English: W is not F so "WTF" is NOT a palindrome.

Translation to semantics: Amusingly talking past each other.

I hope this last was not too pedantic.

Onofrio,

My friend of the Fundament, it seems you were right on all accounts, as Arrminius found the poem "something of a door-opener."

And, yes, Obama wears the crown lightly. Let us hope that the treacherous winter of our discontent is, at last, made Spring by this son of great hope.

Farnaz

Arminius,

"I knew it was you who first brought up the 'OT' thing. It is a subject I prefer to avoid."

There is more than one "OT" kind of speech. People, including, many of the Christian panelists, refer to it as the Hebrew Scriptures, not accurate, but better, in most situations. Not accurate, because the arrangement of books differs and there exist differences with respect to the books, but, principally, because Hebrew Scriptures, contains, minimally, Talmud and Tanakh.

Really, we don't think Scriptures. Understanding others, minority others, means understanding on their terms, don't you think? Being aware of their terms. Not trampling them, or assimilating them to one's own, which is not to say you have ever done so. Not assuming that because for your religion, for instance, another people's book means one thing, and that you can say whatever you'd like about it, ignoring those for whose community it has and does exist.

And refelcting, thinking, "It's fiction; its God is monstrous, tyrannical (???)"--maybe, thinking again. Maybe thinking (a) you might be offending others, and (b)maybe, quite simply, since it's a text that comes from and his been layered by another community (too), you might have something to learn from them, these people who never for a second thought that the repair of the world, historical salvation rested in anything more than doing the right things.

None of this is meant to refer to you literally, of course. Btw. what do you think of the Amichai piece? It's in translation, of course, but you see the sentiment.

Farnaz
Halting Explainer

Farnaz,
"What I mean to say is that the poem, though beautiful, and much everyone's reading, doesn't read the Tanakh through Judaic eyes (through a Judaic "terministic screen," as it were). I hope I'm not bringing more darkness than light."

I have no problem with that, but I cannot see thru your eyes, only mine at this time, anyway.

Gotta get some sleep to be in shape for tomorrow!

Arminius,

What I mean to say is that the poem, though beautiful, and much everyone's reading, doesn't read the Tanakh through Judaic eyes (through a Judaic "terministic screen," as it were). I hope I'm not bringing more darkness than light.

Farnaz

Farnaz,

I knew it was you who first brought up the 'OT' thing. It is a subject I prefer to avoid.

For Arminius:

Tourists, Part 2
Once I was sitting on the steps near the gate at David's Citadel
and I put down my two heavy baskets beside me. A group of
tourists stood there around their guide, and I became their point
of reference. "You see the man over there with the baskets? A
little to the right of his head there's an arch from the Roman
period. A little to the right of his head." "But he's moving,
he's moving!" I said to myself: Redemption will come only when
they are told, "Do you see that arch over there from the Roman
period? It doesn't matter, but near it, a little to the left and
then down a bit, there's a man who has just bought fruit and
vegetables for his family."

-Yehuda Amichai

It might be difficult to follow this without some context. Think of Obama's remarks yesterday outside the monument. What was important wasn't the marble but the people there.

Arminius,

Since I am Christian, I fail to sense the 'OT' influences that have been mentioned.
____________________
I am the one that "have been mentioned" them! As I posted the links to them! Is there some reason you don't address me, old friend? (Is the subaltern visible? :])

I'll leave it to Onofrio to explain, then, but let me say this, since it was I who referenced the "OT."

If you reread my post to Onofrio, maybe, you'll understand. Judaism doesn't read these things literally. Hasn't in at least fifteen hundred years or so. What existed before, we don't know.
To dispense with the burning bush as fable is redundant, pointless. We are an interpretive people. For us, as I said, the flame that doesn't consume is illumination, enlightenment, life-affirming, everlasting transcendent ethical principles. The Kabbalah takes this up in detail. (Hello, Persiflage!)

Judaism doesn't read the Tanakh with an eye to the NT, of course, but neither does it read it as myths or truths that need to be historically verified, or disproven. The fact that David and Solomon existed, is, frankly, neither here nor there. The imagery one occasionally finds in the poetry of Stanley Kunitz has more of a Judaically truthful ring to it. This is also the case with Yehuda Amichai, a very different sensibility.

Maybe, if you reread my post, you'll understand. At all events, I've given it a shot, my poetical friend!

Farnaz :)
Poetry Poster

PS. Scroll up

Onofrio,

I read Abse's poem in your link, and I find it something of a door-opener. Since I am Christian, I fail to sense the 'OT' influences that have been mentioned.

Onofrio,

And yet, for Christians, particularly US ones already addicted to illiberal literalisms, this secular take might break light in, shake up the edifice. Just maybe. And it might suggest to the hardboiled debunkers that babies can be salvaged from that old bathwater they think they know. In either case, interpretation has a chink to widen, where a sheer wall was. My hope, anyway. The direct route will be taken by precious few, sadly. The rest "about must, and about must go".
_________________________
Yes, yes. Of course, you are right. Might you, then, want to include the link in post to "alles," since otherwise, it might get lost in "mail." :)

Farnaz,

More Abse-solution

You:
"I like the poem you reference, too, but it shows an "OT"-ish, i.e., cultural Christian imagination."

True, true. The boyo speaks; still in the mix.

You:
"From his religion or bible oriented poetry, I see no knowledge of interpretation, indeed a kind of secular liberal literalism."

And yet, for Christians, particularly US ones already addicted to illiberal literalisms, this secular take might break light in, shake up the edifice. Just maybe. And it might suggest to the hardboiled debunkers that babies can be salvaged from that old bathwater they think they know. In either case, interpretation has a chink to widen, where a sheer wall was. My hope, anyway. The direct route will be taken by precious few, sadly. The rest "about must, and about must go".

Onofrio,

Dannie thoughts: I, too, am very fond of the poem of your link. (I pretty much like everything of his that I've read.) He came to "Jewishness" as an adult, if I recall correctly. And it is difficult for me to grasp his understanding of what that identity means/meant. I like the poem you reference, too, but it shows an "OT"-ish, i.e., cultural Christian imagination. From his religion or bible oriented poetry, I see no knowledge of interpretation, indeed a kind of secular liberal literalism. The latter,literalism, Judaism eschews. The significance of the flame in the burning bush, e.g., syncretism aside, resides in the meanings of light (illumination, enlightenment), life, everlasting ethical principles.

The sentiment, though, of wanting to pass on something of that late-coming heritage, is moving, indeed, and I can understand your fondness for that poem.

Those poems on his physician's work are sometimes too painful for me to bear. Often, I wonder how such a caring and gentle soul as he seems to be could have done such work. Indeed, he is muse blessed, and he blesses!

I'm so pleased that you are enjoying his work.

Farnaz :)

CCNL,

By your logic Bill Clinton would have been the first president elected by the pro abortion vote. But that is not true either because your logic is absurd. Your number "70 million" is way off for a start, because most abortions are single mothers not couples. And the logic that, if you've had an abortion, you will automatically vote for the pro abortion candidate, is entirely flawed. These people already had their abortion, they don't need another one. There is no reason to believe that they would factor abortion into their vote for any reason at all.

The other problem with your logic is that Barrack Obama is not "pro abortion", no one is. He is pro choice, and don't we all have to be? We are talking about something that happens inside of another person's body. Only totalitarianism can criminalize and enforce such things. None of us want totalitarianism.

Are you also against vasectomies?

And if an embryo can scream, So can a tumor. What about all of those dead tumors that are ripped out of people's bodies every day? Sure, they can't scream, but they are living things!!! What right do you have to kill one of these creatures and rip it from your body?

And what about the screams of all of those poor tiny crabs that you killed with that special shampoo you got from the clinic? They were already born!!! Living breathing creatures!!! And you committed genocide with your insecticide.

Sorry that was low. Or "rough and tumble" as they say.
But you really are talking our you ass on this one and being quite rude to boot.

Farnaz,

Links bookmarked, Abse perused, with growing delight. How the muse has blessed him, Cymrujewish, and through him ourselves.

So much to enthuse about there. A quick flick through first highlights:

"Toast all that which seems to vanish
like a rainbow stared at, those bright
truant things that will not keep"

Yet they do return, methinks.

His truth on the grand demise in 'Last Words' - matches deaths I've seen. To have mind enough for Abse's hoped-for last words would be truly the best end. I fear sudden seizure or long dissolution, sans everything.

On Lambert Rogers' surgeonly skull-rummage - that poem hurt me.

Particularly germane to the discussions at On Faith is a poem that threatens favourite for me - 'Inscription on the Flyleaf of a Bible' - wise counsel to Abse's granddaughter, and to us all.

"Doubting, read what this fabled history teaches"

I'm not usually one for links, but I think this poem has something to teach all sides in the belief-krieg.

http://www.archipelago.org/vol2-4/abse3.htm

And the blood of 35 million aborted babies will ooze all over the inauguration tomorrow. Blood is a cruel reminder of Reality and Truth!!!

Arminius, Arminius, Arminius,

The obvious is not bigotry. BO won on the backs of 35 million aborted babies!!! The numbers do not lie. Hillary Clinton had she won with the primaries, would have won with the same vote count.

Onofrio,

I think you're too modest about your poetry and portraiture, both. Methinks you are a poet. Some day, maybe you'll post some other work of yours.

Here are two links for Dannie Abse. The first connects to a site with his the three poems archived at the Welsh National Museum. (They're from his book, "Arcadia.") The second is to a site containing other Abse poems. If you click on, you'll come to "O Taste and See," very beautiful sweet.

http://www.archipelago.org/vol2-4/abse1.htm

http://www.poetryarchive.org/poetryarchive/singlePoem.do?poemId=73

Farnaz,

"(And a portraitist, are ye?)"

As the blog-doggereliser is to the poet,
So the doodler is to the portraitist.
Some feel for the process,
Increases reverence for the adepts.

I appreciate your pointing to the new-to-me poet & painter. Again, I am blessed and broadened.

Onofrio and Arminius,

Thank you, and God bless you both.

Farnaz
Bewildered Atheist

Onofrio,
"So I'm thinking, in a dreaming way, that even atheists' prayers find home and answer there."

They do.

Perhaps

Heaven reservoirs life's overflow of wished-for justice, a vat that may be tapped by all, now and never. So I'm thinking, in a dreaming way, that even atheists' prayers find home and answer there.

Hello Onofrio,

Thanks for your reflections on the Abse poem. (And a portraitist, are ye?) It's one of three archived at the National Welsh Museum. Oddly, though he's had residences at major universities here (e.g., Princeton, NYU, etc.), and is revered in Wales, England, etc., he isn't well known stateside and elsewhere. Not too long ago, he contributed to a wonderful anthology of poetry by physicians that, alas, I lent to a friend. There's quite a bit of googleable bio on him and on Josef Herman, but, for Herman, if you're not familiar, see-

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

Farnaz

Thanks to all the poets!

Pre-inaugural Thoughts

Last night, I spent painful time remembering two close African American friends, both of whom had died in their early fifties. They, in deep ways, had been scarred by racism, and the extent to which they had let me into their worlds had been limited.

Last night, I prayed to God (atheist or no), that whatever they are, wherever they are, they know what America has done and what will happen tomorrow. Of one, I dream continually and probably always will, although it has been years since he passed, collapsing outside the door of his apartment.

I had stumbled upon a written reflection of one of my Steven dreams. It ended, "I think you know I always loved you." What had I meant by that, I pondered. It was all right at the end?

Wishful, pre-inaugural thinking.

From the Clamorist to the Claymorist:

Too kind, Celt.

I cannot deny I also feel the hope, despite the hoopla. What a weight of expectation that man bears. Yet he seems to wear it lightly.

Onofrio,

Thanks for the praise, but I do believe you outdid me!

Arminius, I salute a fellow blog-doggereliser. Metrical too - zesta!

Frederic, your CCNL piece is a gem. I salute.

Coronaugural

Le Roi Soleil, and Caesars’ pomp
ain’t patches on this pop-starred romp.
Alongside this the Faerie Bess,
in pageantry, seems quite the less.
Napoleonic laurel snatch
from papal fingers ain’t no match
for lockjaw Springsteen, and the strut
of Bono, proffering a glut
of celtic homage to the fact
of finished Dubya rapture-pact.
The man-of-moment, seen to groove
Mandela-wise, as cameras prove,
beams proof of futures dreamed by King,
though killjoy heads doubt everything.

Moderate,

"The following top 100 IRC comments contains the following:

WTF is a palindrome
No it isn't!

Our communication has been on that level from the first, and remains there. See ya later".

I'm sorry to be so obtuse, but I have no idea what you're talking about. IRC?

MOD: "Better yet, I say "En garde, mon ami!" And to you also I ask: What do you think of tomorrow's Inauguration?"

I'm absolutely thrilled. I've been taken with him since his 2004 keynote address. I knew then that he would be our first African-American president, but I didn't expect it to happen so soon.

One of the pundits on a Washington talk show told a story about an acquaintance whose daughter was at Columbia at the same time as Obama. She called her father and said she was going to give him a name, and he should write it down, because Barack Obama was going to be president some day.

Clearly, he's been impressive for quite some time.

I was leafing through the Daniel Dennett book today entitled 'Breaking the Spell - Religion as a Natural Phenomenon' and found an intriguing little neighbor that I took home with me.

The book is 'The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality' by noted French philosopher Andre Comte-Sponville.

Although Dennett is a compelling author with compelling arguments, one needs an antidote afterward - the Comte-Sponville book is the right potion to sooth those jangled post-Dennett nerves.

The Dennett point of view takes one to the abyss and no further, while Comte-Sponville tells you why you need to throw yourself over the edge - and yes, you will find more than a little eastern mysticism here.....

_______________

Obama is President because he had no competition - he is simply a man who's time has come and that is our mutual destiny....petty little arguments and complaints aside, this is the simple truth.

Arguing against this fact just makes a person look plain stupid and venal, not to say vindictive and a damned sore loser to boot.

Tomorrow is a great day for the nation, and for the world at large. Most of us will celebrate this singular inaugural event as an emergence into the light of day, after 8 long years of darkness.

My black/white granddaughter is currently in Washington and will see this epic event unfold at the tender age of 14 - and which will surely qualify as a never to be forgotten experience in her young mind.

It is for many, a dream come true.

Bun-Bun barfs his bigotry
Puking prejudice plentifully
Hoping to confound us all
But all he does is cast a pall
Of darkness, misery and pain
A mirror of his soul, 'tis plain.
Is this a tortured spirit's yelp?
Pity Bun-Bun, he needs help!

Once again without the poetry:

Barack H. Obama won the presidential election not because of his race or good looks or ability to make a good speech. He won because of the ~70 million "mothers and fathers" of aborted children.

The math: Roe vs. Wade was decided
in 1973. Since that time (at least until 2003), the CDC recorded and published the number of abortions done in the USA each year. The rate on average was one million abortions per year.

That comes to ~35 million abortions and ~70
million voting-age "mothers and fathers" of these aborted children.

(The final popular vote count was 69,456,897 for Obama and 59,934,786 for McCain. )

And of course they voted for the pro-choice candidate, one Barack H. Obama, the
first president elected by this growing demographic.

The headlines should therefore not read,

"The First African-American Elected To The Presidency".

It should read:

"The First President Elected by the "Mothers and Fathers" of 35 Million Aborted Children".

The result would have been the same for any pro-choice candidate who won the primary election!!!

I really can't find much disagreement with Rick's point on the Israeli Palestinian issue. The UN and the US created an exceptionally forseeable conflict in the Middle east and the options out of it are few if any. I would emphasize a little more culpability on the Arab side than does Rick, but I agree that the Palestinians have been treated horribly by the international community and forced into desperate measures.

As for suicide bombings and the targeting of civilians, I think that this is, and has been, counterproductive to the Palestinian plight, and has lost them the international support which may have helped them to achieve a reasonable form of justice. I abhor their tactics and believe that they are never a resort under any circumstances. Moreover I do not believe that such tactics come from desperate land claims alone, and could only come about under the brainwashing of a delusional religion. I also believe that while this is primarily a land claim and human rights issue, that peace would be possible without the barrier of religion ON BOTH SIDES.

"Our people" vs "their people" is the problem. There is enough land for everyone. Our way vs their way. Our religion vs their religion. Our country vs their country. I like Rick's one state solution. In fact I like a one state solution for the whole world. A weapon free state for the whole world. Wouldn't that just be the bees knees? And no religion too. Imagine.

Actually, visiting the Obama website, we see that his plan is to eliminate our current imports from the Middle East and Venezuala within 10 years. We shall see what we shall see. This must give Israel a sinking feeling in the pit of her stomach. What will be our motivation to keep our 5th and 6th Fleets in the Middle East and the Mediterranean then?

With Israel importing about 80% of her oil from Russia, and Russia becoming the preferred supplier of choice of modern arms to Lebanon, Syria and Iran; since the US is persuaded by Israel not to supply them, the pressure builds on Israel.

Just ask the Europeans, who are shivering in their boots in sub-zero winter weather, if the Russians are willing to play politics and drive a hard bargain for their energy exports. Russia will get ever more wealthy and powerful as the price of her oil and natural gas skyrocket over the next 40 years.

Daniel12,

YOU: "But logic is on the side of the religious because it does seem absurd that something complex can come from something simpler than it.

Oh but the logic is not on the side of the religious because something more complex would then have to have an even more complex designer and so on and so on into infinity.

YOU: If such a feat cannot be done then atheists will have forever their pretension of something complex coming from the simple mocked"

Until the religious grasp the simple concept of infinite regression. And then they will realize that it is the more complex designer theory is the one deserving of mockery.

Frederic,

Great reply to CCNL!

And, Bun-Bun/CCNL, don't forget:

Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is great
If a sperm is wasted
God gets quite irate!

C.C.N.L: Each single sperm
You spurt per shot, if left to term,
could be a real human life,
(provided it would find a wife).

200 million (minus one)
potential lives are lost and gone.
You killed them with a single shot –
quite good for prolife, is it not?

The Moderate

Taking a page from your book, I certainly respect your and Peter’s right to your opinion.

In my view, that is to stand logic on its head. It is we who have displaced an entire population from their homes and placed them in the most horrid living conditions imaginable.

If these people use desperate means to resist, they are fully justified; whether it is inaccurate, unguided missiles or exploding human beings on a crowded bus of civilians. That is a statement on what we have driven these people to.

If innocents are harmed, then they should not have been there. They are the occupiers and the war criminals.

Israel uses a similar argument to justify killing 1400 people, mostly civilians. But truth and justice are on the side of the Palestinians.

With respect to advancing technology, I think that the answer today is that the homemade Qassam and Chinese Grad rockets have much shorter flight paths and fly at lower altitudes, making the fire control and reaction time problems more difficult.

I think that advancing technology, along with depleting energy supplies, is on the side of the Palestinians. In the future, long range, low altitude, stealthy, GPS guided, Land Attack Cruise Missiles (LACM), like the US Tomahawk used to annihilate Baghdad will be provided by Russia to any Arab or Persian state that wants them. It’s just a matter of business, and Russia has no love for us or our ally. These low flying cruise missiles are practically undetectable by radar, pop-up over the horizon at about 10 miles away, and can be precisely delivered to any Israeli street address at will. Russia has already begun to provide advanced technology weapons (including modern fighter jets) to Iran, Syria, and Lebanon.

As we become energy independent in the next 40 years or so, we will have no reason to deplete our national wealth by maintaining the 5th Fleet Carrier Task Forces in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea, and the 6th Fleet in the Mediterranean. Israel will be on her own and will be Duck Soup.

CCNL,

"Barack Obama is his name,
Pres because of skin tone?"

Poppycock, as usual. Barack Obama is going to be President because he was the best candidate. He defeated both Bill Clinton, and Karl Rove on the way. These two were the benchmark Democrat and 'publican political strategists of a generation.
As Colin Powell said: Obama has a first class temperament. This is an attribute shared by no other serious candidates in the campaigns.

He defeated John McCain because he was better grounded, dealt with more serious issues, and had better policy proposals.

Rick,

"Nope, Israel is the occupier, and has no right to defend the occupation."

The Palestinians have fired unguided rockets into populated areas of Israel for eight years. A few people have been killed by these. Nations do have the right to defend themselves within the laws of war.

Still, one might ask if these unguided rocket attacks warranted the killing of fourteen hundred Palestinians, depriving a million people of food, electricity, medical care, and the systematic destruction of the little infrastructure possessed by an already impoverished people.

I kind of wonder why Bush didn't task DARPA to develop a counter battery technology to pre-detonate these low tech, low speed, unguided rockets. Technical feasibility is shown by Patriot missile batteries that stopped most of the Scuds fired in Desert Storm. The problem is that they are too expensive to use on the small cheap rockets coming out of Gaza, so a low-cost system would have to be developed for this application. Doing that would have been better for world stability than what is happening now.

BO

Barack Obama is his name,
Pres because of skin tone?
Because of the race game?
No,‘cause dead babies groan!!

Voting “moms and dads” of said life forms,
Yes, 70 million indeed they voted for
One Bar Obama, as pro-abortion he conforms,
And now the Immoral Majority rules life’s door!!!

January 20, 2009

Dream's Dawn is here, the dark has fled
For far too long has Freedom bled
To serve the few whose power lust
Has cast our Rights down in the dust
The light of Liberty will shine
Upon all faces, yours and mine
With tears of joy we welcome Light
We sing the rout of evil blight
The Neocons in full retreat
Their tails between their shuffling feet
Into the wilderness they go
Now vanquished is our banished foe!
Sweet song of Freedom's victory sing,
The Bell of Liberty will ring!

Pam,

Better yet, I say "En garde, mon ami!" And to you also I ask: What do you think of tomorrow's Inauguration?

Daniel,

Thank you for the joyous poem, it is one for the ages.

Farnaz:

As a student of prejudice in others, what do you think of the Inauguration tomorrow?

Pam,

The following top 100 IRC comments contains the following:

WTF is a palindrome
No it isn't!

Our communication has been on that level from the first, and remains there. See ya later.

Pam,

"A tad biased?"

No. You see, I respect those with whom I disagree. I think your voice also adds to the discussion. For example, I believe that Timmy and Rick do have interesting ideas, but I do not agree with them all the time. So it is with you. I don't agree with Farnaz all the time either, but she does make some interesting points.

To some degree one must meet each person where they are. Since you seem to thrive on verbal fencing and planting barbs, I have said with a laugh "en garde!"

Peter Huff: “Israel, as a country has a right to defend herself.”

Nope, Israel is the occupier, and has no right to defend the occupation.

The Palestinians are the occupied and have the right to fight back with any means possible.

Let the joyous news be spread!! :

America the Beautiful will soon be lead

By a tall and lanky lad

Of a Kansas Mom and a Kenyan Dad.

Farnaz,

Sorry, Persis, a time glitched. I didn't ignore the Abse. I had just posted my response re E.Thomas when the phone rang, forcing a call on my running self, who didn't read ensuing posts till just now.

I'm still soaking in this Abse on portraiture and golems...just read it again. It's getting through now.

Impressions...

Having laboured at portraiture, I can testify that it's devilish difficult not to render oneself in the guise of the subject, as Abse thinks at Josef "Is this your unbegotten brother / lost in menstrual blood?"

Friends have remarked of likenesses I've drawn that no matter how much their features vary from mine, I still look out from their eyes.

What Abse says of portraits, backed by Welsh proverb ‘Whoever stares long at his portrait will, with dismay, see the devil’ is also true of mirrors, in my experience. Permit a tale. An Albanian friend once told me how her mother covered all the mirrors in the house at night, so that they would not admit unwelcome visitors from the otherworld. I decided to test this notion, and waited up with a mirror, in semi-darkness, to see what I would see. I fell to staring at my own face, unblinking, till my eyes burned. And duly, the unwelcome visitor came. It had been me, but as if painted by Bacon - carbonised skin, eyes like icons', mouth peeled apart to the gums. Trick of the light, trick of the eyes, trick of the mind. Was the horror thus tricked from me some truth?

I feel I understand a little why the poet retreated from his image.

I like anything with *thaumaturgic* in it, though that does not unduly bias me in finding this poem vivid, uncanny, and charming. Again, a work unfamiliar to this narrow pounder. Thanx muchly for sharing it, Persis.

Good lord of accurate typing. Sure these glasses will do me in.

Hello, Onofrio,

Yes, it's a lovely poem, the Thomas. What do you think of the Dannie Abse poem I posted? It's my favorite on his. O, well. I guess you cannot now say you test it!

Farnaz,

Sly of you, with the Neruda ;) For my part, Onofrio would be nothing without Timmy, through whose agency the Austral carper has even attained to blogdoghood - a higher station than the cut worm that forgives the plough.

That Edward Thomas you quoted just now is just beautiful. I've not seen it before - many thanks. I would content you with some sweetness, but alas, I'm in Wales, New South, where wingless nightingales have been devoured by dingoes.

A peculiar thing evolution according to Darwin is...In modern guise according to atheists such as Dennett, far from intelligent design being at the beginning let alone God, what we have is simple elements somehow coming together to create something more complex.--In other words, atheists such as Dennett believe the exact opposite of religious folk.

Religious folk believe in a creator while atheists such as Dennett believe complex life can come from something less complex. Both sides offer "proof" for their respective views. No one actually knows what is at the beginning...

But logic is on the side of the religious because it does seem absurd that something complex can come from something simpler than it. What atheists have to do to counter this logic is demonstrate that the complex can come from the simple--and I can think of no better demonstration than we humans of today creating a superior form of human to succeed us. If such a feat cannot be done then atheists will have forever their pretension of something complex coming from the simple mocked...In fact we will not be able to get out of the intelligent design belief or God....

Hello Frederic2,

Nice to see you! How are things where you are? (Where are you?)

In the Welsh National Museum

(to Josef Herman)

Josef, in your thaumaturgic studio,
long live cobalt blue and brown!
Autumn is your season,
twilight is your hour.

Now, in my hometown, you, spooky,
conjure up, abracadabra,
this melancholy impostor
who steals my name.

Is he listening to someone
beyond the picture’s frame,
playing a Chopin piano
of autumnal unhappiness?

Josef, this other is not me.
This golem hardly looks like me.
Is this your unbegotten brother
lost in menstrual blood?

If so, his passport (forged)
would have been Polish,
his exile inevitable,
his wound undescribable.

Look! My best brown coat
not yet patched at the elbow,
my cobalt blue shirt
not yet frayed at the collar.

As if challenged he, dire,
(Passport? Colour of wound?)
stares back - that look of loss -
at whomsoever stares at him.

Or across at Augustus John’s
too respectable W. H. Davies,
at prettified Dylan Thomas
whose lips pout for a kiss.

Infelicitous! Wrong! Impostors
spellbound, enslaved in their world,
with no emeth on their foreheads,
without speech, without pneuma.

But the Welsh say, ‘Whoever stares long
at his portrait will, with dismay, see
the devil.’ So who's wearing my clothes?
Josef, I know your magic. I’ll not stay.

-Danny Abse

_______________________________________________________________

Back to the topic:

BO’s record to date:

· addicted to nicotine, (will he take a few drags during the inauguration and expose his family to second hand smoke?)

· leader of the Immoral Majority taking over for the Clintons,

· invited a preacher to speak at the inaugural who is historically and theologically flawed and who hates mutual masturbation,

· invited another preacher to speak at the inaugural who is also historically and theologically flawed and who is a mutual masturbator,

· nominated Bill Richardson to be Secretary of Commerce. Richardson withdrew because he is being investigated by a federal grand jury for granting illegal state contracts,

· nominated Timothy Geithner to be Secretary of the Treasury even though Mr. Geithner has filed erroneous tax returns for many years.

After some pause, I would like to add my two cents once more.

I simply couldn't bear the illogical bible rants of Peter Huff, and I strongly disagree with the Moderate and Arminius about PH's niceties. A wolf in sheep's skin is very nice. And I don't regard this discussion as a competition of politeness. PH represents all which is dangerous to the advancement of humanity, with his simplistic religious fear-mongering.

To be able to use a coherent language, to argue with an "operative intelligence" is never a proof for the value of the judgment this language purveys. And is there anybody on this thread who wouldn't scream with bitter laughter about his "Cross of the South" and "Orion" fables? Can anything such a person utters be taken seriously? With such nonsense, btw, he unwittingly disproves his own system: If the angle changes from which the Orion (stars in space, not on "firmament"!) is observed, there isn't any cross anymore. Any suggestions anybody? Maybe a half moon, depending on the angle. Which proves that his whole religious system is man-made and depends on the "angle" of the observer.

He is completely helpless confronted with the argument that his professional bible quotations prove nothing but the bible quotations. He just keeps quoting. Worthless. You cannot prove anything from within a given system about this system.

And as to Farnaz and Onofrio, both atheists: I learned a lot from your posts and the ensuing discussions, also enjoyed the cool clear and friendly (!) reasoning of Pam (admiring your patience with PH), and I enjoyed all the poetry that such a philosophical fight can create! Though, I don't understand the explosions of hatred (diminishing lately!) against Timmy. All he says in principle as an atheist, that we must overcome the religious tribalism. I fully agree. That is what any honest atheist, including Farnaz, strives to attain in the end.

But then, when it touches the personal (or closer "tribal") situation, another psychological, more "animalistic" mechanism seems to dominate all other considerations. Thus, the judgment depends 1. on the angle (PH et alii) and 2. on the distance to a problem.

To think along such principal lines, Farnaz, does not mean to trivialize the (religion-based!!) atrocities done to your "tribe" (or any other tribe, btw.!). I do not automatically morph into a Nazi by pondering about the historical, psychological, political and sociological reasons of these atrocities, with the aim to prevent their repetition.

Decisions in a tight situation, thus, may be different from the assessment of a distant goal. That is, Onofrio, what I meant by the difference between a given "utilitarian" assessment (remember my Santa joke) of religion and its principal value.

All this, I admit, is a rather general consideration, and I wouldn't venture to guarantee that I am free of these two conditions of judgment myself. But I try.

Methinks the fellow doth protest too much.
Advice: When all else fails, try twentieth-century love sonnets. :>
----------------------

Love Sonnet XVII

I do not love you as if you were a salt rose, or topaz
or the arrow of carnations the fire shoots off.
I love you as certain dark things are to be loved,
in secret, between the shadow and the soul.

I love you as the plant that never blooms
but carries in itself the light of hidden flowers;
thanks to your love a certain solid fragrance,
risen from the earth, lives darkly in my body.

I love you without knowing how, or when, or from where.
I love you straightforwardly, without complexities or pride;
So I love you because I know no other way

than this: where I does not exist, nor you,
so close that your hand on my chest is my hand,
so close that your eyes close as I fall asleep.

-Pablo Neruda

farnaz,

"Is't possible he's jealous? Perhaps, he wants you all to himself?"

Nah. He's all yours, girlfriend.
I was just pointing that out is all.

Onofrio,

Thanks for the kind words to Timmy2 about yours truly. What is up con ello? Is't possible he's jealous? Perhaps, he wants you all to himself?! (Ah, but he forgets your fondness for Persiflage, Pam, et al!)

Oh well. Timmy2 will cheer up. 'tis better to have loved unrequited....

Farnaz :)

Timmy,

You to me, re Farnaz:
"You have found fault and disagreement with every other poster on this thread except Farnaz for some strange unknown reason."

Not so. What you say is true of your good self, CCNL, Peter Huff, and the ill-versifying Mary Cunningham of London. Not exactly "every other poster". I've had a word or two with Moderate, but moderately thus far. Likewise Frederic. I think you'll find Pam and Persiflage attract mostly abject reverence from me. And I'm often intrigued by Daniel's contributions.

"Not once have you ever taken her to task for anything."

That may be because I haven't substantially disagreed with her thus far. What? Is there some minimum quota of clashes required?

"And yet that's what you do to every other poster."

Refer to my comments above. You know, I think you over-estimate my significance. As you say, I'm merely a terminally obtuse despatcher of straw men, a misser of points. My words are writ in water. Nevertheless, I CALL UPON ALL POSTERS WHO HAVE BEEN AGGRIEVED BY ONOFRIO TO TAKE A FREE SHOT. GRATIS. OPEN SEASON. Go for it! :)

"I guess she's just perfect in your eyes."

Well, no one's perfect Timmy. That's an absolutism, and you know what I think of them. Here's some of those "strange unknown" reasons you deplore. I admire Farnaz' intellect and her esprit, and I enjoy her love of poetry, of which she has a far deeper knowledge and appreciation than I do. She is brilliant, and her cause is compelling, necessary, and just. Perhaps one day I will fall foul. Happens.

She is not perfect, just Persis.

Timmy,

You:
"Onofrio, I agree with you when you are aghast at the Mod and Arminius calling Peter Huff a polite poster. I shake my head like you."

Timmy, not quite. Despite the occasional, revealingly vicious chink in his wall of certainty, Peter Huff is far more polite than most posters on this thread. Moderate and Arminius are not far awry in thinking him thus. My gripe with them pertains to their apparent nonchalance about the content of Peter's courteous tirades. When the essence of same amounts to *Calvinism = meaning; all else = meaningless, meaningless* and *Turn or Burn* any politeness of expression becomes irrelevant. I no longer see what Peter has to say as *interesting*. Courteously couched or not, the message is an appalling, sheer cliff of absolutism.

In response to such: no *thanks for the interesting viewpoint* milquetoast; all ensuing "rough and tumble" deserved.

Farnaz,

You:
"What a frabjous font fest for popular press and journal jockies! What figures for muses, minstrels! What impious impressions impersonators must manage!"

Magnificent! Zesta!

Words

OUT of us all
That make rhymes,
Will you choose
Sometimes--
As the winds use
A crack in the wall
Or a drain,
Their joy or their pain
To whistle through--
Choose me,
You English words?

I know you:
You are light as dreams,
Tough as oak,
Precious as gold,
As poppies and corn,
Or an old cloak;
Sweet as our birds
to the ear,
As the burnet rose

In the heat
Of Midsummer:
Strange as the races
Of dead and unborn:
Strange and sweet
Equally,
And familiar,
To the eye,
As the dearest faces
That a man knows,
And as lost homes are:
But though older far
Than oldest yew,--
As our hills are, old,--
Worn new
Again and again:
Young as our streams
After rain:
And as dear
As the earth which you prove
That we love.

Make me content
With some sweetness
From Wales,
Whose nightingales
Have no wings,--
From Wiltshire and Kent
And Herefordshire,
And the villages there,--
From the names, and the things
No less.
Let me sometimes dance
With you,
Or climb,
Or stand perchance
In ecstasy,
Fixed and free
In a rhyme,
As poets do.

-Edward Thomas

Hi Onofrio,
"You still here too? Seems I was prophetic, a ways back, about Peter's parousia, which you thought might not come, O you of little faith :)"

I was just trying to goad him into responding. I had a notion that he would do it like this - throwing all of his replies out before leaving, so he doesn't have to deal with rejoinders. Rather cowardly, no?

"Yea, verily, it doth seem Peter Huff has won the gladsome eye of Arminius and Moderate, for his style, if not his substance. But I wouldn't have thought your posts were particularly 'rough and tumble', unless Moderate thinks being crisp, direct, and clear, with a dash of salty verve, is 'rough and tumble'.

The Moderate isn't averse to speaking her (his?) mind. Mod and Arminius are on Peter's side of the fence, if not so far afield, so one has to expect a somewhat colored view.

"I enjoyed reading all of your measured, thorough responses to Peter Huff. Though he will not change his views, I daresay witnesses of your debate have received a great lesson in robust refutation".

I never expected to change Peter's mind - he has drunk long and deep of the Kool-Aid. I only argue because the point-by-point pushes his ilk into defending ever more absurd positions. I'll point a few out tomorrow.

"And I also liked your poetic turn, half-a-thread ago, on the dire ordure we're in. Very chucklesome indeed".

Thank you. Poor doggerel, I'm afraid, but as Farnaz said, fun.

(Non)prayerful Inaugural Report

Today, I heard via radio a revered professor emeritus (history), Columbia, remark that Franklyn Pierce, "affirmed" rather than swear and that Adams swore on a volume of Laws of the United States of America.

Onofrio,

farnaz said: "The problem is that subalterns cannot speak--as the lady said, evidently, not even loudly enough to request that her post (in three parts) and yours be read.

Do you see what I mean? There is no doubt that Moderate read her posts. You say she screams when she is not heard but the truth is, she screams when people hear her and just disagree with what she is saying. "obviously you did not read the posts I commanded you to read or you would not be so wrong now".

Onofrio, I agree with you when you are aghast at the Mod and Arminius calling Peter Huff a polite poster. I shake my head like you. Don't they know he preaches that we will all be burned in hellfire and deservedly so for not accepting his narrow interpretation of the BIble? But Onofrio, I am equally shocked that you consider Farnaz to be an open minded exchanger of ideas. She is clearly here with a prejudiced agenda and calls anyone who gets in her way a bigot antisemite racist owned.

You have found fault and disagreement with every other poster on this thread except Farnaz for some strange unknown reason. Not once have you ever taken her to task for anything. And yet that's what you do to every other poster. I guess she's just perfect in your eyes.

Onofrio,

I should write WTF to...?

:->

PS. I'm salvo-depleted. One or two WTFs are all I've got left. What pageantry is afoot here! What Elizabeth I processions!!!

What a frabjous font fest for popular press and journal jockies! What figures for muses, minstrels! What impious impressions impersonators must manage!

Pam,

You write: "A tad biased?"

Hmmmmm....against? In favor of?

Give me irony, any day.

Farnaz:)

Onofrio,

"The repsonse is of course, a no-brainer. WTF? would be apt"

Onofrio has said "ALL WE NEED TO KNOW" "NUFF SAID!" "NO BRAINER" WTF IS ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW.
Boy oh boy, just wait till Farnaz fires her salvo.

Hello, Onofrio,

Thanks for your reply! I started on the Huff-ington posts, but my head started swimming (further north, north starward, multipointed, no religious signification), and, alas, even at late nongodly hours, work beckonith. Will try to catch up tomorrow.

I understand your point about my request; in retrospect, I don't think it was a wise one for me to have made although I wouldn't put Moderate in the same camp with Timmy2. The problem is that subalterns cannot speak--as the lady said, evidently, not even loudly enough to request that her post (in three parts) and yours be read.

Thanks for the E. Thomas.

Farnaz :)

Pam,

You still here too? Seems I was prophetic, a ways back, about Peter's parousia, which you thought might not come, O you of little faith :)

Yea, verily, it doth seem Peter Huff has won the gladsome eye of Arminius and Moderate, for his style, if not his substance. But I wouldn't have thought your posts were particularly "rough and tumble", unless Moderate thinks being crisp, direct, and clear, with a dash of salty verve, is "rough and tumble".

I enjoyed reading all of your measured, thorough responses to Peter Huff. Though he will not change his views, I daresay witnesses of your debate have received a great lesson in robust refutation.

And I also liked your poetic turn, half-a-thread ago, on the dire ordure we're in. Very chucklesome indeed.

Hello Farnaz,

Thought only southern hemispherians were still about in the wake of Peter Huff's stellar ascension. Ah, the Southern Cross gleams balefully down at us, here under Capricorn, testifying to predestined Huffite triumphs. No refuge for the pre-damned, even in the indifferent stars...

My gob was well and truly smacked by the Christians/Jews equalisation/erasure of Moderate. I anticipated you would address it on your return. Given that I had already probably misrepresented you vs Timmy, I thought it better to leave the first salvo to you.

The repsonse is of course, a no-brainer. WTF? would be apt.

The Moderate says:

"Dear Peter Huff,

Thank you for an interesting voice and thoughts. You cannot convince everyone on your viewpoints, but you have surely enriched the discussion. Sorry for the rough and tumble (and sometimes abusive) environment here".

Interesting that he doesn't take Peter to task for *his* ad hominem statements (e.g., "the asinine worldview of those who suppress the truth of God".)

A tad biased?

ONOFRIO and MODERATE:

Moderate writes to Onofrio:
"Interesting discussion. Interesting exchanges of ideas. Farnaz makes a lot of good points, but then falls into the same trap she calls for others falling into. "The Christians"? "The Jews"? What's the difference?"

I wrote a three-part post to Moderate, which I repeatedly referenced, also referencing a post from Onofrio to Timmy2, on "the gaze" as it were.

It occurs to me that Moderate may not yet have read either post, or he wouldn't have asked the question I post above.

Perhaps, Onofrio could halp. Evidently, the subaltern (in this case, me) cannot speak, no matter what language she may attempt.

Peter Huff, as your parting shot - and shot it is, for we are not all predestined Calvinists - you invite us to discover your cross (the sigil of our burning) stamped across the stars. Imperium in a nutshell. Even the constellations are enlisted to scream judgement, as you colonise space with your substitutionary atonement.

As for this damned fool, I will paganly persist in seeing Orion not as cruciform, but rather as the harbinger of fresh water that brings life to all. Yes, life even to you, Peter Huff, who is content with my perdition.

Pam to PeterHuff:
"I don’t have the same need for 'ultimate' significance, so it’s not accurate to say that I want it. I really don’t. I accept what is natural and find it really wonderful and endlessly fascinating. You rob yourself of so much that is interesting by dismissing it out of hand."

PeterHuff to Pam:
"You will have a surprise awaiting you then when you die."

Arminius, Moderate, you seem to view such wry hellmongering as part of an *interesting* exchange, and congratulate Peter Huff on his agreeable gentility.

To me, Peter's Either/Or, sheep/goat, Jesus-or-damned 95% human wastage of a *judgement* is unspeakably horrible. It perplexes, vexes, and grieves me that such a dreadful thing can be both sincerely believed, and then discussed calmly like the rules of chess. Arminius, you rail against Timmy and CCNL, as have I betimes, yet neither of these proposes the psychic holocaust eagerly keyed in by Peter before his wife drags him off to bed.

I know...it's JUST ME about this Hell business. Although I don't expect many would agree, I suspect there to be some link between the absolutist conception of Hell and the historic tendency of various Christendoms and their offspring to hatch hell on earth.

Hello Everyone. One final post before I put it to rest for a few months.

I found this You Tube site a week or so ago. You may not agree with it but it is worth a ponder and I like his description of the vastness of our universe that God created. There are four or five parts, just follow the links provided.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=_1EAmfOu9lE&feature=related

Chance - not a chance?

Growing up in the Southern Hemisphere I have seen the Southern Cross, a reminder of God's grace to us and what Jesus has done for those who believe. I also look at the Northern Hemisphere of where I currently live and see the constellation that also resembles to my mind the cross to the naked eye, Orion's Belt. Then you have the black hole in the Worldpool galaxy that contains an image that looks like a cross.

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1992/17/image/a/

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

Best wishes! Bye for now!

Moderate,

You to Peter Huff:
"Sorry for the rough and tumble (and sometimes abusive) environment here."

Count me out of your apology, Moderate. I'm unrepentant about any *rough* and *tumble* from me to Calvin's Sentinel. After all, in virtual terms, the violence he implies is infinitely worse than any rime or skewer of mine.

Although I appreciate your participation here, I'd like it better if you stopped speaking for everyone else, like some doyen of the thread.

"I think Israel was used by God as a prophetic time clock for the promised Messiah."

That god of yours, Peter! I wish he'd stop *using* people. Especially entire nations. The ultimate evil genius. Mwahahahahaaaa...

Israel as timepiece. A clockwork universe. That would make the Huffgod...a cosmic clockmaker! And boy, has he been winding us all up.

I repeat:

Theo-machinist huffer Peter
's naught if not a dull repeater,
cataloging ever keenly
how his deity will meanly
toast the vast majority
for Adam's faux pas with a tree.
Patient Pam has reasoned reams
to prise the chinks in Peter's dreams,
but Calvin's flinty sentinel
still treasures his eternal hell.

Pamsm (January 14, 2009 2:03 AM),

PAM: "Therefore, what’s "good" is any tendency in the mental makeup to empathy, cooperation, cohesion, sharing, and altruism. Any social animals (including early us) that don’t exhibit them are driven out of the group (where they’re likely to die), killed, or prevented from mating. Those that have them, produce young that are more likely to have them. This is how natural selection proceeds."

PAM: "The bacteria are working for their *own* good. Those that do us harm by using our bodies as their homes and food supplies, are not doing it maliciously – they’re just doing what their genes and natures drive them to do, as are we. We’re in an evolutionary race with them – and they have the edge, since they reproduce (and therefore evolve) millions of times faster than we do. Our immune systems do their best to keep up, and we use our brains to come up with “miracle” drugs, but the bacteria are constantly evolving immunities to our drugs (at least partly because we overuse and misuse them). It’s an evolutionary arms race, where, like the Red Queen in “Through the Looking Glass,” you run as fast as you can just to stay in the same place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen"

That is my point, in an evolutionary race the fit are the ones that survive. My own good is the survival of my progeny. As you said, your genes are just doing what genes do naturally. So if my genes are doing something that is different from your genes there is no good or bad about it. If my view of 'right' is different from yours then it is just because my genes are responding to their environment in a different manner than yours; my chemical make up is different than yours. If in the end I outlast you and my progeny are stronger, meaner, faster and better than yours (and I arrive at better only because they are able to adapt where as yours flounder and fail) because they outlast your strain, there is no good about it. That is just what genes do according to you.

Pamsm (January 14, 2009 2:08 AM)

PART 3

ME: "So, according to your belief system, we are more advanced animals..."

PAM: "I don’t have a "belief system" – that is reserved for people like yourself. And I don’t think that we are "more advanced" animals. We are brainier animals, that’s all. To the extent that "advanced" means better adapted to one’s environment, we are well behind the curve, and we’ll likely stay there, because we’ve substituted technology for actual physical adaptation. This is not necessarily a bad thing for us, because highly specialized species are less able to adapt quickly to changing environments than are the generalists (think of koalas, which can only eat eucalyptus – if a eucalyptus blight comes along, they’re toast). What we don’t have going for us, however, is the tendency for our technology to pollute – we’re the only animal that so thoroughly fouls its own nest – and it may spell our demise."

We all have a belief system Pam. You just may not be aware of it. Your ideas of this world do not rest on nothing. You start with a basic foundational premise or premises on how the world is and you build on those. Some things are negotiable and others are not because that would mean you would have to change your belief system. You believe that this world came about by natural means; I believe it came about by supernatural means. Neither one of us were here to witness it coming about so we build our outlook on one of the two presuppositions to account for everything we see - either God or impersonal chance; either intent or random happenstance.

ME: "...but when push comes to shove why ‘should’ I spare my fellow man when there is only enough food for one of us? Why ‘should’ I throw myself on a bomb to protect the other fellow when this life is all I have and then nothing?"

PAM: "Obviously, for your own selfish ends, you shouldn’t. But back when we lived in those family tribes, altruism got wired into our brains. So now we share food and look out for each other. It’s not something we stop to consider while weighing options - it’s built into our brains. We just react. Remember my story about the baboons and the lions?"

There again we look at the circumstances in two different ways. I look at it as God has revealed it by His Word. 'In His Image and likeness' means that there is an innate ability in each human to know right and wrong. With the Fall man has been suppressing the truth of God, however, so man does not see light, but the darkness of his own mind. Facts don’t speak for themselves, they need interpreting. You need to interpret it from an evolutionary frame of mind for your worldview to work – but it doesn’t work.

Pamsm :

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

PAM: "Nature would never select toward the sociopathic or otherwise mentally ill. Think about what you’re asking. Having an anti-social personality disorder means that you can’t function normally in groups, so how do sociopaths form a dominant group? This just makes no sense."

If Hitler had succeeded who knows what kind of world would have been. Look what Mao did in China, Castro in Cuba, and Stalin in Russia. I would not call any of these people free of mental illness and society was/is run on their terms.

PAM: "Animals such as we are, live in social groups because we’re ill suited to living as individuals. We require the protection and the cooperation from others of our kind to make it in this world."

First off, I don't see us as animals. But the point is still which society determines what "good" is? Sure, for the most part societies can reason that murder is wrong, but to a tribe in the south seas, not too long ago cannibalism was considered an okay practice.

Two conflicting viewpoints cannot both logically be good when viewing the same set of circumstances. A couple of examples we have been discussing are abortion and same-sex marriage. Some countries and people groups still see these issues as morally wrong. Why should your group be the one who determines it to be "good"? That is the point I have been arguing all along. You can't without an absolute, objective, ultimate authority or measure. It is just personal preference and there is no good about it.

You measure "good" by feelings and preferences. You feel because the majority perceives something as beneficial that makes it so. On that basis, what makes Hitler's Germany as wrong? What makes Mao's China and their record of human abuse wrong?

Not being able to see the whole picture means that something perceived as "good" may in fact be very harmful and bad.

ThomasBaum (January 14, 2009 5:45 PM)

THOMAS: "When it is spoken of as death entering the world, they are speaking of spiritual death, do you think that they are speaking of physical death?"

Both.

Pamsm (:January 14, 2009 5:57 PM),

ME: "If that logic is not good enough for you then there was also the 613 Mosaic laws which listed the kinds of food that it was okay for the Israelites to eat, that included meat."

PAM: "You know what, Peter, I really don't care. At all. My point was simply that the commandment wasn't clear, and requires interpretation, and you're proving my point."

That is apparent Pam. You asked the question, but you don’t like the response. The Bible describes you well.

ME: "Animals were not made in God's image and likeness as man was. Animals do not read and know God in the same way that we do".

PAM: "I'm pretty sure that my animals don't know God at all. :D"

You may be right.

Pamsm (January 14, 2009 6:34 PM)

PETER: "First of all, God is Spirit (John 4:23-24) so His image and likeness would have to do with the spiritual part of our being..."

PAM: "But then you say:
"...to think His thoughts after Him..."
"It takes a brain to think."

It also takes a person to know a person. God said to the Israelites, 'Come, let us reason together.' (Isaiah 1:18). We are to worship God with our whole being, which includes the mind. You relate to other persons on a personal level, using your mind, will, emotions, logic and intellect.

"When I consider the heavens, the work of Your fingers..."
PAM: "Fingers???"
ME: "From the heavens the LORD looks down..."
PAM: "Looks? Without eyes? Looks *down*? Where is heaven, exactly?"

God relates to us in a way that we can understand by using human, animal, plant pictures. We live in a physical world so we best understand concepts that draw us a picture of things we see in physical reality. We relate better to this than to abstract concepts for God is incomprehensible other than what He has made know to us. How do you describe something that is incomprehensible? The finite cannot fully grasp the infinite, yet the infinite grasps all things. So He chose to reveal Himself in ways that we could grasp.

PAM: "And Genesis 3:8 has him "walking in the garden in the cool of the day." Walking?"

PAM: "There are many such passages that anthropomorphize God. As a literalist, how do you reconcile these things? If the bible is the inspired word of God, shouldn't it be more accurate? If I can't believe this, why should I believe any of it?"

I’m not a literalist. That is what I have been labeled. I take the Bible plainly and literally where it can be taken as such. The simplest explanation is often the correct explanation. God appeared in human or angelic form to many in the Old Testament. In the New Testament we have a full revelation of Him in the Son for the Son became incarnate and physically walked the earth He said, If you have seen Me you have seen the Father, or I and the Father am one.

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

Jesus lineage, through marriage and adoption was traced back through the male genealogy. But since He was conceived by the Holy Spirit He was born through the Virgin Mary, who did not have relations with her husband Joseph until after Jesus had been born. The one lineage traces Mary’s genealogy, the other Jesus’ adoptive fathers, Joseph.

JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.
JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

The Athanasian Creed explains it this way that Jesus Christ is equal to the Father as touching Godhood and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

Jesus took on human nature when He became a man (John 1:14). But He also retained His Godhood for it is impossible for the eternal God not to exist (Philippians 2:6-8). So in the one Person that is Christ there are two natures (Colossians 2:9). In order for Jesus to meet the requirements that the first Adam had failed to meet He became the Second Adam. You will find this theme of the Second Adam, the Perfect Adam throughout some of the epistles (1 Corithians 15:21-22; Romans 5:12-21). As a man He lived without the use of His Godhood in fulfilling what the first Adam had failed to do before God. He met the just requirements of a Holy God and fulfilled the Old Covenant, that all men before Him had failed to do. In this way, just as a man originally sinned and broke the law of God, the Second Adam, another Man, met every righteous requirement of the law and gave His life in exchange for those who would believe to reconcile them to God.

Therefore, speaking as a man Jesus could say that the Father was greater than He.
God being greater than man talks about the Son's willing submission to the Father in becoming man in order to reconcile man to God, to become the Mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5-6 and 3:16). So while on earth Jesus became of lower position than the Father in order to fulfill the plan of salvation.

EXO 24:9,10; AMO 9:1; GEN 26:2; and JOH 14:9
God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (EXO 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (EXO 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (GEN 32:30)
God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (JOH 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (EXO 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1TIM 6:16)

God often revealed Himself in the OT by theophanies. God appeared in human or some other form (Genesis 3:8; Genesis 18). They did not see God who is Spirit but the representation of what God is like, for you cannot see Spirit. Some say they saw Christ before He permanently took on human form and became man (Isaiah 6:1 with John 12:41 – If you don’t look up the verses you will never see what I am talking about). Since Jesus Christ is the exact representation of the Father (Hebrews 1:3) in a sense when they saw Jesus they would have seen the Father, for in essence and unity and eternity the Triune God is one.

PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
1CO 1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."
I could go on and on.

There is a difference between human and godly wisdom as 1 Corinthians 1:19-25 points out and elsewhere in Scripture make known (Proverbs 1-3). Knowledge outside of God has much foolishness to it.

ME: ‘The errors come from scribes copying from the original manuscripts and copies, but there is a wealth of documents ranging in time to compare one copy to another. I explained that on the previous forum."

PAM: "So the errors have been corrected, then?"

Men make copying errors but God preserves His Word. None of the doctrines have been altered.

PAM: "I’m not talking about transcription errors, anyway. I’m talking about things like bats being birds, and four-legged insects (he made enough of them, he should certainly know how many legs they have), and four-legged fowl (!) and Joseph having his goats look at striped poles while they mated, so they had striped offspring (telegony – it doesn’t work)."

Without references please it is hard to comment on something that is being dragged out of thin air.

Pamsm (January 14, 2009 7:39 PM),

ME: "And a question for you – if the bible is the absolute word of God – why are there so many contradictions, errors, and cases of outright nonsense in it?"

PETER: "You perceive contradictions because you do not know it well enough. For every apparent contradiction there is an explanation."

PAM: "OK – explain away:
PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them."

The LORD is good to all. You live and move and have your being only because of His grace to you (Acts 17:25); you, Pam, who in your rebellion slander and misalign your Creator.

He is good enough to allow mankind to live even though they continue to practice evil and hurt one another. Man is responsible for the evil he inflict on his fellow human being. Justice will be there to account for this willful hurt and evil of one man against the other in the long run. In your worldview justice may never be done.

As for Jeremiah 13:14, there is a time of judgment that comes on every one of us for the life we live. That judgment is either met in Jesus Christ in our stead, or we answer to God for it on our own behalf. The Jews in the OT had been warned over and over again that if they continued in their rebellion God would punish them. God had established a covenant with Israel that they continued to break. Deuteronomy 28 of blessings and curses is a reminder of what would happen if the people remained faithful to God or turned to other gods and forsook the Lord.

EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

There is a war between what is right and what is evil (I already know your reply). Peace with God comes from the Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ. He is the one who reconciles sinners to God. Christians are at peace with God. Everyone else opposes Him. You can’t be at peace if you oppose His means of peace (2 Corinthians 5:21; John 14:27; Romans 5:1)

"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom His favor rests." (Luke 2:14)

Those on whom His favor rests are those who have been reconciled to God by Christ. He leaves His peace with true believers (John 16:23; Ephesians 2:14). There is no peace for those who continually battle against the Lord. (see Matthew 10:34)

Continued,

PAM: "Logic is a product of the workings of the human brain – evolving a large prefrontal cortex is how it began to operate."

In a material universe, where do abstract ideas come from? A brain is a material organ, relying on the firing of material nerve endings to direct movement and speech, yet logic is a concept, not a physical object. Why should my nerve ending fire in the same manner yours do? How does the non-physical come from the physical?

ME: "You base your moral system on feelings of empathy, but when you look around at the rest of "Nature" you see the greater law of dog eat dog, the fittest survive, a world that some would say is cruel, but with no hope for anything beyond your days on earth..."

ME: "...what is the point of worrying about how unjust you perceive the Christian God to be?"

PAM: "I *don’t* worry about it. At all. I just can’t understand how it can fail to bother *you*."

Why would knowing that justice will eventually be carried out bother me, unless I had done something wrong? Justice is getting what you deserve, mercy is getting what you don’t deserve.

ME: "Just make life whatever you want it to be. Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you die and then nothing matters - no justice, no accountability for wrongs you have done or I have done. Who cares? Not a scrap of ultimate meaning when you are dead, so why are you looking for it now."

PAM: "Thanks – I do try to make life what I want it to be...There is justice and accountability right here. It’s not perfect, but it’s real. I think this just may be the crux of what keeps religion going, though - the longing of the poor, the blighted, the downtrodden to have some final fairness – some balancing of the scales. Unfortunately, nature isn’t concerned with the individual, or with fairness. That’s just life. We take the hand we’re dealt and do the best with it that we can. Grow up, Peter – you can take it."

If that is the case, you just take what you get and hand over your wallet and stop your belly aching.

PAM: "Ultimate meaning?" Why is that necessary? We can imbue our lives with plenty of meaning for ourselves, and for those who know us. Some can even leave a lasting legacy beyond the memories of those who knew them. Why isn’t this enough for you? Why must you have *eternity*? Do you know how long that is??? Bor-ing."

In your worldview, when you are dead and buried nothing will have any meaning or significance so why are you shooting for it now?

Pamsm (January 14, 2009 7:45 PM)

PART 2

ME: "You are trying to explain life and consciousness and morals and origins from a scientific point of view. That has not been done Pam."

PAM: "Actually, it has, Peter."

That is news to me. Where did life come from? According to mainline science the universe had a beginning and life had a beginning. How did life come from non-life?

You say I do not have a clue about evolution. What I am doing is asking you to first show me how life came about from non-life before you incorporate the belief system that has engulfed you.

You put the cart in front of the horse before you even have the horse. And even if you can show the horse a lot of good it does in pulling the cart until it is placed in front of the cart, in its proper position. That is what my argument to you has been about. First you make the claims that you have a horse, you then make the claim that your horse is actually doing the work of pulling the cart. You have a philosophy of life but cannot account for how that life originally got here. You have but the cart before your imaginary horse.

We, as Christians, have the Workhorse who is pulling the cart. Show me how your horse is pulling the cart by showing me how life originated from non-life as evolutionary science lays claim.

ME: "You have no idea where life comes from, why there are laws in a universe that supposedly (most popular opinion) came about by a random, chance happening known fondly as the Big Bang. You don't know why logic can begin to operate from such a system of events..."

PAM: "I have a pretty good idea of where life came from. Not all details are yet known, but I’m confident, based on current research findings, that they will be."

That statement has no explanatory power in it Pam.

The Moderate,

""The Christians"? "The Jews"? What's the difference?"

None in my books. Plenty in Farnaz's.

There are Christian reconstructionists who can reinterpret all those bad Christian things into benign or positive things, and they could pounce on every single thing Farnaz says about the Christians with, "You are ignorant of my brand of Christian reconstructionism, and so you have no right to say that Christians racialized anyone because you just need to understand my interpretation of what a true Christian is and we don't believe in hell, blah blah blah.

Attention all religions. Wanna play and get along with the rest of the world? Throw away the obvious garbage from your ancestral religious texts, and bring what you think is good and relevant wisdom into the public square, and we'll all look it over and democratically decide what is useful wisdom and toss it into the melting pot with all of the useful wisdom from all of the worlds religions and philosophies, and me thinks we will come up with something great. Trust in the wisdom of the human collective, not of one particular ethnic, racial, religious or national collective.

Divisiveness divisiveness divisiveness. Our people, their people, our God, their God, our country, their country, our way, their way, American spirit, european ingenuity, German engineering, Japanese technology, nonsense nonsense nonsense.

Homosapien. Homosapien, Homosapien.
And if you really want to get deep,
Life. Life. Life.

Peter Huff,

Thanks for your interesting, comprehensive, and always polite posts. No, we don't agree on everything, not really close, but we are headed in the same direction, just by different paths. You have enriched the conversation, without slamming or finger-pointing. Others, including myself, should profit by that example.

Also, I queried JAC about "the Old Barbed Gay". Turns out he meant to say "the Old Barbed Guy". Better, but I still don't get the 'Barbed'. I also told JAC that I could imagine having a beer with St Pete, but not God.

God Bless, and please return sometime.

Pamsm (January 14, 2009 7:46 PM)

PART 3

ME: "But the Christian has great hope for after his physically body dies and decomposes. It is a hope that is based on a God who does not lie. The Christian sees meaning and purpose in all things for our God is meaningful and purposeful and offers us hope for a better tomorrow, so there is not the fear of death for those who trust in Him."

PAM: "Odd – I don’t see less fear and avoidance of death in Christians, or less sadness when loved ones die – if anything, it’s the reverse."

For those who have died in trusting and depending on Christ, the fear of judgment is gone. And there is hope for those who are left behind that the person trusting in Christ is now in the presence of God. We are humans and we still mourn, for we will not see that loved one again until we cross the veil ourselves.

ME: "Sorry to be so blunt, but I am trying to show you that without God nothing ultimately matters, although you want it to."

PAM: "“I don’t mind your bluntness – I reserve the same right."

Thanks, sometimes what seems like harm is really meant for our good. God reveals ways in which I am to bring into submission to Him by the criticism of others.

PAM: "I don’t have the same need for 'ultimate' significance, so it’s not accurate to say that I want it. I really don’t. I accept what is natural and find it really wonderful and endlessly fascinating. You rob yourself of so much that is interesting by dismissing it out of hand."

You will have a surprise awaiting you then when you die.

JUSTACOMMENT (January 14, 2009 7:55 PM),

JAC: "You told Arminius that he and Thomas should follow the bible, instead of following what they got directly from God. Both claim to have received clear messages directly from God."

When a "clear message" contradicts the already revealed Word from God someone is in error and I know it is not God.

"And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts." (2 Peter 1:19)

JAC: "You seem to prefer to follow a bunch of primitive bronze age men that wrote the bible in lieu of a today´s dreamer Thomas that tells you that he got something directly from God. Or worse, you prefer those primitive writers in lieu of a much much much educated thinker like Arminius, who also got inspired directly from God (hope I´m not misrepresenting you Arminius)."

Not as primitive as you think. The logic and reasoning used by Paul is brilliant, as are the teachings of the Lord Jesus Himself. They couldn't be anything but. It is all were you lay your standard, in your case the thoughts and ideas of finite minds of men trump the infinite wisdom and knowledge of God. You build on the foundation of human wisdom as you shun God’s wisdom.

JAC: "Peter, allow me to suggest you not to pay too much attention to the low level management, go as high as you can, for example to Arminius, or better go directly to the boss, even if it´s imaginary."

Arminius and I know better than to pretend He is imaginary. But maturity comes with time. Your knowledge of God is only as good as how accurately you understand Him to be. If you have the wrong Jesus you have the wrong God (and the wrong gospel – Galatians 1:8), for the Son came to make the Father known more fully (John 8:19; 23-30; 42-51; John 14:6).

JAC: "As a side show I invite to you to picture a mythical meeting of Arminius and Thomas with God. I picture Arminius laughing aloud with a beer in his hand and the Old Barbed Gay with a smile in his face. In the case of Thomas he will be on his knees "getting ready" and the Old Barbed Gay with a sternly face."

I don’t want to go there, thanks!

Timmy2 (January 14, 2009 10:00 PM),

ARMINIUS: "You said: "If I do meet God, you can bet that I will be on my knees"

TIMMY: "Why is that? To please him? Why would that please him? Why would he want you to bow before him? And if he would not want you to, then why would you drop to your knees before him? How is that a sign of respect? I know that dictators would be pleased by such a gesture, but why would God? Is he a dictator? Do we owe him something? I know that we do not owe Peter Huff's God anything because Peter will tell you himself that his God created us for his own pleasure. But why would you get down on your knees before the God you believe in?"

God is worthy of respect and honor. He is majestic and pure and holy and lovely and noble and one day you will be ushered into His presence and will not be able to help yourself from bowing before Him. All you vain words will disappear when you see the glory that is God.

Hello Timmy2 (January 14, 2009 10:11 PM),

TIMMY: "I haven't heard from you since my last response to your last post to me. I can only assume that you have no response. It is understandable. My logic was pretty sound."

You want to continue to flog the dead horse. We are not going to agree on this one Timmy. You may find your logic sound but I certainly don’t.

God created man perfect, but limited. God is one kind of being – infinite, unchanging, eternal, pure and holy; man is another – finite, changeable and with beginning. God created man with free will and with the ability to love Him. Man would not have been perfect if he could not choose for himself. The will in order to be free has to be able to potentially choose unforced between the two alternatives of knowledge of only good and the knowledge of both good and evil. Free will is what caused the evil. Free will chose to know the difference between the two when it took the fruit and ate it. Perfectly free will is never forced will. God revealed the consequences of disobedience before the act of disobedience.

God, before the Fall, was in the process of revealing and teaching Adam and Eve on His goodness and love. God gave the perfect, yet limited creature, the possibility of knowing evil and the limited creature made evil an actuality, ending his limited perfection, for now he had done what God had told him he could not do without the consequences.

When God sent His Son the Son became Perfect Man, with the ability to not to sin (something we as humans no longer have the ability to do because our natural descent is traced through Adam), just as Adam had been given that freedom. Jesus as a Man focused on what was pleasing to the Father in meeting all His righteous requirements (John 6:38). As with Adam, Jesus’ birth also did not have a human father – a child born not of "natural descent, nor of human decision or a husbands will, but born of God" – the very thing that Jesus made possible for those who have faith in Him also, to be born of God (see John 1:12).

He also "grew" in wisdom and strength in the Lord and the grace of God was upon Him, as laid out in Luke’s gospel – 2:40. That was something that Adam failed to do by his disobedience - grew in wisdom and strength in the Lord. When he failed to heed the instruction of God he became imperfect, something that Jesus as a man always did – He always obeyed the Father, for He was the perfect Lamb without spot or blemish that fulfilled the entire law of the Old Covenant, establishing in Himself the New Covenant by His sacrifice. That is why in the Olivetti Discourse Jesus tells "this generation" that the temple will be destroyed, ending the Old Testament sacrificial system.

Dear Peter Huff,

Thank you for an interesting voice and thoughts. You cannot convince everyone on your viewpoints, but you have surely enriched the discussion. Sorry for the rough and tumble (and sometimes abusive) environment here.

I for one, hope that all is well with you and yours. May the Lord make his face to shine upon all of us. God knows, we all need the help.

Part 2

CAL: "Why can't we be content to read Genesis as the powerful affirmation of God's domination over earth, and our place in it? One thing that has struck me over the years as I read Genesis 1, is that I think it is litany (reponsive reading) as an example:
In the beginning God created the heavens and earth
a. And God created [the day]
b. And [the day] came to pass
a. And God saw that [the day] was good
b. Even and morning, day [whatever]"

Why, because God is conveying to us truths that are central to our understanding of the Bible. You want to take away the supernatural account of creation and man’s sin and disobedience to God, in which case none of the Bible has relevance any more. There is no need for a Savior.

CAL: "As a Christian, I believe that biblical passages are interpreted by the bible as a whole, and all by Christ. In short, it is not a collection of pick and choose verses, among which we puzzle over individual sayings and try and understand them. Rather, it is akin to a great painting; with color, placement of figures, shadow and everything else, all give meaning and coherence to the whole."

Then you should see the Biblical account of beginnings as an historical account for Jesus did. He should know since He, as God, created all things (Colossian 2:3; 1:16-23; John 1:1-3). You are picking and choosing, and the painting, as you refer to it, only comes together in truth when we correctly interpret God’s word. The Christian God is a covenant God and the first covenant He made was with Adam and Eve.

CAL: "I would like to suggest that the best thing that can happen for the Bible would be for it to be published in scrolls, with no verse markings, the text in paragraphs. It is only when we read the bible as it was intended, as a whole, that we really understand it. I would suggest that any bible written in separate verses ought to be set aside in favor of paragraphs, at the least. Then at least the reader might understand that verses have context: The chapter, the entire book, all books by the same author, the "testament" or "covenant" in which it is located. Disregard any of this, and you get lost in the weeds, and lose the grand presentation. The bible does not stand on whether the world is 6000 years old, or so, or millennia. It is still the work of God."

I agree that the Bible is the work and word of God, but when we read the Bible as a ‘whole’ we start with the Genesis account and from that everything else builds and makes sense. Without sin there would be no death and no judgment; without death and judgment we would not be in need of a Savior and Redeemer. That, besides the revelation of who God is, is the message of the Bible.

Hi CalSailor (January 15, 2009 1:21 AM),

CAL: "You argue that the Bible is true because it is factually true...at least this is what I get from your posts about whether children, hearing the creation accounts, understand it to be created in 6 days and nights. But children often take stuff literally which isn't. What about the Great Pumpkin, Charley Brown? for instance.”

Yes, God created everything – all facts are part of His creation. Therefore He understands them completely which means better than any finite human can. God’s knowledge is complete whereas ours is derived. God’s knowledge of the facts is before mans and His knowledge of the facts make the facts what they are.

The Bible is His revelation to us. As with any communication you have to understand whether the context is to be taken literally or plainly or figuratively. The creation account is to be taken plainly for a number of reasons. The Lord, when He walked this earth referred to the creation account as fact,

"Haven't you read,' He replied, 'that AT THE BEGINNING the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh,?'" (Matthew 19:4-5)

"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'" (Mark 10:6)

When you start treating the creation account as anything other than an actual history you run into problems of making Scripture say something that it does not say. You have the problem also of death and dying happening way before the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall, but Scripture makes it clear that death and dying entered the world through the sin of the first man (Romans 5:12, 14, 16, 17). Their sin brought on the process of decay and death (Romans 8:20). So often with the creation account people read into it rather than take out of it God’s intended meaning. And a little kid understands creation more often than not as a real event.

"At that time Jesus said, 'I praise you Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes Father, for this was Your good pleasure.'" (Matthew 11:25 or Luke 10:21)

"I tell you the truth, anyone who does not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." (Luke 18:17)

In this sophisticate age children still understand yet it goes beyond the intellectual. They have at times educated themselves into imbecility so that the whole world is in the state it is in with no one knowing how to solve the mess, except for Barack Obama.

Hi Rick22407 (January 15, 2009 5:00 AM),

RICK: "I wonder what Peter Huff, Thomas Baum and other Christians think of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; you know that thing that is front and center in our newspapers and newscasts these days, but everyone is afraid to talk about. Is it about religion or and old fashioned land grab? And how should it be resolved?”

I think Israel was used by God as a prophetic time clock for the promised Messiah. I’m not so sure about all this rapture business however. I am still trying to work this out according to God's word, and in time, the Lord willing, it will be clearer to me.

I tend to favor the whole Bible as being written before 70AD and the fall of Jerusalem which ended the Old Covenant that God made with Israel in the sense that the temple worship and sacrificial system had now been eradicated. Christians, whether Jewish or Gentile are now the temple/building of God. We no longer need to meet in a physical building for we have the Holy Spirit residing with us. The way has been opened up to us by the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ for all believers. The New Covenant was bought about by His sacrifice and shedding of blood, for God said without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. He is not only our sacrificial lamb – a perfect Lamb without spot or blemish – but also our High Priest, the One who intercedes on our behalf before the Father in heaven, the One Mediator between God and man and our King!

RICK: "I think that contrary to Farnaz’s proclamations, most Christians reflexively side with the Israelis in this conflict. It has been programmed into us from childhood; e.g. David and Goliath, Daniel in the Lions Den, Noah and the Ark, etc."

I still favor the Israeli right to the land. Some would argue that Israel coming together as a nation again is fulfilling Bible prophecy. I am not sure of which is the correct way of looking at this as yet.

Throughout history people conquering another people have forced the vanquished to obey the new law of the land. The Palestinian hardcore will not recognize Israel’s right to exist. Can Jew and Arab live in harmony? Only if they both mutually recognize the other’s right to exist. It is also interesting that no other Arab countries are willing to take these people as their own or go to their aid in fighting Israel, other than to send in underground weapons that continue the conflict. Israel, as a country has a right to defend herself.

Hi Pamsm (-8 and company (January 17, 2009 9:21 PM),

PAM: "Here we are, on the eve of Peter Huff's self-imposed exile from On Faith, and he has yet to reply to questions from the previous two threads, let alone this one."

Well, the day is finally here. It is time to take a little break from the On Faith Forum. I appreciate all of the willingness to engage in conversation and the exchange of worldviews! I hate to take the money and run but in doing so it will give you the chance to have the last say, so get ready to be dumped on while I head for the hills and a time of rest. No more four to six hours of constant blogging after my wife went to bed in order to show the asinine worldview of those who suppress the truth of God.

I know the Lord has authority in His Word, that it will accomplish one of two purposes, either conviction leading to repentance, or a further hardening of the heart towards Him. My hope is that He is merciful to you and gives you ears to hear.

May the Lord bless you and keep you and make His face to shine upon you!

Thanks everyone! Prepare to be dumped on. (:-8}

Timmy, and Onofrio,

Interesting discussion. Interesting exchanges of ideas. Farnaz makes a lot of good points, but then falls into the same trap she calls for others falling into. "The Christians"? "The Jews"? What's the difference?

Norrie:

"Another point would be that the RCC, as has often been observed, is civilized only when it lacks real political power."

Oh? Compared to what?

Onofrio:

"...there are still forces in this world that would - given the chance - inflict a repeat of the Shoah (which they also, perversely, deny), and they would not target you."

Right, and then wrong.

Right in that there are people in Iran and other places who would pick up on the massacre of the Jews where the NAZIs left off.

Wrong in that they would not stop there. Never doubt that such people would get around to Timmy, and you and I in the due course of events. When they are on the march, no one is safe.

While Hitler had a special hatred for Jews, History records that he was an equal opportunity murderer. The NAZI plan for Eastern Europe and Russia was to kill all but fifteen million of the Slavic "subhumans" living there. The remnant were to be preserved for agricultural slaves to grow food for the "supermen". As a token of earnest, he killed about 20,000,000 Russians before they vanquished him. As a descendant of Slavs, I take that seriously, as should you.

Rick,

"Thankfully the neocons are banished to the wilderness for another 40 years."

THE MODERATE: I second that, friend.

TIMMY: I third that.

Onofrio,

Part 2,

YOU: When she is not heard, she screams, and takes pundits to task by holding up a stark mirror to the implications of their own statements. Hence the *Canuck* amock.

No, not when she is not heard. When she is disagreed with. We all hear her. We just don't agree with everything she says. And when we don't, we are all anti-semites, and bigots, and in the case of WAPO, "owned" because we won't speak her "truth to power". The "Canuck amok" was not a response to not being heard. It was her usual go to demagoguery of the slimiest order. She is the very definition of a race card player, but this is to be expected from a religionist who's religion is under attack. She may call herself an atheist, but She is clearly a religionist. And a prejudiced one at that.

YOU: Although your solidarity with those slaughtered is laudable, it is untestable, and a cheap grace.

I disagree on both counts.

YOU: I think you're out of line here, because there are still forces in this world that would - given the chance - inflict a repeat of the Shoah (which they also, perversely, deny), and they would not target you. Farnaz has been, and would be targeted. And methinks opining "I'm not into tribalism" would do precious little to save her, in extremis"

We need to do away with those forces and their ideologies. Criticizing racialization of all kinds, including self racializations, is the best way. Reconstructionist Judaism is not.

YOU: Would you, would any of us, risk all to stop this happening again? It's a question you need to ask yourself if you want to claim the Shoah's victims as *your people too*."

I have asked. The answer is yes.
I would even risk being labeled an antisemite and a bigot for criticizing Jewish ethnocentricity, because I believe it is the right thing to do. I believe that ending the idea of "our people" is more important than getting revenge or justice for any "our people". Hence the off-baseness of the demagoguery of the, indigenous peoples of Canada and the USA, thing.

Onofrio,

Part 1.

Thank you for the civil discussion on actual points of mine. This is nice. Productive. Thank you for the genuine effort to read the intent of the writer as opposed to looking for gottcha semantic dances and implications of racism.

YOU WRITE: If, non-hypothetically, you were able to stick to all those ideal guns under the onslaught of blind oppression, you'd be a hero of balance and tolerance, and probably a martyr as well. I hope that's never tested. Given that Farnaz has been so *tested*, I marvel at her restraint.

I've seen better restraint. Watch John Stewart. Go to comedy clubs and watch other Jewish comedians. I am friends with several, and they stick to their ideal guns in public on a regular basis. I was not lying that I lifted the phrase "Jew Supremacy" from John Stewart. He was criticizing the delusion of the covenant and making fun of the Jews. Two minutes later he was making fun of Christians, and then republicans, and then blacks, and then hispanics, and then Arabs, and all those who racialize themselves. He bashes it all equally, and I know that he has relatives who died in the holocaust. It doesn't matter. We still have to criticize racialization of any kind across the board. No kid gloves for the Jews because they had it especially tough. Indeed they should be at the head of the line in criticizing the covenant and the marriage thing, and the use of "goy", and all racializations. And in fact many of them, like John Stewart and others, are at the front of that criticism line.

YOU WRITE: From my reading of her posts, I would say that Farnaz has tried to show the complexity of Judaism/s, how resistant they are to a simplex lump-all melange-making, how many different voices there are.

Stop right there. "Judaism" is a "lump all" thing. It is a written religion that is meant to be followed by a group. If it is intended to be for everyone, they should find another name besides "Judaism". Don't you think? Isn't it ridiculous and ethnocentric to try and base a religion that is supposedly for everyone around Judaism? A religion that was clearly created for one particular people? How could anyone think that this will ever spread to be a world wide religion accepted by all. And if it's not meant to be that, then what good is it? It is an unnecessary divider. Reconstructionist Judaism is pointless hanging on. Chuck the bad, and throw the good into the greater melting pot of good ideas with no affiliation to any one race or ethnicity, just humanity.

YOU: Farnaz has argued that despite all this variety, Judaisms have been persistently treated as a problematic monolith, and racialised thereby.

Uh, check the name. "Judaism". Do you not see the obvious problem here?

YOU: "As to the charge that Farnaz "can not admit that Jews have ever done anything wrong". Read through her recent postings on the *Yom Kippur* war and beyond"

Why won't she address, and criticize the settlements?

Rick,

"Thankfully the neocons are banished to the wilderness for another 40 years."

I second that, friend.

CCNL:

"BO’s record to date:"

Actually, Funk rightly told us long ago that BO is a figment of the fundamentalist imagination. Because, as everyone knows it ceased to exist in the early Enlightenment period when inventors developed Christian Right Guard.

This is on topic CC. Forget about the inaugural prayer, as Susan says, Mr. Obama has more serious issues to deal with, with Palestine being near number 1.

Bur at least he has plenty of time to deal with it, with eight years in office, handing off to eight years of Hilary, we may just survive this mess.

Thankfully the neocons are banished to the wilderness for another 40 years.

Dear Pam:

"The Moderate says:

""ad hominem" is Latin for conceding defeat in a logical argument. Surely you can do better".

Actually, it's Latin for "to the man.""

Why so it does... But while technically true, your must admit that this post seems destined for for the IRC quotes top 100.

Back to the topic_

BO’s record to date:

· addicted to nicotine,

· leader of the Immoral Majority taking over for the Clintons,

· invited a preacher to speak at the inaugural who is historically and theologically flawed and who hates mutual masturbation,

· invited another preacher to speak at the inaugural who is also historically and theologically flawed and who is a mutual masturbator,

· nominated Bill Richardson to be Secretary of Commerce. Richardson withdrew because he is being investigated by a federal grand jury for granting illegal state contracts,

· nominated Timothy Geithner to be Secretary of the Treasury even though Mr. Geithner has filed erroneous tax returns for many years.

Timmy, part 1,

Thanks again for your detailed responses to my *Canuck* schtick. I can see that you have *imagined* along with it.

If, non-hypothetically, you were able to stick to all those ideal guns under the onslaught of blind oppression, you'd be a hero of balance and tolerance, and probably a martyr as well. I hope that's never tested. Given that Farnaz has been so *tested*, I marvel at her restraint.

You write:
"This [own-*race*-critique a la Cosby] is what Farnaz is incapable of. She can not admit that Jews have ever done anything wrong, or anything to racialize themselves. This is because she sees ethnic Jews as "her people"."

From my reading of her posts, I would say that Farnaz has tried to show the complexity of Judaism/s, how resistant they are to a simplex lump-all melange-making, how many different voices there are. This alone militates against the *race* loyalty canard. Farnaz has argued that despite all this variety, Judaisms have been persistently treated as a problematic monolith, and racialised thereby. The core of the racialism - primarily the imperial ascendancy of Christendom, with all its attendant absolutisms and demonisations. Those issues have been well covered before, so I won't litanise them right now.

Timmy, part 2,

As to the charge that Farnaz "can not admit that Jews have ever done anything wrong". Read through her recent postings on the *Yom Kippur* war and beyond. Just one example: she doesn't paper over alleged Israeli involvement in what happened at the Sabra and Shatila camps. She also shows that Israelis do not univocally endorse everything done by the IDF. She reveals the complexity of the issues. When she is not heard, she screams, and takes pundits to task by holding up a stark mirror to the implications of their own statements. Hence the *Canuck* amock.

You:
"She (Farnaz) thinks that she has more of a connection to the victims of the holocaust, than I do, because they share an ethnicity. She does not. Those were my people too."

Although your solidarity with those slaughtered is laudable, it is untestable, and a cheap grace. I think you're out of line here, because there are still forces in this world that would - given the chance - inflict a repeat of the Shoah (which they also, perversely, deny), and they would not target you. Farnaz has been, and would be targeted. And methinks opining "I'm not into tribalism" would do precious little to save her, in extremis.

Would you, would any of us, risk all to stop this happening again? It's a question you need to ask yourself if you want to claim the Shoah's victims as *your people too*.

Thanks for the reply Norrie.

Yes, I am aware that the original mandate included what is now Jordan. But I say we leave that state in its present boundaries.

Note that I said relatively stable compared to today. I believe that the single secular state that I have outlined is manageable, if the major powers put their collective mind to it.

Rick2407,

I just read your post of 11:27 this morning in which you wrote:

"All that is left now is to determine how we go back to the relatively stable state of the original British Mandate of Palestine."

The original British Mandate included, in addition to the areas you've enumerated, the present country of Jordan (formerly Trans-Jordan). The British later revised the Mandate to include only the familiar dagger-shaped area west of the Jordan.

This was a blow to the Zionists who had looked forward to settling the areas east of the Jordan.

I have to disagree with your description of the Mandated territories, large or small, as being "stable".

The first violent conflicts were unprovoked Arab/Palestinian attacks on Jewish settlements in the Upper Galilee in the 1880's.

The instability and violence escalated for the next six decades, until the British threw in the towel to escape the unstable violence, and announced that they were leaving in May, 1948.

Mandatory Palestine was a fascinating time and place but from the point of view of peace and stability it was downhill all the way.

Onofrio,

Part 4,

YOU: Imagine what it would be like to say - to scream - all of that, and yet still be labelled *Canuck* (they're all the same, you know), and held culpable and punishable for all that *Canucks* have supposedly done. This is my point, and I believe Farnaz' too. Imagine.

I would be angry at the religious beliefs that lead to all of this, and the ethnocentric racialization and the "my people" "their people" concept. Not mad at the person who pointed out the true root of the problem which is false divisions between human groups in the form of racism, ethnicism, religion and nationalism. I would speak out against all of these bad ideas not allowing my judgment to be clouded by the fact that some of these things were done by people with whom I shared a geographical ancestry (ethnicity).

If I ever get insulted that someone is offending "my people" I would have to take a step back and realize that there is no "my people", only bad ideas and false differences that need to be put behind us.

Onofrio,

Part 3,

YOU: How might you feel about that commenter's words if your own relatives had been physically assaulted, even killed, simply because they were *Canucks*? In response to these horrors, would you protest: "I do not consider the people of my nation as "my people" "?

Yes I would. And I would say this precisely because the "my people" concept is the root cause of such atrocities in the first place. But long before such atrocities had taken place, I would have been doing everything in my power to prevent Canadians from seeing themselves as a distinct "people" due to nationality or race or ethnicity. I would have been criticizing these practices from the very get go.

YOU: Against the anti-Canucks' insistence that you are, despite all of your individuality, self-determination, and ethical uprightness still primarily a *Canuck*, would you opine that: "I'm not into tribalism, in fact I speak out against it."?

If Canucks were guilty of such self racialization of themselves as I listed above, then I would indeed point to that as one part of the problems that contributed to the racialization of Canucks by others, and the racial violence that inevitabilly accompanies racial separation and tribalism.

YOU: Imagine what it would be like to say - to scream - all of that, and yet still be labelled *Canuck* (they're all the same, you know), and held culpable and punishable for all that *Canucks* have supposedly done. This is my point, and I believe Farnaz' too. Imagine.

I would be angry at the religious beliefs that lead to all of this, and the ethnocentric racialization and the "my people" "their people" concept. Not mad at the person who pointed out the true root of the problem which is false divisions between human groups in the form of racism, ethnicism, religion and nationalism. I would speak out against all of these bad ideas not allowing my judgment to be clouded by the fact that some of these things were done by people with whom I shared a geographical ancestry (ethnicity).

If I ever get insulted that someone is offending "my people" I would have to take a step back and realize that there is no "my people", only bad ideas and false differences that need to be put behind us.

Onofrio,

Part two,

YOU: And what if some weblog commenter insisted that all of these terrible persecutions against *Canucks* were partly self-inflicted, since *Canucks* had originally racialised themselves through absurd religious beliefs.

If Canucks had originally racialized themselves by way of religious belief in a covenant with God and "their kind" or by creating a word to describe the "non canuck" or by making it a betrayal for a Canuck to marry outside of the Canuck ethnic bloodline or outside of the Canuck religion, I would criticize Canucks for those practices and delusional racist beliefs, without feeling like I am betraying "my people" because there is no such thing as "my people". All people are my people, and bad beliefs and racializations are wrong whether they are thrust upon us, or created ourselves. One could criticize those beliefs all they want without offending me unless of course I held some of those beliefs, which of course I don't. And if one criticized those beliefs under the title of "this is what the Canucks have done", I would agree, if it were indeed true that most Canadians held these beliefs and ethnocentric tendencies. I would criticize right along with them what "the canucks have done" and point out that I do not consider the "canucks" my people because to do so would be racist. I would call it for what it is. "Canuck Supremecy" and I would denounce it along with the idea that Canucks are a "people" distinct in some way, or more connected to me in some way, than all other humans. I would step back and see that I have no reason to take personal offense at the righteous criticism of beliefs and practices followed by most people of my country, or ethnicity, or race.

Just like Bill Cosby tours the US today criticizing blacks for talking like "dummies" as a matter of pride and self identification. If I were to say in front of Bill Cosby, "blacks really need to stop saying things like "he axed me a question"", Bill Cosby would not yell at me and say "hey that's stereotyping man, not all blacks talk like that". Bill would agree with me that blacks need to stop that. This is what Bill himself is currently criticizing blacks for among other things. This is what Farnaz is incapable of. She can not admit that Jews have ever done anything wrong, or anything to racialize themselves. This is because she sees ethnic Jews as "her people". She thinks that she has more of a connection to the victims of the holocaust, than I do, because they share an ethnicity. She does not. Those were my people too. We all need to look at it like that to avoid more racializations and ethnic pogroms in the future.

Onofrio,

YOU SAID: I was not trying to *hurt* you by *attacking Canadians*. I was challenging you, rhetorically, to stand in the Other's shoes (Farnaz individually, Jews collectively).

I know you were not trying to hurt me. Farnaz was trying to hurt me with her comments and you were asking "how it feels"? I answered you. I feel no hurt, no shame, no offense for reasons which you seem to understand.

YOU: "But what if there were a powerful prejudice - endemic among the population at large - that held all *Canadians* to be collectively guilty of all those perfidies documented by Farnaz, and more? What if, regardless of your self-exemption from *Canadianity*, you and your family were still regarded as *them Canucks, Inuit-killers* and harassed, intimidated, robbed, or assaulted by those infected with this prejudice? And just imagine all of that occuring with state sanction, social sanction, cultural sanction, religious sanction. And imagine further such anti-Canuckism having a centuries-long pedigree, to boot!"

That would all be terrible, and unjust. I would speak out against it as I speak out against all of the antisemitism that Farnaz points to. It is all caused by the "my people" "their people" concept which I would condemn no matter who was doing it. Even if it were my own mother.

Rick 22407,

That would do for a start. Another point would be that the RCC, as has often been observed, is civilized only when it lacks real political power.

Also, since this thread had veered into discussing the Ustachian horror, I thought I'd toss my two cents in.

So what is your point Norrie? Religion breeds horror?

“The third, latest Croat ‘saint,’ is Ivan Merc who educated butcher-friars, as a teacher in the monastery Petricevac near Banja Luka. In that very monastery Merc’s student, the infamous evil-incarnate known as Father Satan Majstorovic, organized a group of 12 ustashas headed by himself as the 13th, like Christ, and took them to a Serbian primary school to an unimaginable slaughter.

“He asked teacher to bring forward her smartest pupil and when the little girl started to recite a poem, the Merc’s student slowly cut her throat in front of her teacher and all the other children, instructing his ustashas: ‘See how I am baptizing Serbian bastards. Let this blood fall on my soul, and I will forgive all of your sins for everything you do today.’ And more than 1,400 children, men and women were butchered by their knives during that day alone.”

Byzantine Blog:
http://www.byzantinesacredart.com/blog/2007/05/jasenovac-lawsuit.html
Orthodox Journal

*****************************

JASENOVAC SURVIVORS'
TESTIMONIES
http://www.srpska-mreza.com/History/ww2/survivors.html

"Mr. Borislav Ševa
Mr. Ševa is another rare survivor of Jasenovac. We found and translated his eyewitness account in Lazar Lukajić's book "Friars and Ustashas Are Slaughtering". Mr. Lukajić interviewed Mr. Ševa in June 1999. Mr. Ševa was a barber in Jasenovac and had access to many of its parts. As such he saw Ustasha burning men, women and children - alive - in a brick oven. He saw Ustashas roasting a live Serb on a spit. He saw them cooking body parts and making a soap... and much more. Mr. Ševa's narration style is plain, but the events he witnessed and survived are so shocking that it suffices to give the reader an incredible glimpse into the horrors described."

What has happened to Peter Huff? His last day at O.F. proceeds apace. Has he no answers? Has he seen the light and given up his fundamentalist religion? Did his wife pour water on his keyboard? Lock him in his room?

The Moderate says:
""ad hominem" is Latin for conceding defeat in a logical argument. Surely you can do better".

Actually, it's Latin for "to the man."

You might have a point if I had used it in answer to an argument - I did not. I answered the argument with an argument. The above was in response to a similar personal attack on me. I should rise above, I know, but I'm only human.

Fanaz,

Thanks for your many posts helping to make my point; i.e. that the horrible decisions by President Truman; (1) to overrule the better judgment of the British 1939 White Paper to put a stop to the Jewish immigration into Palestine, (2) to approve the 1947 UN Partition of Palestine, and (3) to recognize the State of Israel.

These events set into motion the entirely foreseeable chain of horror that was predicted by President Truman himself and by his State Department, which furiously opposed these actions by President Truman.

This fascinating historical account unequivocally makes my case; that the incredibly stupid decisions on President Truman relative to Jewish immigration into Palestine, the UN Partition pf Palestine, and the recognition of the resulting State of Israel against the informed recommendation of his State Department, set into motion the predictable firestorm in the Middle East and is responsible for our present condition.

I am at a loss as to why you provide it, but thank you very much. BTW, why do you neglect to provide the link to your references?

All that is left now is to determine how we go back to the relatively stable state of the original British Mandate of Palestine. We must and will establish a single secular state bounded by the Mediterranean on the West, the Jordan River on the East, Lebanon and Syria to the North and Egypt to the South. This state must initially be governed with an iron fist by a UN mandate, with absolutely no weapons of any type allowed in this territory.

Farnaz, Farnaz, Farnaz,

When someone disagrees with you, that automatically makes them a Nazi. That would make half of the contributors on this site Nazis. Read my text carefully, I am not a Nazi. The horrors committed by these lowlife can only be compared to hell on earth. On a personal note, my sister's fiancee was killed in the Battle of the Bulge and my wife's uncle helped clean up the atrocities of Auschwitz.

And your obfuscating is as bad as the Reality Challenged Jihadist.

Once again address the issues noted below:

Did the Jewish atrocities recorded in the OT influence the actions of the Nazis and their puppet states??

Was the OT literal history or simply fictional accounts of imagined events and "heroes"?? Farnaz is an infidel because she believes the OT is myth but weirdly attacks anyone else who believes so. Very strange!!!!

And is Franaz moving from her abode so that the local Indian tribe can move back in??

I have come to the borders of sleep,
The unfathomable deep
Forest where all must lose
Their way, however straight,
Or winding, soon or late;
They cannot choose.
---------------------------------------------
From 'Lights Out' - Edward Thomas (1878-1917)

Timmy, part 1,

Thank you for your detailed response to my earlier post. Clearly, you see yourself as transcending all religious, ethnic, and national identities, and you advocate the same for everyone else, for the betterment of all. You hope for, and try to help along, an undivided *brotherhood of man*. I've got you right, yes?

Although I appreciate your comprehensive precis of your philosophy, Timmy, I think you've missed my rhetorical point. Not necessarily your fault, I hasten to add.

You write to me:
"If you had ever listened to my philosophy you'd know that I do not consider the people of my nation as "my people" and of course I most certainly do not consider Christians "my people". Nor do I consider the indigenous peoples as a separate "people". We are all the same people. I'm not into tribalism, in fact I speak out against it. You can not hurt me by attacking Canadians as a "people" because there is no such thing to me."

I was not trying to *hurt* you by *attacking Canadians*. I was challenging you, rhetorically, to stand in the Other's shoes (Farnaz individually, Jews collectively).

(continued below)

Timmy, part 2,

It's clear that you simply exempt yourself from the perfidies of *Canadians*, as summarised by Farnaz. Fair enough. You are your own man, with your own independently formed views. You uphold an all-inclusive humanity, and disavow all nationality, ethnicity, and religion - "there is no such thing to me".

But what if there were a powerful prejudice - endemic among the population at large - that held all *Canadians* to be collectively guilty of all those perfidies documented by Farnaz, and more? What if, regardless of your self-exemption from *Canadianity*, you and your family were still regarded as *them Canucks, Inuit-killers* and harassed, intimidated, robbed, or assaulted by those infected with this prejudice? And just imagine all of that occuring with state sanction, social sanction, cultural sanction, religious sanction. And imagine further such anti-Canuckism having a centuries-long pedigree, to boot!

And what if some weblog commenter insisted that all of these terrible persecutions against *Canucks* were partly self-inflicted, since *Canucks* had originally racialised themselves through absurd religious beliefs. How might you feel about that commenter's words if your own relatives had been physically assaulted, even killed, simply because they were *Canucks*? In response to these horrors, would you protest:

"I do not consider the people of my nation as "my people" "?

Against the anti-Canucks' insistence that you are, despite all of your individuality, self-determination, and ethical uprightness still primarily a *Canuck*, would you opine that:

"I'm not into tribalism, in fact I speak out against it."?

Imagine what it would be like to say - to scream - all of that, and yet still be labelled *Canuck* (they're all the same, you know), and held culpable and punishable for all that *Canucks* have supposedly done.

This is my point, and I believe Farnaz' too. Imagine.

CCNL,

I realize I'm talking to myself, but, nevertheless. I don't like using words like "nazi," "klansman," etc. with you, since I can't be certain you've officially joined with like-minded others. Are you of a mind with them, CCNL? Or do you just want to give that impression?

But there is a kind of hollowness in you, an inability to come to terms with history, with context, to understand difference, to allow that you may not be able to assimilate everyone to your own experience, a self-righteousness and rage for certainty that puts you under the covers with some very bad people.

I wish I could help you.

Btw., out-of-date, Klansman, Nazi, New Testifier, another blogger posted hundreds of the clergy's names awhile back. I posted links, quotes, etc.

Why not put your obsessive, autistic talents to good use, find the material, cut and paste it? Some of us work, Bun, not to get fat and rich, but to support families, make the world better, that sort of thing. You wouldn't know, I guess. Too bad. I honestly thought you had some decency at one point.

CCNL,

Schillebeekx? Get a grip. Go to an AA meeting. Check the calendar.

More on the Vatican Bank, the fifteen hundred Croatian Franciscan clergy.

http://www.vaticanbankclaims.com/tenyears.htm

The actual lawsuit:
http://www.vaticanbankclaims.com/5AC.pdf

For USHMM articles.
http://www.ushmm.org/shared/search/searchresults.php?cx=008795841384874293445:jtbtbquu4k8&sa=Search&cof=FORID%3A11&q=croatia

CCNL:

There is nothing propagandized in the links I gave you. Had you read the articles at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, as recommended you would have come across much of what I mentioned.

I'll post more tomorrow, including material on the law suit, the loot deposted by the fifteen hundred Franciscans in Vatican Bank, which you conveniently overlook.

What would you have me give the AmerIndians, Nazi BunBun? As I mentioned, I worked with North Dakota reservation Indians. I continue to do research as asked for ongoing litigation, and accept no payment. We don't have very much. We rent, Bun, unlike your overfed self. If I could give or do more, I would.

And you? Aside from calling names and debasing the memory of the dead, drinking, cutting and obsessively pasting, what is it that you do for anyone?

Meanwhile, try again.

http://www.ushmm.org/shared/search/searchresults.php?cx=008795841384874293445:jtbtbquu4k8&sa=Search&cof=FORID%3A11&q=croatia

For the "non-propaganized" story about the Nazi puppet state in Croatia from 1941-1945, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involvement_of_Croatian_Catholic_clergy_with_the_Usta%C5%A1a_regime

Gruesome and genocidal Nazism, yes but nothing about Franciscans cutting up Jews et al.

And did the Jewish atrocities recorded in the OT influence the actions of the Nazis and their puppet states??

And is Franaz, the Jewish Infidel, moving from her abode so that the local Indian tribe can move back in??

And was the OT history or simply fictional accounts of imagined events and "heroes"?? Farnaz is an infidel because she believes the OT is myth but weirdly attacks anyone else who believes so. Very strange!!!!

Onofrio,

Continued

YOU ASK: "How does it feel to be forced to extricate yourself from another's *justified* pigeonholing"

I do not have to extricate myself. I am unpigeonholable because I do not consider any ethnic group or nationality to be "my people". I consider all humans to be "my people" with no group or tribal distinctions. There is zero insult to me in any attempt by another to place me into a group other than that of human. The only people who get insulted are the people who consider themselves part of a special group of people, distinct from all others by ethnicity or race or religion.

YOU ASK: Did you understand the goose and gander, gander?

As you can see, there never was a goose or a gander.

Onofrio,

YOU ASK: How does it feel to have your nose shoved in the perfidies of your own nation, your *people*, regardless of your own involvement or approbation?

Like nothing. I feel nothing. If you had ever listened to my philosophy you'd know that I do not consider the people of my nation as "my people" and of course I most certainly do not consider Christians "my people". Nor do I consider the indigenous peoples as a separate "people". We are all the same people. I'm not into tribalism, in fact I speak out against it. You can not hurt me by attacking Canadians as a "people" because there is no such thing to me. If I was ethnically Jewish, I would not consider "the Jews" to be "my people". Just people who have similar physical traits due to a common geographical ancestry. But I would feel no more affiliation with them than I feel for all white people right now, or all British/Germans, or all Aryan/Slavs. None of those things mean anything to me, and I think think that giving them meaning causes false divisions between humanity that are not necessary. All humans are the same people to me. I attack beliefs and actions of individuals that I think are harmful. Religions form group beliefs and so I attack religions that I think have harmful group beliefs, and I therefore attack them as a group. "The Jews" are a group of people who believe that their ancient ancestors had a special covenant with the creator of the universe for a specific parcel of land among other things. To refer to ethnic Jews as "the Jews" is absurd in my world. Ethnicity is nothing but skin colour and facial feature shape and hair texture. Small physical differences caused by geographical ancestry and have no reason whatsoever to bind people together as a group. Thinking that it does causes unnecessary tribalism and conflict.

YOU ASK: "How does it feel to be relentlessly racialised and religionised, regardless of your actual allegiances?"

It feels like nothing because I don't consider the people that Farnaz was insulting to be "my people". Farnaz should only take personal offense to my criticism of Jewish ethnocentricity, if she herself considers all ethnic Jews to be her brethren or "people". They are not "her people" any more than aryans are "my people" or Canadians are "my people". I was insulting people who think that very way. People who think that they should marry within their own ethnicity to keep it pure. Or marry within their own religion, or worse, try to connect a religion with a particular ethnicity. I attack those ideas, not an ethnic group. I argue that ethnic groups should not be racialized, by others, or by themselves through ethnocentricity.

CCNL, BunBun:

Start here. Except for the most whiskey brained, no person would consider this site "anti-Caholic."

That a simple google search would turn up only anti-Catholic sources on this well-known barbarity is rather a stretch, even for the muffin-headed among us. Have you no shame, Bun? Read the articles, and report back in seven days, no sooner.

http://www.ushmm.org/shared/search/searchresults.php?cx=008795841384874293445:jtbtbquu4k8&sa=Search&cof=FORID%3A11&q=croatia

Well we checked Google for references about Franciscans cutting up Jews et al but found only anti-Catholic web sites and/or sites noting stories about the Ustase with references cited as "citations needed".

January 18, 2009 12:43 AM |
________________________________________
I find that extremely unlikely, although it may give yet further support to repeated suggestions that you cut back on the booze.

Mama's busy now, Bun. Will give you a quickie source in a minute, with much more later. Would'st like to read from the ongoing law suit? Wikipedia?

Well we checked Google for references about Franciscans cutting up Jews et al but found only anti-Catholic web sites and/or sites noting stories about the Ustase with references cited as "citations needed".

Hmmm, "JDLing" sometimes requires false propaganda???

And when exactly is Farnaz giving her current abode back to the local Indian tribe??

And we still have all those examples of the atrocities committed by the OT Jews as described in god's influenced bible. Or are all of OT stories myths, adding more credence to the belief that all Jewish scripture is mythical??

MODERATE:

Prior to the next Crusade, would you kindly read the posts I reference? You might, then, be able to put up your horse, shield, armor, etc.

Et tu, Farnaz?

"There is more than that that "the Christians" have done."

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

Hello Moderate:

The three-part post, etc., is referenced here:

______________________

THE MODERATE:

Re: The 2.1 billion

Kindly look around at the following: North America, South America, Central America, the Carribbean, Asia, the Middle East, Africa

Notice what all of these vast land masses have in common. Could it be that they were all either (a) invaded by, (b) colonized by (c) neo-colonized by (d) genocided by (e) enslaved by "the Christians"?

Could it be that racisms, colorisms, antisemitisms were spread there with one or more of the above?

Answer to the above is yes. There is more than that that "the Christians" have done.

I'm going to return the favor of giving advice by giving some to you and to any other nominal, cultural, or practicing Christian who takes the offense that you do. Read or reread my earlier three-part post to you, beginning:
January 17, 2009 12:59 AM |

Next: Read Timmy2's uninvited comments, including my pasted highlights of his antisemitic comments.
January 17, 2009 3:11 AM (and his subsequent brief remark on them).

Read Onofrio's post to Timmy2 on my "what's good for the goose, etc., gander" refrain, and please read Onofrio's post carefully:
January 17, 2009 9:58 AM.

I leave you with this to ponder:

Queen: Hamlet, thou hast thy father much offended.
Hamlet: Mother, you have my father much offended.
(Hamlet 3.4)

January 17, 2009 5:42 PM

Farnaz:

"unintended irony"?

Moderate:

Re: Your last posts and mine

May I suggest that you scan your comments for unintended irony before you post them?

Did you read my previous post, and have you read my earlier three-part post to you, etc., as requested?

Farnaz

Farnaz:

"Did you read my original three-part-post to you, etc.?"

Do you mean the military history posts? As a long term student of military history I am very familiar with that. Not a bad summary you posted, if a bit short on the combined arms team doctrine I find interesting.

What did you think about the post on formalizing the Israeli nuclear deterrent, combined with a Palestinian development fund to give that benighted people a chance at a decent life as part of a path to peace?

Pam and Farnaz:

Regarding name calling, e.g. "smug jerk":

"ad hominem" is Latin for conceding defeat in a logical argument. Surely you can do better.

Hello Moderate,

Re: Your post to me

My earlier post to you was in reference to an earlier post to me, and, before we turn to the AmerIndians, I would like to conclude that exchange. Did you read my original three-part-post to you, etc.?

Farnaz

Farnaz:

Your outline of genocide smacks of the hoary old 1960's revisionist "histories" from the likes of the discredited Ward Churchill. That is a very poor factual basis for what amounts to a message of anti-Christian bigotry.

The diseases that the Europeans brought to The Americas included smallpox, measles, whooping cough, diptheria, typhus, bubonic plague, cholera, and scarlet fever. These pathogens are thought to have killed ninety percent or more of the North American Indians.

The Pilgrims, for example set down in an area of Massachusetts where the local populations had not been effected and got into conflict and had to flee twenty miles up the coast to an area devoid of native population. How had that area been depopulated? The above mentioned diseases.

Oh, but wasn't that deliberate biological warfare? What about all the smallpox blankets that sixties revisionists made so much of? Unfortunately for their argument, only one such case is documented. There is absolutely no evidence of a systematic and intentional use of European diseases as biowarfare agents.

On the contrary, President Jefferson ordered a program of smallpox vaccination in 1801 for native populations that continued for thirty years, though it may not have given uneven coverage due to various factors, like a not altogether unreasonable distrust of the native populations for the U.S. government. Still, this program was undoubtedly helpful conveying resistance to this deadly killer to some of the native peoples.

FARNAZ: "Words that have broad relevance: 'smug jerk'"

Indeed.

Pamsm,

Words that have broad relevance: "smug jerk"

Farnaz :)

Here we are, on the eve of Peter Huff's self-imposed exile from On Faith, and he has yet to reply to questions from the previous two threads, let alone this one.

Has Peter been bested, or will he dump a load of scriptural references and warmed-over questions on this thread at the last minute, and then head for the hills?

Inquiring minds want to know.

P.S. to Counterww,

Part of the reason for the renewed interest in the sciences was the church's inability to do anything to help in the face of the Black Death.

Conterww says:
"Actually,during the Dark Ages, religion in the form of Christianity was held by a relatively few power hungry individuals. Scripture was kept from the masses (it was a crime to own a Bible in that time)"

Power-hungry individuals?? It was held by the Catholic Church - Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, the works. The One True Faith had no competition at that time.

A crime to own a bible? You think they were printing lots of them during the dark ages? There was no need to make it a crime - Gutenberg didn't print the first one until 1453. Up until then they were laboriously hand-copied by scribes - only the church could afford that.

COUNTERWW: "The Dark ages ended with the Bible being available to the masses, and the masses could then see that the Roman Catholic church has abandoned the true precepts of Christ for power and greed".

No. It was Martin Luther who had the vernacular bible made available, and he wasn't born until 1483. The Renaissance began in the previous century, with a renewed interest in the art, architecture, science, and mathematics of the Greek and Arab worlds, that was lost when the church put a chokehold on Europe. This was accelerated by the collapse of the Byzantine empire, when a flood of Greek scholars made their way into Europe. The Renaissance made Gutenberg, Protestantism, and even free thinking possible.

COUNTERWW: "You assessment is, as usual in error".

Back atcha, you smug jerk.

A few comments on what follows (and, thanks to that sweetie, Rick, much more to come, including numerous references)

Nothing is perfect, including the site from which I pulled some of this material. It tries to be "fair," almost impossible in a conflict of this magnitude and in the process, fails, but not too miserably.

The Yom Kippur War has been misrepresented since its occurrence because this country went along with Egypt's desire to score a "victory," or at least not a disgraceful defeat.

In fact, Israel had seen the tank movement, but was prevented from moving ahead by this government. (See New York Times timeline). For three weeks tanks moved against Israel with no response from it. Finally, again, according to the New York Times, the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations threatened to go to Congress. Israel was, then, "permitted" to fight against its attackers.

Next came Sadat's plea to the US for food and medical supplies to Egypt's trapped third army. Despite huge and loud protests about aiding an enemy army, rather than accepting a surrender, aiding them so that they could kill one's sons and daughters, Israel again complied. As a result, many more Israeli and Egyptian lives were lost.

Nevertheless, Israel continued its success, stationing troops nine miles from Dmascus, since Syria had also joined in the war with tiny Israel, nine miles from Damascus where the blood Arafat had run. THIS COUNTRY USHERED IN THIRTY MORE YEARS OF BARBAROUS bloodshed against innocent Israelis and Palestinians by demanding that Israel give Arafat safe passage out of Syria!!!

"A ceasefire was arranged."

Part I continued

The October War (Yom Kippur War) - In October 1973, Egypt and Syria launched another war against Israel, after the Israeli government headed by Golda Meir rebuffed Egyptian President Anwar Sadat's offers to negotiate a settlement. The Egyptians crossed the Suez Canal on the afternoon of October 6, Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish religious calendar. The Israeli government had ignored repeated intelligence warnings. They were convinced that Israeli arms were a sufficient deterrent to any aggressor. Sadat had twice announced his intention to go to war, but nothing had happened. When the intelligence reports were finally believed, on the morning of the attack, PM Meir and Defense Minister Moshe Dayan decided not to mobilize reserves.

Part I continued

The Israelis were caught by surprise in more ways than one. Egyptians poured huge numbers of troops across the canal unopposed and began setting up a beachhead. The Israel Army had neglected basic maintenance tasks and drill. As troops mustered, it became apparent that equipment was missing and tanks were out of commission. The line of outposts built as watch posts along the Suez canal - the Bar Lev line, was used instead as a line of fortifications intended to hold off the Egyptians as long as possible. A tiny number of soldiers faced the Egyptian onslaught and were wiped out after stubborn resistance. The Soviets had sold the Egyptians new technology - better surface to air missiles (SAM) and hand held Sager anti-tank weapons. Israel had counted on air power to tip the balance on the battlefield, and had neglected artillery. But the air-force was initially neutralized because of the effectiveness of SAM missiles, until Israel could destroy the radar stations controlling them. Futile counterattacks continued in Sinai for several days as Israeli divisions coped with traffic jams that prevented concentration of forces, and with effective Egyptian resistance.

Meanwhile, less than 200 Israeli tanks were left guarding the Golan heights against far superior numbers. Syrians made serious and at first unopposed inroads in the Golan as Egyptians crossed the Suez canal and retook a strip of the Sinai peninsula. After suffering heavily losses, Israel reconquered the Golan. Click for map of Syrian Front

In Sinai, Israel troops crossed the canal. General Ariel Sharon, disobeying the orders of cautious superiors, tried to run ahead of logistics and support to develop the bridgehead on the Egyptian side of the Suez canal. This small force was reinforced after bridges were put across the canal, and the Israelis cut off the entire Egyptian third army. (Click for map of Egyptian front ) Cease-fires ended most of the fighting within a month. About 2,700 Israeli soldiers and 8,500 Arab soldiers died in the war As a result of the war, the Golda Meir was forced to resign as Prime Minister of Israel, making way for Yitzhak Rabin, who had been Israeli ambassador to the US and previously Chief of staff of the IDF. Click for details of the Yom Kippur War

Part I continued

Oil Embargo - In the aftermath of the Yom Kippur war, Arab states led by Saudi Arabia declared an oil embargo, targeting the United States and the Netherlands in particular for their support for Israel. Oil production was reduced by 340 million barrels from October to December of 1973. Prices soared from $3 to over $11 a barrel, due to panic stockpiling as well as actual shortages. Oil sold to European countries eventually made its way to the United States and the Netherlands in any case, but there were nonetheless long lines for gasoline and overnight price increases. The embargo continued until March of 1974. The embargo heightened the perception that Arab countries could exercise political leverage by controlling the oil supply. It probably helped motivate European diplomatic moves that were conciliatory to the Arabs, and played a part in the invitation of Yasser Arafat to address the UN General Assembly, granting of a permanent observer status at the UN to the PLO and passage of the Zionism is Racism resolution in 1975.

Peace With Egypt - Subsequent shuttle diplomacy by US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger resulted in partial Israeli withdrawals from the Sinai peninsula, under much less favorable terms than could have been obtained before the war. Right-wing opposition leader Menahem Begin was adamant in his opposition to any withdrawals. However, in 1978, Egypt led by Anwar Sadat, and Israel, now led by Menahem Begin, signed the Camp David framework agreements, leading to a Peace treaty in 1979. Israel withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula in 1982.

The PLO in Lebanon and the Lebanese Civil War - Lebanon became increasingly unstable as Maronite Christians found their once--dominant position threatened by demographic changes which gave Muslims an increasingly large majority. Tensions between different religious groups were exacerbated by clan rivalry. Lebanon also has a relatively large population of Palestinian refugees, who incurred the animosity of native Lebanese, especially the Christians. A revolt by the PLO against the Jordanian government led to the expulsion of the PLO from Jordan in 1970. PLO fighters streamed into Lebanon, incited tension between Muslims and Christians and turned Lebanon into a base for attacks on Israel. In 1975, an attack by Christian Phalangist militias on a bus carrying Palestinians ignited the civil war. the Christian Phalangists and Muslim militias massacred at least 600 Muslims and Christians at checkpoints, beginning the 1975-1976 civil war. Full-scale civil war broke out, with the Palestinians joining the Muslim forces, controlling an increasingly lawless West Beirut. Lebanese political and social life descended into chaos, characterized by a grim routine of car bombs, assassinations and harassment and killing of civilians at roadblocks set up by warring militias.

Part I continued

On January 20, 1976, PLO fighters, possibly reinforced by a Syrian PLO contingent that had entered Lebanon in 1975, destroyed the Christian towns of Jiyeh and Damour, massacring about 500 people. In March, Major Saad Haddad formed the Southern Lebanese Army (SLA), a militia intended to protect Christian residents of southern Lebanon, which was allied with Israel In June, 1976, with the Maronites on the verge of defeat, President Elias Sarkis called for Syrian intervention. With the agreement of the Americans and the Israelis, the Syrians entered Lebanon ostensibly to protect the Christians and the fragile Lebanese multi-ethnic multi-religious constitution, but also to further long-standing Baathist ambitions to make Lebanon as part of Greater Syria. On August 13, 1976, under the protection and with the probable active participation of the Syrian army, the Christian Phalangist militia attacked the Tel al-Za'atar refugee camp and killed as many as 3,000 civilians.

After an attack on a bus on the Haifa-Tel-Aviv road, in which about thirty people were killed, Israel invaded Lebanon in March 1978. It occupied most of the area south of the Litani River in Operation Litani. In response, UN Security Council resolution 425 called for the immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces and the creation of an UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), charged with maintaining peace.

Israeli forces turned over positions inside Lebanon along the border to the SLA. The SLA and Israel set up a 12-mile wide security zone to protect Israeli territory from attacks across the border, and to protect local residents from the PLO, which had been occupying their villages and using them as bases for shelling Israel. This southern area became an "open border" area separated by the "good fence," allowing Lebanese residents to find work in Israel. Attacks and counter attacks along the northern border of Israel continued. In July of 1981 a cease-fire between Israel and the PLO was brokered by the US. It was generally honored by both sides. Nonetheless, the PLO continued to gather strength and dig in in southern Lebanon.

Part I continued

The 1982 War in Lebanon (Peace for the Galilee) - On June 3 1982, terrorists of the Abu Nidal faction, not controlled by the PLO, shot Israeli Ambassador Shlomo Argov in the head in London. In response, Israel invaded Lebanon in force. Most analysts believe that the shooting of Argov served only as an excuse for an operation planned by defense Minister Ariel Sharon with the tacit approval of the US administration. The Iranian Islamist regime sent its Pasdaran revolutionary guards, who had previously organized the takeover of the US embassy in Teheran, into Lebanon, and began organizing a resistance movement, The Hizb Allah (party of Allah) or Hizbolla.

Part I concludes

The Israel invasion resulted in expulsion of the PLO from Lebanon to Tunis in August. The war aroused furor in Israel as the army exceeded the official war aims. On September 14, 1982, the Lebanese President-elect, Bashir Gemayel, an Israeli ally, was killed by a large bomb that was apparently planted by Syrian intelligence. Ostensibly to maintain order, the Israeli government decided to move into West Beirut. They allowed or sent their Lebanese Phalangist Christian allies into the Sabra and Shatilla Palestinian refugee camps. The Phalangists committed a massacre in Sabra and Shatilla, killing about 700 people and exciting the wrath of the international community as well as the Israeli public. An Israeli commission of inquiry led by judge Kahan indirectly implicated Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon and several others in the massacres, noting that they could have foreseen the possibility of the violence and acted to prevent it. The Kahan report resulted in the resignation of Sharon as defense minister. Israel subsequently extricated itself slowly from Lebanon. As Israel withdrew, Lebanon became increasingly lawless. Beirut life came to be characterized by gunfire, kidnappings and bombings. Attempts by the US to restore order failed owing to large scale suicide bombings of a marine barracks and the US embassy. The US withdrew and Lebanon, especially Beirut, deteriorated into chaos. Order was restored only after Lebanon became essentially a satellite of Syria. Israel continued to maintain a presence in south Lebanon until 2000, when the last Israeli troops were withdrawn by PM Ehud Barak.

The Pollard Affair - In November 1985, Jonathan Pollard, a Jewish-American employee of the US Naval Anti-Terrorist Alert Center was arrested for spying for Israel. He pleaded guilty in a plea bargain deal, but the US government apparently reneged on the deal and Pollard was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1987, an exceptional sentence relative to similar cases. The affair was a severe embarrassment to US-Israeli relations and raised the specter of "double loyalty" accusations for American Jews. At the same time, Pollard became a cause celebre of the Zionist right, who pointed out that he had been used and abandoned by the Israeli government, which did little to secure his freedom.

The First Intifada - While the fortunes of the PLO waned, Palestinians in the occupied territories took their fate into their own hands. Beginning in 1987, a revolt called the Intifadeh began in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. The revolt was initiated by local residents and involved mostly low-level violence such as rock throwing, winning sympathy for the struggle of the Palestinians against the Israeli occupiers. By 1991 the Intifadeh had all but ended, but massive Israeli repression in this period laid the seeds for future violence (see First Intifada).

c

“Truman tried to gain support for admission of Jewish displaced persons to the United States. However, domestic opposition to enlarging immigration for Jews was fierce and adamant…

[So that is what got us into this horrendous predicament. We were too self-centered and greedy to allow the Jewish refugees to into our vast country with its near infinite resources, so we forced them onto the crowded Palestinians where a resulting firestorm was a predictable certainty.]

On October 22, 1945, Senators Wagner and Taft introduced a resolution favoring a Jewish state in Palestine. The British were not interested in Truman's ideas or in admission of any Jewish refugees… However, as they were anxious to obtain a loan from the US to support their tottering economy, they suggested a commission of investigation that would report on the matter.

Truman was still averse to the idea of a Jewish state despite his support for immigration, mostly out of concern that it would require excessive US resources to defend it. This concern was to surface again and again and influence policy in the months ahead. He wrote to Senator Joseph Ball of Minnesota on November 24, 1945:

‘I told the Jews that if they were willing to furnish me with five hundred thousand men to carry on a war with the Arabs, we could do what they are suggesting in the Resolution [favoring a state] - otherwise we will have to negotiate awhile.

It is a very explosive situation we are facing, and naturally I regret it very much, but I don't think that you, or any of the other Senators, would be inclined to send half a dozen Divisions to Palestine to maintain a Jewish State.

What I am trying to do is to make the whole world safe for the Jews. Therefore, I don't feel like going to war for Palestine.’”

[How prescient.]

RICK22407

Re: your post to me

You poor thing--First off, don't worry your little head about me, dear. I'm a researcher on racisms, their origins and consequences and have a great deal of this information literally at my fingertips. Most of what I posted concerns not the American Indians but the Canadian, although there are many tribal continuations and extensions. These I have not touched on yet.

To address your concerns:

Have you isolated and genocided the American Indians? Stolen their lands? Refused to honor your treaties? In a word, yes.

Second question: What have you done, and what are you doing to stop it?

Suggestion: Read my last post to the Moderate, and reflect upon it at length.

PS. I've already posted on the Balfour Declaration. Scroll down. If you want to play dueling web sites on the Middle East,I'd be happy to engage you. I'd start off with the exporting of anti-Jewish racism by Christians and work forward and back.

Don't think, Doll, that you're going to cruise over me. It's not that kind of world, not your world, anymore.

The following link gives an interesting narrative of events leading up to the formation of the State of Israel.

http://www.mideastweb.org/us_supportforstate.htm

The horrendous impact that we see today, of this disastrous decision by President Truman, was entirely foreseeable and was predicted by the U.S. Department of State officials of that day.

“Truman wrote in his memoirs, ‘The question of Palestine as a Jewish homeland goes back to the solemn promise that had been made to them [the Jews] by the British in the Balfour Declaration of 1917 - a promise which had stirred the hopes and the dreams of these oppressed people. This promise, I felt, should be kept, just as all promises made by responsible, civilized governments should be kept.’”

“The Balfour Declaration of 1917 is an official letter from the British Foreign Office headed by Arthur Balfour, the UK's Foreign Secretary (from December 1916 to October 1919), to Lord Rothschild, who was seen as a representative of the Jewish people. The letter stated that the British government "view[ed] with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".”

[Apparently President Truman neglected to read the part that said “…it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine…”]

THE MODERATE:

RE: My previous post: January 17, 2009 5:42 PM

I left out Europe.

CCNL, BunBun,

You write:"And Franciscans cutting up Jews? References please!!!"

First, they cut up with scissors not only living Jews, but also living Serbs and Roma. (I'd use exclamation points, except the atrocity transcends clamorous marking.) A great deal in the way of references has been posted on the Franciscans, the Utasha, Vatican Bank then and now, the law suit against them, etc.,to which you replied with your usual nonsense. I don't have time now to go through my book marks, but click on to any one of the sites listed below for a summary.

If you don't quickly come across the list of the fifteen hundred clergy involved, the names of the few prosecuted, let me know.

http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=Franciscans+holocaust+croatia

Rick22407

Re: your post to me

You poor thing--First off, don't worry your little head about me, dear. I'm a researcher on racisms, their origins and consequences and have a great deal of this information literally at my fingertips. Most of what I posted concerns not the American Indians but the Canadian, although there are many tribal continuations and extensions. These I have not touched on yet.

To address your concerns:

Have you isolated and genocided the American Indians? Stolen their lands? Refused to honor your treaties? In a word, yes.

Second question: What have you done, and what are you doing to stop it?

Suggestion: Read my last post to the Moderate, and reflect upon it at length.

THE MODERATE:

Re: The 2.1 billion

Kindly look around at the following: North America, South America, Central America, the Carribbean, Asia, the Middle East, Africa

Notice what all of these vast land masses have in common. Could it be that they were all either (a) invaded by, (b) colonized by (c) neo-colonized by (d) genocided by (e) enslaved by "the Christians"?

Could it be that racisms, colorisms, antisemitisms were spread there with one or more of the above?

Answer to the above is yes. There is more than that that "the Christians" have done.

I'm going to return the favor of giving advice by giving some to you and to any other nominal, cultural, or practicing Christian who takes the offense that you do. Read or reread my earlier three-part post to you, beginning:
January 17, 2009 12:59 AM |

Next: Read Timmy2's uninvited comments, including my pasted highlights of his antisemitic comments.
January 17, 2009 3:11 AM (and his subsequent brief remark on them).

Read Onofrio's post to Timmy2 on my "what's good for the goose, etc., gander" refrain, and please read Onofrio's post carefully:
January 17, 2009 9:58 AM.

I leave you with this to ponder:

Queen: Hamlet, thou hast thy father much offended.
Hamlet: Mother, you have my father much offended.
(Hamlet 3.4)

Farnaz:

"There are many excellent sites on the ongoing horror perpetrated by the Christians on the indigenous people's of Canada."

You know, Farnaz, by some accounts there are as many as 2.1 billion Christians in the world. So just who are "the Christians" of whom you speak? Are they Arminius' Episcopalians? Are they my neighbor's children who went on a Presbyterian mission to Central America to dig wells and build schools for "indiginous people"?

In any 2.1 billion you will find the hateful, the lustful, the gluttons, the greedy, the slothful, the wrathful, the envious, and the arrogantly prideful.

In any 2.1 billion you will find the loving, the self restrained, the temperant, the charitable, the industrious, secure, and the humble servants of the good.

I will say the same to you as I did to Rick: remember that "the Christians" are real and highly varied human beings.

To Pam-

Actually,during the Dark Ages, religion in the form of Christianity was held by a relatively few power hungry individuals. Scripture was kept from the masses (it was a crime to own a Bible in that time)

The Dark ages ended with the Bible being available to the masses, and the masses could then see that the Roman Catholic church has abandoned the true precepts of Christ for power and greed.

You assessment is, as usual in error.

To Farnaz,

You poor dear, you have apparently spent your entire night cataloguing information about the mistreatment of the American and Canadian Indians by our ancestors, in hope of deflecting attention from (and criticism of) the barbaric acts being perpetrated against the Palestinian people today; with the full approval and empowerment of our elected government officials, funded by our tax dollars, and with the use of F-16s, Apache attack helicopters, and stand-off air-to-ground missiles supplied by our government.

There is clearly no comparison as can be easily seen by asking the following questions:

(1) Are the American Indians firing Qassam and Chinese Grad rockets from their reservations at nearby cities in hopes that, by random chance, some damage to property may be done, or an unfortunate random American Christian may be killed?

(2) Are the American Indians on their reservations, digging tunnels from Mexico to smuggle in such materials and Chinese made Grad rockets?

(3) Are we invading and occupying our American Indian reservations at the cost of thousands of innocent civilian casualties.

(4) Do we herd the innocents by the hundreds into isolated dwellings before shelling them?

(5) Do we deny humanitarian and medical aid from these shelled dwellings for a week, leaving famished innocent children to lay starving and dehydrating on mattresses next to dead parents while their bodies rot and decay?

Clearly we have a responsibility as American citizens to put a stop to these atrocities and actions of our elected government officials on our behalf.

P.S.: I will be interested to see if anyone perceives this to be a bigoted or racial attack on the Jewish people.

Like we said Farnaz, the Jewish Infidel, does not take criticism well. Again tis very strange since she says she is an infidel because of things like the Jewish atrocities listed in the OT.

And because we note said Jewish OT atrocities, we get labeled as Nazis?? Wow that is getting really weird and indicative of some mental instability on the Infidel's part.

And Franciscans cutting up Jews? References please!!!

Well, well, well we have Thomas "The Hallucinator" Baum spouting this morning one of his favorite "thumptations" i.e. Isaiah 55: 8-9

“Indeed, my plans are not like your plans,

and my deeds are not like your deeds,

9 for just as the sky is higher than the earth,

so my deeds are superior to your deeds

and my plans superior to your plans."

And one wonders who god was talking to then since this was way before "The Hallucinator"'s time.

Bottom line: Just more OT mumbo-jumbo created by hallucinating Jewish scribes!!!

FARNAZ2

You wrote, "The answer to Spivak's question, and mine, is No, she cannot. That is the problem I'm having here, on this thread, with you, Moderate, and with other well-meaning others. Except for Onofrio, who entered here already knowledgeable about Judaism, Jews, antisemitism, etc., and a couple of others, I can neither speak nor be heard."

If you want to know why antisemitism is so rife, the reason is because the Jews are the Chosen People and when God became One of us, He became a Jew.

satan is real and the fact that God became a Jew when He became One of us really upsets him, that is his problem.

Isn't it, according to Judaism, that there are Jews and Gentiles, well God's Plan covers both.

To point out that "this group" did this to "that group" and instead of looking at the person or persons doing it rather than whatever label they label themselves with is to miss the fact that man can be very inhumane to his fellow man.

Man can be very inventive in justifying or rationalizing his actions, it is not something new.

As I have said, the world is a mess, all one can do is try to do the best they can and if they feel called to do something then do it.

As I have also said, I am not here to pass out rose-colored glasses, reality is reality.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Farnaz,

Thanks for the reply.

Yes, I was and quite surprised by the Moderate’s post to which you refer. That was also a quite unintentional faux pas on my part. I apologize for that incident as well. If you care to bring others to my attention, I would be interested in learning from them as well.

Peace,

Rick

:>(
_

rick22407,

There's nothing wrong with using the word "Jew." I know it's meant pejoratively by some, but, trust me, that's not the problem. Reread the Moderate's last post to you. Maybe, that will help clarify things. The issue is context.

I can say that "Jew" is a noun, "Jewish" an adjective. Adjectives go before nouns. When you use the word "Jew" as an adjective, it is offensive.

To Farnaz and Susan,

Being quite puzzled by the horrible faux pas that I have apparently committed by referring to a Jew as a Jew, or a half-Jew as a half-Jew, I Googled the term, “Jew”. Here is an excerpt of what I found at the following web page:

http://www.google.com/explanation.html

“…If you use Google to search for "Judaism," "Jewish" or "Jewish people," the results are informative and relevant. So why is a search for "Jew" different? One reason is that the word "Jew" is often used in an anti-Semitic context. Jewish organizations are more likely to use the word "Jewish" when talking about members of their faith. The word has become somewhat charged linguistically, as noted on websites devoted to Jewish topics such as these:”

http://shakti.trincoll.edu/~mendele/vol01/vol01.174
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/jonah081500.asp

“Someone searching for information on Jewish people would be more likely to enter terms like "Judaism," "Jewish people," or "Jews" than the single word "Jew." In fact, prior to this incident, the word "Jew" only appeared about once in every 10 million search queries. Now it's likely that the great majority of searches on Google for "Jew" are by people who have heard about this issue and want to see the results for themselves…”

I suppose that I have lived my previous 65 years in an isolated bubble, but I swear that I was totally unaware of this distinction. I profusely apologize to you both for my ignorance. In the future I will refer two a Jewish person as a Jewish person, and never as a Jew; or a person with one Jewish parent as half-Jewish, and never as half-Jew.

And I will never refer to a person’s heritage unless absolutely necessary and unavoidable in the context of a discussion.

I apologize,

Rick

:>(

TIMMY2

You wrote, "And how about the couple of hundred thousand years of human existence that he watched in silence before deciding to have a chat with us in the first place. It surely is the strangest of perfect plans."

As God said, "My Ways are not your ways and My Thoughts are not your thoughts."

By the way, God decided to have a chat with us in Person before creation, which is just part of God's Plan which is unfolding before our very eyes.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Timmy,

Since I am damned a wee dog, I will live down to your characterisation.

Nice to see you recognised yourself in that earlier thread-eddy. It could have just passed into Lethe like all else, but you ensured that it hit the mark. Should have let that dog lie.

How does it feel to have your nose shoved in the perfidies of your own nation, your *people*, regardless of your own involvement or approbation? How does it feel to be relentlessly racialised and religionised, regardless of your actual allegiances? How does it feel to be forced to extricate yourself from another's *justified* pigeonholing.

Did you understand the goose and gander, gander? Your blaming of the Jews for their own racialisation (covering your ass with the claim of *religion-only* critique) is the context for Farnaz' stark mirror, held up to your own *people*. Timmy, you call me obtuse, and justly, but can you be so obtuse that you can't see the very pointy point here?

Whatever resistance Farnaz' furnace provokes in you, *imagine* what your comments provoke in her, who has personally experienced the ugly reality behind some of your blustering terms. Imagine. And then consider that her experiences, as she stresses, are not isolated aberrations, but part of an endemic pattern of prejudice that has spurred some of the worst crimes in history, and, preposterously, persists.

You protest that you abhor all such. But abhorrence is as abhorrence does.

PAMSM

You wrote, "I have to laugh at the idea of the world "going down the tubes."

The world is a mess in more ways than one, the signs of the times.

As it is said, "They will be buying and selling, marrying and giving in marriage and then..."

Don't worry God's Plan will come to Fruition.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Hi Onofrio,

Thanks for the kind words! You write, "that Bun Bun pesher is inspired. I salute!"

Yes, I sense that Bun is my new muse. (Who'd a thunk it?)

I, too, love "Strange Meeting." The war to end all wars....

CCNL, BunBun has returned from his Klan meeting, Nazi book-burning rally. Wonder if he met any of the relatives of the fifteen hundred Franciscans clergy who cut up with scissors living Jews, Serbs, and Roma and deposited the loot in Vatican bank which still has it?

Wonder if the offspring NT confreres whose manifest destiny it was to genocide the Indians in the name of the father, son, and holy whatever stopped by to say hello?

And the list could go on for infinity...

We'll wait for christoCossoNT-thumping Bun to quote from the NT. WWFS (What will Farnaz write?)

Obviously Farnaz, the Jewish Infidel, cannot take criticism of her "faith" very well even when said criticism is based on the facts as reported in Jewish scripture.

Surprisingly, she does not claim that these horrible atrocities committed by the founders of Judaism are myths as most Conservative Jews would say. But then all of Judaism's foundations, according to these same Conservative Jews, are based on mythical characters and events so Farnaz(at least by Conservative Jew standards)defends a lot of nonsense!!! (Of course, she also would lose her job at the Jewish Defense League if she did take the myth defense).

And considering we all learn by example, the atrocities of the OT gave later "bible thumpers" excuses to conquer and steal other people's lands.

Farnaz,

"My friend, you've loosed the blood-dimmed tide. One who wishes you well suggests you move to higher ground.

Time for a rhyme or rhyme plan? :)"

I've just caught up with the thread again.

With regard to that red, Thames-fed tide, methinks Mary Cunningham of London was a mere blow-in, whose awkward blast will swirl into a Lethean thread-eddy anon. Nevertheless, it were a dangerous chink clawed at. Being benighted, I'm aware of about half the Saxon horrors you cite; the rest do not suprise me at all. Says I, scion of Saxons (and the Celts they grappled with).

Spiritus Mundi has troubled your sight with worse than this particular rough beast, I trow. He may slouch to that other Bethlehem you mention, but with goose body, not lion. The gaze is just as blank and pitiless, tho' - rather comical on a goose, to be sure.

There's no knowing when the muse of doggerel, Eukyneia - a little known associate of the more august nine - may return to this blog-mongreliser. But some blithe spirit has clearly worked on you - that Bun Bun pesher is inspired. I salute!

And thanks for the perplexed Neruda half a thread ago, plus the haunting E.Thomas and the sublimely bitter Wilfred Owen. Of the latter, I particularly revere 'Strange Meeting'.

(The dead soldier speaks)
"...when much blood had clogged their chariot-wheels
I would go up and wash them from sweet wells,
Even with truths that lie too deep for taint.
I would have poured my spirit without stint
But not through wounds; not on the cess of war.
Foreheads of men have bled where no wounds were."

Exodus 32: 3,000 Israelites killed by Moses for worshipping the golden calf. EXCEPTION CCNL (AKA BUNBUN).

Numbers 31: After killing all men, boys and married women among the Midianites, 32,000 virgins remain as booty for the Israelites. (If unmarried girls are a quarter of the population, then 96,000 people were killed.) SPARED THEM THE LOATHSOME PRESENCE OF CCNL (aka BUNBUN)

Joshua:

Joshua 8: 12,000 men and women, all the people of Ai, killed. EXCEPTION: CCNL (AKA BUNBUN)

Joshua 10: Joshua completely destroys Gibeon ("larger than Ai"), Makeddah, Libnah, Lachish, Eglon, Hebron, Debir. "He left no survivors." CORRECTION: CCNL (AKA BUNBUN) REMAINED.

Joshua 11: Hazor destroyed. [Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews (1987), estimates the population of Hazor at ?> 50,000]
TOTAL: if Ai is average, 12,000 x 9 = 108,000 killed. CCNL (AKA BUNBUN) REMAINED.

Judges 1: 10,000 Canaanites k. at Battle of Bezek. Jerusalem and Zephath destroyed. BUT NOT CCNL (AKA BUNBUN)

Judges 3: ca. 10,000 Moabites k. at Jordan River. CCNL (AKA BUNBUN) PICKED UP ON BOAT.

Judges 8: 120,000 Midianite soldiers k. by Gideon
Judges 20: Benjamin attacked by other tribes.
25,000 killed. CCNL (AKA BUNBUN) REMAINED (HIDING BEHIND TREE)

1 Samuel 4: 4,000 Isrealites killed at 1st Battle of Ebenezer/Aphek. 30,000 Isr. k. at 2nd battle.
David: CCNL (AKA BUNBUN) RAN AWAY.

2 Samuel 8: 22,000 Arameans of Damascus and 18,000 Edomites killed in 2 battles. CCNL (AKA BUNBUN) STAYED HOME TO SEW.

2 Samuel 10: 40,000 Aramean footsoldiers and 7,000 charioteers killed at Helam. CCNL (AKA BUNBUN) DARNING SOCKS.

2 Samuel 18: 20,000 Israelites under Absalom killed at Ephraim. CCNL (AKA BUNBUN) BUSY COOKING.

1 Kings 20: 100,000 Arameans killed by Israelites at Battle of Aphek. Another 27,000 killed by collapsing wall. CCNL (AKA BUNBUN) PREPARING TABLE FOR RETURNING FIGHTERS.

2 Chron 13: Judah beat Israel and inflicted 500,000 casualties. CCNL (AKA BUNBUN) AT HOME RESTING.

2 Chron 25: Amaziah, king of Judah, k. 10,000 from Seir in battle and executed 10,000 POWs. Discharged Judean soldiers pillaged and killed 3,000. CCNL (AKA BUNBUN)AT HOME DUSTING MODEST FURNISHINGS.

2 Chron 28: Pekah, king of Israel, slew 120,000 Judeans CCNL (AKA BUNBUN) SWEEPING (PRE-VACCUUM CLEANER PERIOD)

TOTAL: That comes to about 1,283,000 mass killings specifically enumerated in the Bible. CCNL (AKA BUNBUN) DEMANDS BETTER DOMESTIC HELP.

Exodus 32: 3,000 Israelites killed by Moses for worshipping the golden calf.

Numbers 31: After killing all men, boys and married women among the Midianites, 32,000 virgins remain as booty for the Israelites. (If unmarried girls are a quarter of the population, then 96,000 people were killed.)

Joshua:

Joshua 8: 12,000 men and women, all the people of Ai, killed.

Joshua 10: Joshua completely destroys Gibeon ("larger than Ai"), Makeddah, Libnah, Lachish, Eglon, Hebron, Debir. "He left no survivors."

Joshua 11: Hazor destroyed. [Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews (1987), estimates the population of Hazor at ?> 50,000]
TOTAL: if Ai is average, 12,000 x 9 = 108,000 killed.

Judges 1: 10,000 Canaanites k. at Battle of Bezek. Jerusalem and Zephath destroyed.

Judges 3: ca. 10,000 Moabites k. at Jordan River.

Judges 8: 120,000 Midianite soldiers k. by Gideon
Judges 20: Benjamin attacked by other tribes.
25,000 killed.

1 Samuel 4: 4,000 Isrealites killed at 1st Battle of Ebenezer/Aphek. 30,000 Isr. k. at 2nd battle.
David:

2 Samuel 8: 22,000 Arameans of Damascus and 18,000 Edomites killed in 2 battles.

2 Samuel 10: 40,000 Aramean footsoldiers and 7,000 charioteers killed at Helam.

2 Samuel 18: 20,000 Israelites under Absalom killed at Ephraim.

1 Kings 20: 100,000 Arameans killed by Israelites at Battle of Aphek. Another 27,000 killed by collapsing wall.

2 Chron 13: Judah beat Israel and inflicted 500,000 casualties.

2 Chron 25: Amaziah, king of Judah, k. 10,000 from Seir in battle and executed 10,000 POWs. Discharged Judean soldiers pillaged and killed 3,000.

2 Chron 28: Pekah, king of Israel, slew 120,000 Judeans

TOTAL: That comes to about 1,283,000 mass killings specifically enumerated in the Bible.

"Joshua 6:21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword, beginning with CCNL (aka BunBun), Crossanizing heathen."

"Joshua 6:21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword."

THE PLIGHT OF CANADA's ABORIGINAL peoples should be the subject of an OnFaith question, particularly since it has reached the status of a UN issue. The role of various Christian churches in their historic persecution, the suppression of native religious practices, the too little, too late of today requires scrutiny.

(That should not get lost in Timmy2's slime racism, hysterical shrieking, etc., childish name-calling, accusations, the last resort of the desperate.) Awhile ago I worked with American Indians in North Dakota. That's where my interest in the Canadian crisis started. And it is a crisis.

To All:

Perhaps of interest:

There are many excellent sites on the ongoing horror perpetrated by the Christians on the indigenous people's of Canada. Below is a link to Dick Garneau's magnificent site, all the more powerful because so personal. I've used it, along with other, straight out history books, letters of "settlers," Indians etc. in various projects I've done.

A word on nomenclature: Again and again, I've read on this thread and on others that this, the US, is a Christian country. Although Israel is a very diverse society, when discussing it the word "Jews" is always prominent. This is fair, we are told, because the majority is Jewish, "the Jews" control the government etc.

What is fair for the goose, etc., the gander. This is a Christian country as is Canada. The majority in both countries is Christian. The majority of those in government, especially in the most powereful branches, are Christian, nominally or in practice. It is Christians in both countries who did what was done to the Indians, and who maintain them in the conditions they are in.

Just ask Dick Garneau, a "half-breed," like Susan Jacoby is "half Jew," I guess, and a man, in no way bitter, a very decent man, in fact.

http://telusplanet.net/public/dgarneau/direct.htm

To All:

Here is a link to Wikipedia on Reservation Indians in the United States. Links are available, which will give you more information on the third-world status of these, the US indegenes. They meet all the criteria for hunger: food hunger, health hunger, shelter hunger. The British, of course, had something to do with the genocide of these people, as did the Spaniards, all Christians and Catholics.

DTLD, when he said he might be more interested in other issues, was told by Timmy that this country was most involved with the formation of Israel. A subsequent blogger mentioned the Brits. Both statements are incorrect. I've already dealt with the Brits (scroll down), and will do so in much more detail in future, and with this country as well, concerning Israel.

The fact is, notwithstanding Timmy, what should concern this country's Christianns, et al, most is the continuing anguish of the American Indians, the theft of whose land went on into the 1930s and beyond, who continue to fight for their treaty rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_reservation
_____________________________
NOW WHAT SHOULD CONCERN CANADIAN ANGLO-CHRISTIANS, CULTURAL AND OBSERVANT?

AHhhh, THEIR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES? THEIR GLASS HOUSE? (THE BEAM IN THEIR EYE?)

More to come....Scroll down and up.

On Canada's Aboriginal Peoples

This link is to web resources from the UBC Library.
Here you will find a wealth of information on Canada's First Nations.

http://www.library.ubc.ca/xwi7xwa/nations.htm

This is a report from Canada's Amnesty International (2005), I believe. I'm going through my bookmarks and will have more recent material soon. Skimming through this, however, I see that most of the problems, if not all, persist. So, for instance, the rates of both male and female incarceration of First Nations people in Canada have not only persisted, but gone up. The situation is particularly egregious for First Nations women, many of whom are mothers.

The plight of Canada's First Nations has also been the subject of UN attention.

http://www.amnesty.ca/take_action/actions/canada_indigenous_rights_urgent.php

On Canada's Residential Schools Scandal

The horror, barbarity, atrocity of Canada's compulsory residential schools for First Nations is still not widely known enough. The last of the hell-hole schools closed about a year ago. Some compensation has been paid, and reconciliation efforts continue, but the First Nations continue to suffer. They have also organized, and are fighting on their own behalf. A lot more needs to be done.

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

On Canada's Residential Schools Scandal

The horror, barbarity, atrocity of Canada's compulsory residential schools for First Nations is still not widely known enough. The last of the hell-hole schools closed about a year ago. Some compensation has been paid, and reconciliation efforts continue, but the First Nations continue to suffer. They have also organized, and are fighting on their own behalf. A lot more needs to be done.

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

On the question of whether or not religion in the deep past hijacked an original morality known by man and which was separate from religion...

The historical record (literary works) and anthropological investigations of primitive tribes shows that ancient or primitive man did not conceive of reason, morality and religion as being separate things. On the contrary, as we move into the past we find that individuality as typically understood by moderns is gradually lost and a group mind takes over. Furthermore reason is gradually lost (the possibility of conceiving such separate from morality or religion) and morality is inextricably bound up with religion.

As we move into the past man becomes religious, superstitious, employs "magical thinking". As man moves into the future gradually it becomes possible to contemplate reason separate from religion, and then next comes the possibility by reason to contemplate morality separate from religion--and we still by no means have become totally capable of contemplating morality separate from religion, which is to say use reason to devise and improve on morality without religion.

As we move into the past more and more man's reason is intextricable from religion, which is to say man's mind is permanently connected to what he conceives to be the transcendental: he believes his thoughts to be inspired by God, and he seeks to follow a morality he believes inspired by God, and the only conception he has of reason separate from God is when he thinks or acts out something contrary to God's will.

It was a hard road to being able to conceive of reason separate from God. In fact as late as Descartes and Kant we had reason connected to the transcendental or a priori (Kant for the latter). Conceiving morality separate from religion is even more recent. It is a totally modern thought to not only conceive morality separate from religion but that religion is actually harmful to morality.

The question now is whether a morality can be devised which totally leaves religion behind--in fact the question is whether we can continually renew and reinvent morality, continually improve on past morality. Man as he was in the deep past had no such possibility. He did not even have reason separate from religion to be able to contemplate morality separate from religion.

Farnaz says, "THE PLIGHT OF CANADA's of ABORIGINAL peopl's should be the subject of an OnFaith question, particularly since it has reached the status of a UN issue"

It has do do with On Faith how???

This is as self serving and hubristic as your earlier ridiculous demand that the "On Faith" forum speak your "truth to power" about corporate and government influence in the mainstream media. Neither of these things have anything to do with "On Faith" and your demands that they be covered here reveal your extreme prejudice and self serving agenda that you bring to every one of your posts.

Wow, Farnaz, the Jewish Infidel and propaganda specialist for the Jewish Defense League is putting in a lot of overtime this morning. JDL must pay her by the word considering all the ranting and raving.

THE PLIGHT OF CANADA's of ABORIGINAL peopl's should be the subject of an OnFaith question, particularly since it has reached the status of a UN issue.

That should not get lost in Timmy2's slime racism, hysterical shrieking, etc. These things must be kept separate. I think I've posted enough on this for now on the First Nations. Awhile ago I worked with American Indians in North Dakota. That's where my interest in the Canadian crisis started. And it is a crisis.

Hi Onofrio,

Just to let you know, it's still safe for the moment. The blood-dimmed tide may have been loosed, but the "rough beast" is not yet in sight. Anyway, I think you'll come out best in it when the menacing creature reaches Jacoby's Bethlehem. And you won't need me to recognize its arrival.

Farnaz :)

I stand by all of that.

Just a quick romp through Timmy2's recent racist posts. Evidently, Jews are not the only people the AngloChristian atheist is prejudiced against, benefiting as he does from the bondage of millions, for whom he does absolutely nothing. Instead, he raves here, posting the likes of this:
_______________________________________
Just a Couple of Timmy's Jewish Problems

After being called on for his "Jew Supremacy" problem, Timmy first replied thus:

I use the word Jew just like my very best friends Noam Rosen, Simon Rakoff, Noah Segal, and Ira Levy use that word. I use it in conversation with them all the time as they use it. It's not a pejorative term. It's just quicker to type and easier to say.

And now for a humor break.
One of my best friends is a jewnostic comic from Toronto name Simon Rakoff. He has some of the funniest Jewish material I've ever heard. One of his lines is about how the word is really "Jew" but they thew in the "ish" to indicate their lack of actual religion. "Are you a Jew?" "Jew-ish"

He has many more funnier than that but this one I thought was on topic.

January 7, 2009 10:49 PM

January 7, 2009 10:49 PM
Still don't know why they didn't go for Brazil. It's awesome down there, and not a muslim in sight.

January 7, 2009 9:09 PM
---------------------------------------------
Yeah, the Jews have done nothing to racialize themselves right? Like making it a egregious offense for a Jew to marry a non Jew. Of course one can convert if one wants to marry a jew, but it's still not as preferable to the real deal. Sounds like Jew supremacy to me. And I'm pretty sure the claim is that God gave a parcel of land to the Jews before judaism was a religion. It seems he gave it to a race, not a religious denomination. Give me a break.

January 7, 2009 7:30 PM
______________________________
I still don't know why the Jews didn't go for Brazil.
Oh yeah. God promised them the holy land.
But it has nothing to do with religion. It's about land and justice. lol

January 7, 2009 1:53

If only you could find me responsible for any of the horrible things you are listing, or if only you could find one quote of me blaming someone for the conquests of their dead ancestors, you wouldn't seem so looney tunes here.

It really is funny when you call someone the "queen of slimy demagoguery" and they immediately back up your statement for you with example. Brilliant.

He'll continue to watch you lose your mind.

On Canada's Aboriginal Peoples

This link is to web resources from the UBC Library.
Here you will find a wealth of information on Canada's First Nations.

http://www.library.ubc.ca/xwi7xwa/nations.htm

Poor Timmy2 (what'll you do). The King of the Ad Hom racists, he who gave us "Jew Supremacy" takes is getting more and more shrill. "EEEeeeeee," yells Timmy2. "Nah, nah, nah!!!"

What'll he do? :(

This is a report from Canada's Amnesty International (2005), I believe. I'm going through my bookmarks and will have more recent material soon. Skimming through this, however, I see that most of the problems, if not all, persist. So, for instance, the rates of both male and female incarceration of First Nations people in Canada have not only persisted, but gone up. The situation is particularly egregious for First Nations women, many of whom are mothers.

The plight of Canada's First Nations has also been the subject of UN attention.

http://www.amnesty.ca/take_action/actions/canada_indigenous_rights_urgent.php

Farnaz writes,

"More to come on First Nations, especially women and children"

You heard it. More non analagous demagoguery coming.
Brace you tender ears. She means to play to your rawest most vulnerable emotions for effect. Prepare yourselves.

(She's really gone all CCNL on this one)

Most of her comments should have quote marks around them but she may not have time for that as she frantically searches and copies wikapedia articles. So pathetic.

Pam,

I think you should keep up with your verse. :)
There are a lot of good rhymers here: Onofrio, of course, Arminius, Pseudo :), DITLD, and more.

It's fun. no?

Pam,

Re: Blogging

I know what you mean about your time being limited for it. Mine should be much moreso. Every now and then, more now, lately, than then, I let myself get sucked into the whirlwind. Brace yourself, Farnaz, I should say. Be strong! :)

My my my. Oh, moi. It seems that the Timmy2 (what'll you do). King of the Ad Hom racists, he who gave us "Jew supremacy," doesn't believe that what's good for the goose, etc., the gander.

Hmmm... I think it is. Mostly, I think that the lives of millions of persecuted people are at stake, just north of the border. Real close to home. More to come on First Nations, especially women and children.

On Canada's Residential Schools Scandal

The horror, barbarity, atrocity of Canada's compulsory residential schools for First Nations is still not widely known enough. The last of the hell-hole schools closed about a year ago. Some compensation has been paid, and reconciliation efforts continue, but the First Nations continue to suffer. They have also organized, and are fighting on their own behalf. A lot more needs to be done.

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

"Thanks again! The antisemitism was all over WaPo blogs, for example, including OnFaith. Quinn asked two Jewish panelists the asinine question of whether Bernie Madoff should be forgiven, and from under all imaginable rocks, they came".

Aah...I didn't read (watch?) that one. My time for blogging is limited. During the election, I mainly went to political ones, which is why I disappeared from On Faith for a while. Now that I can breathe easy (or easier) about politics for a while, I'm back here, but I don't read every essayist.

To All:

Perhaps of interest:

There are many excellent sites on the ongoing horror perpetrated by the Christians on the indigenous people's of Canada. Below is a link to Dick Garneau's magnificent site, all the more powerful because so personal. I've used it, along with other, straight out history books, letters of "settlers," Indians etc. in various projects I've done.

A word on nomenclature: Again and again, I've read on this thread and on others that this, the US, is a Christian country. Although Israel is a very diverse society, when discussing it the word "Jews" is always prominent. This is fair, we are told, because the majority is Jewish, "the Jews" control the government etc.

What is fair for the goose, etc., the gander. This is a Christian country as is Canada. The majority in both countries is Christian. The majority of those in government, especially in the most powereful branches, are Christian, nominally or in practice. It is Christians in both countries who did what was done to the Indians, and who maintain them in the conditions they are in.

Just ask Dick Garneau, a "half-breed," like Susan Jacoby is "half Jew," I guess, and a man, in no way bitter, a very decent man, in fact.

http://telusplanet.net/public/dgarneau/direct.htm

When I call Farnaz the queen of slimy demagoguery, I mean it.
Look at her going crazy right now with endless posts about Canadian indigenous peoples, like that has anything to do with anything. But Timmy is from Canada you see, that is why it is time to demagogue Canada's indigenous people's issues out of the blue like it is relevant. Look at her going crazy combing wikipedia, (a practice she has criticized others for) to find dirt on Canada and demagogue the native issues, which she misunderstands fundamentally. She thinks it's about land treaties. lol

Hi Pam,

Thanks again! The antisemitism was all over WaPo blogs, for example, including OnFaith. Quinn asked two Jewish panelists the asinine question of whether Bernie Madoff should be forgiven, and from under all imaginable rocks, they came.

Moi, I suggested to the gents that they be a little less naive in deciding what questions to write in reply to.

Farnaz

Alles,

My, my, some poor AngloChristian beneficiary of Inuit and Metis persecution seems to have his panties in a tangle. (:(

He should save it for an apology to the people's he's victimized. He should also be aware that the majority of Israelis who are Jewish are Jewish in the sense that he is christian.

What's good for the goose, etc., the gander.

If anyone is interested in the Canadian First Nation school horror, info is easily accessed on the web, but, again, more later.

Start with Dick Garneau.

There is a great deal of information on the web, concerning Canada's Aboriginal people's, the Inuit and the Metis. Although technically they now have the same rights as the Canadian "whites" in fact they do not. Their standard of living is abysmal. They are imprisoned at many times the rate of the "whites." They suffer more illnesses, die younger, have higher infant mortality rates, have more alcoholism, drug addiction, etc.

Their seemingly endless struggle goes on for that enfranchisement which the angloChristian Canadians take for granted. The Aborigines do not even have language rites for which they continue to fight.

On other ethnic groups, on other AngloChristian Canadian racisms, more later. Garneau is a good start for the Aboriginal peoples.

FARNAZ: "Thanks for your reply. I asked about Madoff for two reasons: first, because I'd intended to include him in my post, second because his ponzi scheme did not effect 401ks, as far as I know. It was almost exclusively Jewish organizations, charities, schools, many of which hoped to gain money to broaden their philanthropic reach that he stole from. Some individuals, who also hoped to raise money for philanthropy also lost all hope of that".

No, I didn't mean to imply that he had anything to do with 401(k)s - just commenting on the crisis in general.

My understanding was that Bernie invested the money of all comers - not just Jewish organizations, but I could be wrong.

I haven't heard anything antisemitic about Bernie here in DC, but I do think that people look at his transgressions a bit differently from those of the financial organizations you mention. They were stupid and greedy, but weren't running deliberate scams. He knew what he was doing - they were just idiotic enough to believe that real estate would continue to increase in value forever and no one would default. To me, this should be criminal stupidity, because it's their job to know better, but getting caught with your pants down isn't the same as purposely ripping someone off.

Farnaz,

You make a fool of yourself every time you try to paint Canada as being anywhere close to being as religious as the US. This is a country that has elected atheists, and where a politician keeps his religion to himself or he does not get elected. The very opposite is true of the USA. One must keep their atheism to themselves, or they don't get elected, and even that's not good enough, because one needs to profess to believe in the Christian God to get elected and even that exclamation is not good enough. They must have a history of church attendance to prove it.

Canada is on par with Scandinavia, and Australia in the religion department. I'd say "nice try" but it wasn't even that. Desperate is more like it.